We Look Everywhere ... Seahawks Staff

[RiverDog]

I wanted to sit this one out but Future c'mon dude stop skewing the facts here. The entire core of your team was on the roster before Harbaugh was hired.

1. 4/5 starting offensive linemen: Staley, Iupati, Boone, Davis
2. Your top 2 receiving threats: Crabtree, Davis
3. Your starting RB: Gore
4. Your entire starting defensive line: Justin Smith, Isaac Sopoaga, Ray McDonald
5. 3/4 of your linebacking corps: Bowman, Willis, Brooks
6. Tarell Brown at CB

That's over 60% of the starting lineup. It also doesn't take into account lost FA's like Dashon Goldson, guys who started and logged significant time but just aren't that good like Kyle Williams. Or guys/assests who aren't with you but brought back significant value to help augment the roster like Alex Smith fetching a 2nd round pick.

There is no comparison. There are 2 guys on the entire Seahawks roster that were there before Carroll got there (3 if you count Red Bryant who left this year). And don't come to me with this coaching nonsense like Harbaugh's coaching staff is what made Bowman the best ILB in the league. 1. The talent was there period. 2. If Harbaugh and the 9ers don't reach an extension we all know that Jim Tomsula will be the next head coach and he was in the 49ers organization before Harbaugh too.

Honestly it doesn't matter who is better, and the fact that Carroll had a bigger undertaking than Harbaugh did doesn't necessarily mean that Caroll and Schneider are hands down better than Baalke and Harbaugh but don't misrepresent the facts. There is no escaping the fact that Harbaugh had just about the entire core of this team intact the day he put ink to paper.

It's not just the numbers of holdovers Hairball had, take a look at the quality of players he inherited...Frank Gore, Patrick Willis, Joe Staley, Justin Smith, Vernon Davis. That's 5 players that have been to multiple Pro Bowls. The few holdovers Pete had from his regime, with the possible exception of Max Unger, were not anywhere near the caliber of players that are still heavy contributors to the Niners cause.

I argued with many Pete Carroll jock sniffers that Harbaugh did a more impressive job at Stanford than Carroll did at USC because he had to virtually start from scratch, rebuild a program that had won just one game, that the experts said was impossible to build a consistent, dominant football program, that Pete was the beneficiary of an enormous recruiting advantage over Harbaugh's Stanford, and so on. It's a complete 180 degree reversal of the situations the two coaches faced here in the NFL.

[kalibane]

Well yeah Riv that's why I focused on core players and didn't include guys like Kyle Williams in the main group even though techincally he was a starter at one point. The 49ers had 8 pro bowlers this year. Every single one of them was on the roster before Harbaugh.

It's not just that the turnover that Pete Carroll undertook was unprecedented. The lack of turnover of the SF roster after the regime change is pretty out of the ordinary as well. That roster was absolutely stacked on defense and the offensive line. The coaching situation was just complete chaos under Singletary.

[NorthHawk]

During the Singletary years there were many comments about if the 49ers had a decent coach we would be in trouble.
Every year when predicting the records, there was a lot of support for SF to either win or be close to winning the Division.
As it turns out, they got a good HC and were immediately better. Just the organizational aspect would have helped with the talent they had on hand.

[Futureite]

I wanted to sit this one out but Future c'mon dude stop skewing the facts here. The entire core of your team was on the roster before Harbaugh was hired.

1. 4/5 starting offensive linemen: Staley, Iupati, Boone, Davis
2. Your top 2 receiving threats: Crabtree, Davis
3. Your starting RB: Gore
4. Your entire starting defensive line: Justin Smith, Isaac Sopoaga, Ray McDonald
5. 3/4 of your linebacking corps: Bowman, Willis, Brooks
6. Tarell Brown at CB

That's over 60% of the starting lineup. It also doesn't take into account lost FA's like Dashon Goldson, guys who started and logged significant time but just aren't that good like Kyle Williams. Or guys/assests who aren't with you but brought back significant value to help augment the roster like Alex Smith fetching a 2nd round pick.

There is no comparison. There are 2 guys on the entire Seahawks roster that were there before Carroll got there (3 if you count Red Bryant who left this year). And don't come to me with this coaching nonsense like Harbaugh's coaching staff is what made Bowman the best ILB in the league. 1. The talent was there period. 2. If Harbaugh and the 9ers don't reach an extension we all know that Jim Tomsula will be the next head coach and he was in the 49ers organization before Harbaugh too.

