.
Back in the 1970s, the Steel Curtain did not hoist 4 Lombardi Trophies in 4 consecutive seasons. No, in 1976 (trying to three-peat) they started out 1-and-4. As a boy, I very well remember wondering "How could this possibly happen?" Looking back now, they simply lost a string of nailbiters. Didn't mean that they didn't have All-Pros at every position. Just meant that sports has a lotta luck in it. (That year, the Steelers did rip off 9 straight wins to take their division. Turned out it was John Madden's year, though.)
In the 1980s, the Bill Walsh 49ers did not win 4 times in 4 years; they won 4 times in NINE (9) years. They were easily the #1 team of that decade, but in a 6-year stretch 1982-1987 they got blown out of the playoffs four times and missed the playoffs once.
In the 1990s, the Dallas Cowboys won it what, 3 times out of 10.
In the 2000s, the incredible Brady/Belichick dynasty won 3 times in 6 years -- John Clayton's definition of a dynasty at the highest possible bar. But in 14 years together, they have lost their last game, 10 different seasons. They missed the playoffs twice, and another time (2005) they had an even points differential before getting stomped by the Broncos in the playoffs.
The Seahawks might very well miss the playoffs, or they might get on a roll like the 1976 Steelers did. Either way, there's no luster lost for Dr. Detecto. All he ever asked from the Mariners was a full-throated fight, a sincere attempt to be the best. The Seahawks give you that and then some, and then some more. This Sunday's 49er curb-stomp will be just as fun to watch as ever.
....
True, the Seahawks are "off" as Pete Carroll put it. Dunno what's happening on those downfield passes in the fourth quarter. But even the #1 team in the NFL is "off" half the time. I read it on the internet. :- )
Give you, in a minute here, a theory as to why it's so hard for them to get "on" this year.
....
Russell Wilson has a complex game to play. He's got to make all the downfield reads AND he has to make nanosecond decisions about run-or-pass. I'd say he's regressed a bit less than have Colin Kaepernick or Robert Griffin III. It's a tough game. I'm bullish on him.
....
Kam Chancellor was making, what, $4.5M to $7.0M this year, depending on how you count it. In my world he is directly responsible for 1 to 3 of the losses so far, especially the season opener that went OT against the Rams. His timing has been way off and he's seldom looked like the factor he used to be.
He could have looked to his left, and seen 7 billion people doing more* for less money. Or he could have looked to his right, and seen 3 people doing the same for more money. He chose to look to his right, and he chose to quit his job. There are very few things in sports that Dr. D resents, but this was one of them.
From C.S. Lewis on Pride -- or call it "Ego" if you prefer and think of Terrell Owens.
.
I pointed out a moment ago that the more pride one had, the more one disliked pride in others. In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, 'How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me, or show off?' The point is that each person's pride is in competition with every one else's pride. It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise. Two of a trade never agree. Now what you want to get clear it that Pride is essentially competitive – is competitive by its very nature – while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident.
Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others.
If someone else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially competitive in a way the other vices are not. The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likely have wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.
Take it with money. Greed will certainly make a man want money, for the sake of a better house, better holidays, better things to eat and drink. But only up to a point. What is it that makes a man with $100,000 a year anxious to get $200,000 a year? It is not the greed for more pleasure. $100,000 will give all the luxuries that any man can really enjoy. It is Pride—the wish to be richer than some other rich man, and (still more) the wish for power. For, of course, power is what Pride really enjoys: there is nothing make a man feel so superior to others as being able to move them about like toy soldiers. What makes a pretty girl spread misery wherever she goes by collecting admirers? Certainly not her sexual instinct: that kind of girl is quite often sexually frigid. It is Pride. What is it that makes a political leader or a whole nation go on and on, demanding more and more? Pride again. Pride is competitive by its very nature: that is why it goes on and on. If I am a proud man, then as long as there in one man in the whole world more powerful, or richer or cleverer than I, he is my rival and my enemy.
It is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity—it is enmity.
.
This psychological element, introduced by Chancellor, may be part of why the Seahawks are "off." You be da judge.
....
Pete Carroll has been complaining, since USC, that the refs have had it in for him. Personally, I believe this 100%. But say it's true: why would it be true? Anybody know?
....
Sunday night, Chris Collinsworth opined that Michael Bennett and Cliff Avril were "THE best set of 4-3 defensive ends in the NFL." I'd a thought that was J.J. Watt and anybody, but OK. Avril is getting tremendous grades from the sabers, and Bennett has the scouts absolutely swooning.
Then, the TV had a graphic: Earl Thomas and Richard Sherman are the only teammates to go --- > AP All-Pro, 3x years in a row. Ever. That stopped me short. The 70s Steelers never had that happen? No, I guess they kinda rotated around with Mean Joe Green, Jack Lambert, Dwight White, L.C. Greenwood, etc.
On Pro Football Focus they say that K.J. Wright is going absolutely nuts. Like, maybe he's the best linebacker in the league now.
That's 5 guys accused of being the best, and we have not gotten to Bobby Wagner or Kam Chancellor. Up to seven. Bruce Irvin is obviously playin' for a contract. This defense is still capable of dealing out some serious punishment.
....
Thomas Rawls seems to have a way of "spacing" the enemy defense, compared to Lynch, whose angles seem more up the middle. Sounds crazy to say, but as dinged up and slowed down as Lynch has been ... is it possible that Rawls is a slightly better player for the next couple games?
....