Honestly it doesn't matter who is better, and the fact that Carroll had a bigger undertaking than Harbaugh did doesn't necessarily mean that Caroll and Schneider are hands down better than Baalke and Harbaugh but don't misrepresent the facts. There is no escaping the fact that Harbaugh had just about the entire core of this team intact the day he put ink to paper.

It's not just the numbers of holdovers Hairball had, take a look at the quality of players he inherited...Frank Gore, Patrick Willis, Joe Staley, Justin Smith, Vernon Davis. That's 5 players that have been to multiple Pro Bowls. The few holdovers Pete had from his regime, with the possible exception of Max Unger, were not anywhere near the caliber of players that are still heavy contributors to the Niners cause.

I argued with many Pete Carroll jock sniffers that Harbaugh did a more impressive job at Stanford than Carroll did at USC because he had to virtually start from scratch, rebuild a program that had won just one game, that the experts said was impossible to build a consistent, dominant football program, that Pete was the beneficiary of an enormous recruiting advantage over Harbaugh's Stanford, and so on. It's a complete 180 degree reversal of the situations the two coaches faced here in the NFL.

During the Singletary years there were many comments about if the 49ers had a decent coach we would be in trouble.
Every year when predicting the records, there was a lot of support for SF to either win or be close to winning the Division.
As it turns out, they got a good HC and were immediately better. Just the organizational aspect would have helped with the talent they had on hand.

Everyone has now ignored my point regarding the GM's role in actually building the roster, so I'll stop making it. I am not sure if it is relevant now anyway.

Yes, Baalke put our O-line together before JH got here. Our O has by and large been a disappointment and in any case, has not performed much differently than Seattle's over the last 3 yrs on average, with both teams in the bottom 1/2 of the league (on average). Defense and special teams have won games for each team. They are built on similar models. I do not see any rateable coaching genius over Carroll coaching up Lynch, Miller to the 17th ranked O last yr and JH to 20 something after literally losing 5 contributors to the pass O (Ginn, Walker, Crab, Moss, Manningham).

Yes, we had a couple key contributors. I keep restating that nearly every team does. Hell, the Hawks even had current or former probowlers in 2009 (prior to PC) in Milloy, Hasselbeck, Unger, Houshmandzadeh. They had contributors equal to our Rat McDonald in Mebane and Bryant. If Carroll decided to jettisin some of them, that's his choice. Another coach may not have.

The only consistent "star" players we had when JH got here were Justin Smith, Gore, Willis, and Staley. Period. Dashon Goldson was rumored to be cut and had a horrible 2010. Whitner was signed at the end of the FA period. Alex Boone was not even drafted. Bowman was a backup 3rd rd pick. Brooks had been signed off of waivers and was nothing remotely close to a probowler. Why are they all considered some of the best at their positions now or leaving for huge FA contracts?

At one point last yr our D was: Reid, Brock, Brown, Whitner, Dorsey, Justin Smith, Mcdonald, Brooks, Willhoite, Skuta, Willis. It stull ended as a top 5 D. How many of those guys were there when JH got here? 3. And only 2 were starters. This is not the NBA. 4 or 5 probowlers are far, far from enough to step into any kind of success. Role players, talent evaluation, and knowing how to put players in position to succeed is what makes winning teams.

[Futureite]

I will concede that Carroll deserves to be considered best coach in the NFL now. His role in building a SB winner is all that matters. That is the goal of all 32 teams, so he deserves the accolades.

[kalibane]

Future,

The point (at least my point) isn't that Carroll is the best coach in the league or better than Harbaugh. My point is to just stop misstating the facts. I understand perfectly what you were saying about the GM's role in building a team. But I take umbrage when you try to pretend the Seahawks Roster was in any way comparable to the 49ers Roster as support for the point you're trying to make about GMs. It's completely unnecessary. If you want to understand why people come at you like they do this is a perfect example why.

How your roster looked when they were at their most injured and/or suspended is meaningless. The fact that Carroll had TJ Housmanzadeh who at onetime was on a pro bowl team is meaningless. The fact is there are 14 players on the starting roster that were on the roster before Harbaugh got there. Housh never played at anywhere near a pro-bowl level for the Seahawks before Carroll and after he left the Seahawks he faded out of the league completely. He is not "a piece". Milloy and Hass were both WAY past their primes. They were NOT pieces.

I'm going to put it this way and if this doesn't put it in perpspective I don't know what will. The 49ers 8 pro-bowlers currently on the team who were there when Harbaugh got there. Not starters, not quality guys who provide depth, not guys who are no longer on the team. EIGHT PRO-BOWL PLAYERS RIGHT NOW. Of all the players on the Seahawks roster the year before Carroll was hired. Only 5 still have a starting job in the NFL:

Brandon Mebane
Red Bryant
John Ryan
Josh Wilson
Max Unger

A sixth had a starting job last year but won't start this year (Nate Burleson) and one is kind of a contributor for another team (John Carlson).

So the 49ers have 8 pro bowlers that are still on their roster. The Seahawks have 7 guys who are just okay to starting level talent and one of those guys is a Punter. It's not even remotely close. You need to stop arguing this point like their situations were in any way similar. The Seahawks cupboard was completely bare. The 49ers just had to coalesce the talent that was already there.

It doesn't mean you were wrong about your GM point. It doesn't mean Carroll is the King of the coaching world. But stop twisting this stuff.

[Futureite]

Future,

The point (at least my point) isn't that Carroll is the best coach in the league or better than Harbaugh. My point is to just stop misstating the facts. I understand perfectly what you were saying about the GM's role in building a team. But I take umbrage when you try to pretend the Seahawks Roster was in any way comparable to the 49ers Roster as support for the point you're trying to make about GMs. It's completely unnecessary. If you want to understand why people come at you like they do this is a perfect example why.

How your roster looked when they were at their most injured and/or suspended is meaningless. The fact that Carroll had TJ Housmanzadeh who at onetime was on a pro bowl team is meaningless. The fact is there are 14 players on the starting roster that were on the roster before Harbaugh got there. Housh never played at anywhere near a pro-bowl level for the Seahawks before Carroll and after he left the Seahawks he faded out of the league completely. He is not "a piece". Milloy and Hass were both WAY past their primes. They were NOT pieces.

I'm going to put it this way and if this doesn't put it in perpspective I don't know what will. The 49ers 8 pro-bowlers currently on the team who were there when Harbaugh got there. Not starters, not quality guys who provide depth, not guys who are no longer on the team. EIGHT PRO-BOWL PLAYERS RIGHT NOW. Of all the players on the Seahawks roster the year before Carroll was hired. Only 5 still have a starting job in the NFL:

Brandon Mebane
Red Bryant
John Ryan
Josh Wilson
Max Unger

A sixth had a starting job last year but won't start this year (Nate Burleson) and one is kind of a contributor for another team (John Carlson).

So the 49ers have 8 pro bowlers that are still on their roster. The Seahawks have 7 guys who are just okay to starting level talent and one of those guys is a Punter. It's not even remotely close. You need to stop arguing this point like their situations were in any way similar. The Seahawks cupboard was completely bare. The 49ers just had to coalesce the talent that was already there.

It doesn't mean you were wrong about your GM point. It doesn't mean Carroll is the King of the coaching world. But stop twisting this stuff.

I guess we are disagreeing upon what was here at the time. You are stating there were 8 probowlers on our roster when JH arrived. I completely disagree with that assertion, and it always bothers me when it is stated in any debate.

The proven probowl caliber players on this roster when JH arrived were, in order;

Gore, Davis, Willis, Staley. That is it. None of the other players mentioned made the probowl or were even considered in the same statospere as other probowl players. For example, Anthony Davis struggled mightily in his rookie yr and if I am not mustaken, was amongst the league leaders in penalties. There was serious discussion here whether he was a mistake. Alex Boone was an UDFA. People criticized the move to let David Baas sign with the NYG to start Boone. Same questions were asked wgen Takeo Spikes was let go after a career year to start Bowman. NONE of these players were probowlers prior to JH. The staff saw the potential, where they fit in the scheme, and helped them get to that level.