The Seahawks have a wonderful team, led by a coach who has become one of my personal role models. Can't wait for this week's ballgame.
Enjoy,
Dr D
follow Dr. D @clarke_jeff for article updates and random stats
Rob Staton at Seahawks Draft Blog wrote an interesting piece comparing the 'Hawks to the '05-'14 Steelers, and the ups and downs of Roethlisberger's career cf. Wilson.
http://seahawksdraftblog.com/the-seahawks-are-the-steelers-not-the-patriots
"
2006 — 8-8 (missed playoffs)
2007 — 10-6 (lost wildcard vs Jacksonville)
2008 — 12-4 (won Super Bowl)
2009 — 9-7 (missed playoffs)
2010 — 12-4 (lost Super Bowl vs Green Bay)
2011 — 12-4 (lost wildcard vs Denver)
2012 — 8-8 (missed playoffs)
2013 — 8-8 (missed playoffs)
2014 — 11-5 (lost wildcard to Ravens)
As you can see, they’ve had great success to appear in two more Super Bowls (winning one) but they’ve also missed the playoffs four times and had frustrating and crushing defeats in the post season (at home to the bitter rival Ravens last year, vs Tim Tebow in 2011).
Just because the Seahawks are similar to the Steelers doesn’t mean they’re going to mimic this run — but it’s also an indicator that the occasional 8-8 or 9-7 season and missing the playoffs doesn’t mean the end of a Championship window. Pittsburgh are proof you can fight back from a season like the one Seattle is currently experiencing and get back into the 11-12 win range."
Thanks for the link amigo.
This is still a great team. But more than everything has worked against them this year. And everything is magnified now. We all know the officiating has been an issue for years, moreso last year however than this year. This year I've had very little issue with the overall officiating and they have had only a little effect on the season - mostly the GB game.
That changed on Sunday. On Sunday, the Seahawks ownership of prime time games at home was not taken by the Cards. It was taken by the officials.
The penalty situation was ridiculous. Looking at total calls and yards it was lopsided, but even that is misleading. Calls on the offense during execution, like the holds, facemasks, etc. was 7 – 1 in the Cards favor if I remember correctly. Most of their penalties were false starts and an illegal formation. ZERO holds. Their only offensive play execution penalty was the grounding. How many of those highlight plays when Collinsworth was gushing about Palmer was there a blatant hold right in front of us? Not called one time. And yes, Palmer is really good – he had a great performance and deserved the praise. But you cannot play against a defense with pressure like that in your face without holding. One team could, the other could not. Either you call them against both, or call them against neither.
This game was not called fairly – not even close. The Hawks were dominated (especially early) because of the officiating. I have no issue with the officiating in the other losses – well except a little with Green Bay. The calls on Sunday were game changers. One offensive line was allowed to play one way, the other not so much.
I’m not disrespecting the Cards. They’re very good. They’re even good enough to steal a game in C-Link. This time they had help. And lots of it. The down and distance stats on 3rd down were devastating - and caused by a one-sided crew. Pure and simple.
This game was as bad or worse than XL.
In the first quarter those refs Really. Set. the Tone. the Cardinals' OL and DB's could play; the Seahawks' could not. Carroll was, by his standards, *spluttering* about it after the game.
Again, I wonder why. Why would Carroll (or the Seahawks) be targeted for termination?
It is kind of interesting to compare what Pete Carroll together with John Schneider have done with the Seahawks, to what JeDi and his think tank of Andy McKay and Scott Servias/Tim Bogar seem to be doing with the Mariners. I remember reading somewhere about Pete’s original meeting with John; Pete was looking for a guy first who actually had a philosophy (I think Pete said that without a philosophy you are lost) and second that the philosophy meshed with Pete’s. Here is a Field Gulls article by Danny Kelly discussing Win Forever Meets Forever Young:
And here is a fascinating article by Davis Hsu on Green Bay’s teambuilding philosophy, which is where John cut his teeth.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/12/14/2635908/seahawks-john-schneider-pete-carroll-green-bay-packers
Pete made sure John was a fit philosophically. JeDi seems to be doing the same thing. The McKay hiring looks like a classic example. Scott Servais’s son played for McKay when he coached the LaCrosse Loggers, a collegiate summer league team. Scott’s son called his Dad and said you have to meet this guy, you’ll love him, he thinks just like you. And as I recall, the first meeting and interview between JeDi and McKay lasted 5 hours. (There must be only two reasons an interview ends after five hours: one party had to make a plane, or they just got tired of finishing each other’s sentences.)
I remember being excited about Jack Z when he was first hired. He said he was going to build the team “right” so success could be sustained for the long haul. But is that really a philosophy? Jack did not seem to have any consistency in his roster building and its hard now to see what his vision really was (or if he had one). And the player development results have been poor.
I certainly don’t have the experience or knowledge to critique JeDi’s moves, but as a fan, I am really getting excited about next season.
It might be interesting to do some deep dives to compare and contrast various parts of the culture and philosophy Pete Carroll has built with the culture and philosophy that JeDi hopes to build.
Missing the playoffs has benefits. The players absorb less damage. They get an extra month of rest and rehab. Draft position is improved, resulting in better rookies.
Hopefully Schnieder can manage a good off-season this winter/spring. If the org doesn't start getting better players in the draft, it won't ascend back to the top tier of the NFL. We give the guy a lot of credit for the roster but he absolutely blew two consecutive drafts AND two big trades. He can't have another bad year if this club wants to remain in the top tier.