The above is why you see plsyers like Goldson, Ricky Jean Franciou, and Adaam Snyder signing huge deals and then masdively "underperforming". The truth is, they were not as good as they appeared to be while here, and the coaching staff has to receive a good deal if the credit for finding the potential fit for these giys in their scheme, just like Seattle's staff has done. People criticized all of these moves and are now looking back in hindsight as if these players were "already" there. It's as innacurate a statement as me saying "Kam Chancellor, JD Wright were already good. They just needed the right coach". Whether those guys were backups on your team or UFAs like ours, the point is still erroneous. Good staff recognizes talent and puts players in position to succeed.

That said, I am not at all equating the two situations as identical. I am instead pointing out the same inaccurate analogies, just as you are. Some our guys were first RD picks. Your LB from tech was a 1st rd pick. Would JH have kept him? What's the difference between him and our underperforming 1st rd pick A. Davis? Woukd JH have kept Bobby Wagner? What's the difference between him and our 4th rd underperformung FS Goldson? What is the difference between Mebane and Sopoaga, or Bryant and McDonald who again, was criticized as a bust?

Again, I fully acknowledge the situations are not equal and Carroll had more work to do. But there is a lot of shaky logic in the other side of this debate.

Carroll has proved himself at both levels. Whether it is important or not, I acknowledge the champ as the top dog. JH has something to prove. He had plenty of time.

[Futureite]

BTW, the point regarding Kam - yes, I know he and the others I mentioned were not on your roster.

[RiverDog]

Yes, we had a couple key contributors. I keep restating that nearly every team does. Hell, the Hawks even had current or former probowlers in 2009 (prior to PC) in Milloy, Hasselbeck, Unger, Houshmandzadeh. They had contributors equal to our Rat McDonald in Mebane and Bryant. If Carroll decided to jettisin some of them, that's his choice. Another coach may not have.

The only consistent "star" players we had when JH got here were Justin Smith, Gore, Willis, and Staley. Period. Dashon Goldson was rumored to be cut and had a horrible 2010. Whitner was signed at the end of the FA period. Alex Boone was not even drafted. Bowman was a backup 3rd rd pick. Brooks had been signed off of waivers and was nothing remotely close to a probowler. Why are they all considered some of the best at their positions now or leaving for huge FA contracts?

You're not seriously considering Hass, Unger, Milloy, and Housh Pro Bowl quality players performing at the same level as J. Smith, Willis, Gore, and Staley, at the time of each coach's arrival, are you? I can remember some in the media at the time Pete took over and started purging the roster of the dead wood, the only player on the entire Hawk's roster that was even close to being worth a 2nd round pick in trade value was Aaron Curry, and we all know how his stock went.

I didn't start out a Pete Carroll fan, was skeptical of his hiring, and at one time thought Harbaugh to be the better coach. He still does things I don't much care for and I'm not bashful in expressing my disagreement with some of the decisions he makes (see Paul Richardson thread). But you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you're going to convince me or anyone else in this forum that the job Harbaugh has done with the Niners is comparable to what Carroll has done here. Not that Harbaugh has done a poor job, it's just that considering the circumstances, Carroll's is by far the more impressive.

[Futureite]

Yes, we had a couple key contributors. I keep restating that nearly every team does. Hell, the Hawks even had current or former probowlers in 2009 (prior to PC) in Milloy, Hasselbeck, Unger, Houshmandzadeh. They had contributors equal to our Rat McDonald in Mebane and Bryant. If Carroll decided to jettisin some of them, that's his choice. Another coach may not have.

The only consistent "star" players we had when JH got here were Justin Smith, Gore, Willis, and Staley. Period. Dashon Goldson was rumored to be cut and had a horrible 2010. Whitner was signed at the end of the FA period. Alex Boone was not even drafted. Bowman was a backup 3rd rd pick. Brooks had been signed off of waivers and was nothing remotely close to a probowler. Why are they all considered some of the best at their positions now or leaving for huge FA contracts?

You're not seriously considering Hass, Unger, Milloy, and Housh Pro Bowl quality players performing at the same level as J. Smith, Willis, Gore, and Staley, at the time of each coach's arrival, are you? I can remember some in the media at the time Pete took over and started purging the roster of the dead wood, the only player on the entire Hawk's roster that was even close to being worth a 2nd round pick in trade value was Aaron Curry, and we all know how his stock went.

I didn't start out a Pete Carroll fan, was skeptical of his hiring, and at one time thought Harbaugh to be the better coach. He still does things I don't much care for and I'm not bashful in expressing my disagreement with some of the decisions he makes (see Paul Richardson thread). But you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you're going to convince me or anyone else in this forum that the job Harbaugh has done with the Niners is comparable to what Carroll has done here. Not that Harbaugh has done a poor job, it's just that considering the circumstances, Carroll's is by far the more impressive.

No, I am not comparing the players on each respective squad. I am only stating what I have prior; that the sprinking of 4 or even 5 probowlers does not equate to an inheritance or a winning puzzle. In the NFL, most teams have at least a few such players, regardless of how talent deprived they are. Unlike other leagues, successful NFL teams are built more upon their surrounding cast than they are individual stars. The cupboard wads bare in thatvrespect when JH arrived. It is overflowing now. It is ironic now that the 2011 49ers were initially considered a blue collar, over achieving grind it out team that won a lot of close games. In hindsight now they are mischaracterized as a collection of probowlers that one lucky coach stumbled on to and could not push over the hump. For a first yr HC, JH's turning over of an entire coaching staff, 50% of the defense and a perreniel best QB in a strike shirtened offseason is one of the most impressive coaching feats I have ever seen.

I acknowledge Carroll's success. He has a very effective system in place, and he is the champ. He had a 4 yr window to build a winner, and he did that. So he deserves all the praise that he is getting. It is up to JH tobprove himself all over again now.

[Futureite]

Lol goddamn phone. My posts are barely readable at times. I am sure you can interpret most of them whilst calling me an "idiot" for my opinions out loud.

[kalibane]

It doesn't matter whether they were already Pro Bowlers or not Future. They had pro bowl talent. Iupati and Anthony Davis were massively talented first round picks. Bowman wasn't some scrub, he was just behind an established veteran and as soon as he had the opportunity to start he exploded.

You keep harping on Boone as an undrafted free agent. Joe Staley 1st round pick. Vernon Davis first round pick. Patrick Willis first round pick. Justin Smith first round pick. Mike Iupati first round pick. Anthony Davis first round pick. Gore already established. Boone was the only real developmental player in this core. You guys had been drafting in the top half of the first round for 8 straight years and Harbaugh reaped the benefits of that incoming talent period.

[HumanCockroach]

Pete's done a fantastic job and I don't want to take anything away from what he's done for us and without a doubt has achieved one of the better rebuilds, at least in modern times, but I'm not sure if what he has done is "unprecedented" or not. There's been some very good, very quick rebuild jobs in the history of the game. George Allen took a franchise that had one winning season in the previous 15 years to the SB in his first year, and did it prior to free agency by trading away multiple draft choices. His quote in doing so, ie "the future is now", became a household phrase. In 1958, Vince Lombardi's Packers in his first year were 1-10-1, and by 1960, he had them a play away from winning the NFL Championship, again in a time before free agency and before parity leveled the playing field. The Carolina Panthers took full advantage of free agency and went from nothing at all to NFC Championship game in 3 years, so it's not Earth stopping news that Pete was able to achieve success as quickly as he did.

But it is undeniable that what Carroll has done with the Seahawks is a lot more impressive than what Hairball has done with the Niners, especially considering he has a Lombardi and Hairball doesn't. Consequently, and for much the same reasons, what Hairball did at Stanford is far more impressive than what Carroll did at USC.

Sorry RD your examples seem a touch off. First of all the Panthers arrived during the "expansion draft" era and were able to "draft" numerous pro bowl talents onto the roster prior to playing a single down ( as were the Jaguars if you would like to add them as well you can since they too advanced to a championship game within three years of existence) and the other two were the Skins and the 1960 Packers? Are you seriously using pre free agency teams as a comparison? The way ( and I might add competition, as well as number of teams competing against) the NFL then to now, is like saying if someone was to find the cure to cancer it isn't all that impressive because there was a guy that made the first wheel in caveman times. The two periods are just cannot be compared IMHO. The Jags and Panthers certainly had a "start" point, and did a really good job picking which high draft pick of another team, or high priced free agent signing or even an off injured stud player they wanted to take from another team, however, that ( as well as the aforementioned Skins) didn't tear down, and then build up, they built up, Washington by trading picks, and Panthers and Jags by selecting good players that were ALREADY NFL football players good enough to be on other teams rosters ( and some of those STARTING on other teams). Don't know enough about what Lombardi had to work with, or what he had to do, and so I'll concede he MIGHT have done it, but again, different age altogether.

I have never seen it, and to date, I haven't heard of an example that compares ( although if I wanted to research GB Lombardi might have, though not with the same competition for players, and number of teams needing to be faced, so I have a hard time even allowing it might be the case to be honest), and so I stick with unprecedented, at least in modern day football.

[RiverDog]

Sorry RD your examples seem a touch off. First of all the Panthers arrived during the "expansion draft" era and were able to "draft" numerous pro bowl talents onto the roster prior to playing a single down ( as were the Jaguars if you would like to add them as well you can since they too advanced to a championship game within three years of existence) and the other two were the Skins and the 1960 Packers? Are you seriously using pre free agency teams as a comparison? The way ( and I might add competition, as well as number of teams competing against) the NFL then to now, is like saying if someone was to find the cure to cancer it isn't all that impressive because there was a guy that made the first wheel in caveman times. The two periods are just cannot be compared IMHO. The Jags and Panthers certainly had a "start" point, and did a really good job picking which high draft pick of another team, or high priced free agent signing or even an off injured stud player they wanted to take from another team, however, that ( as well as the aforementioned Skins) didn't tear down, and then build up, they built up, Washington by trading picks, and Panthers and Jags by selecting good players that were ALREADY NFL football players good enough to be on other teams rosters ( and some of those STARTING on other teams). Don't know enough about what Lombardi had to work with, or what he had to do, and so I'll concede he MIGHT have done it, but again, different age altogether.

I have never seen it, and to date, I haven't heard of an example that compares ( although if I wanted to research GB Lombardi might have, though not with the same competition for players, and number of teams needing to be faced, so I have a hard time even allowing it might be the case to be honest), and so I stick with unprecedented, at least in modern day football.

You must be bored. It took a couple days for you to respond to that one particular post of mine. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that has that kind of habit.

My point was that quick turnarounds are a lot more do-able in today's age of free agency and parity. What Lombardi, George Allen, Shula's Dolphins of the early 70's, et al was IMO a lot more impressive. But I do agree that Pete's turnaround with the Hawks stands to be one of the most impressive in the modern era..providing he can sustain it and remain relevant for the next couple of years and not be a one hit wonder like the 2002 Bucs or the 2012 Ravens.

[HumanCockroach]

Maybe a little, just missed the first time. I'm cool with your assessment in regards to teams I didn't personally watch because I haven't a lot of knowledge about the moves they made, at least on a player by player situation. After all I was all of I think year when Miami did what they did. I am positive I haven't seen it since I started watching in the early 80's. I know a lot of NFL history, but I certainly could have missed it. Even with that said, the amount of moves is indeed unparalleled , which is kind of what my point was really addressing ( though I acknowledged the success after doing so).

It's the most impressive rebuild I have ever seen or heard of, but like I said, maybe time has tarnished the old school moves of the past.

[RiverDog]

Maybe a little, just missed the first time. I'm cool with your assessment in regards to teams I didn't personally watch because I haven't a lot of knowledge about the moves they made, at least on a player by player situation. After all I was all of I think year when Miami did what they did. I am positive I haven't seen it since I started watching in the early 80's. I know a lot of NFL history, but I certainly could have missed it. Even with that said, the amount of moves is indeed unparalleled , which is kind of what my point was really addressing ( though I acknowledged the success after doing so).

It's the most impressive rebuild I have ever seen or heard of, but like I said, maybe time has tarnished the old school moves of the past.

My radar always pops up when people start throwing around terms like unparalleled and historic. I'm not necessarily speaking of you, but there are some that think that the game began with SB I, or worse yet, when Joe Montana and Bill Walsh became household names.

If you're so bored that you're going back over days old posts from an old coot like me, here's a really good football book that does a great job of explaining how the NFL became what it is today. I highly recommend it for any diehard fan like yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Game-Mic ... 0375725067

Also, I haven't seen it this year, but NFL Network ran a series called "Full Color Football", about the history of the AFL, that likewise helps explain the evolutionary process of the NFL. Here it is on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsAdf1RcdU

[HumanCockroach]

Maybe a little, just missed the first time. I'm cool with your assessment in regards to teams I didn't personally watch because I haven't a lot of knowledge about the moves they made, at least on a player by player situation. After all I was all of I think year when Miami did what they did. I am positive I haven't seen it since I started watching in the early 80's. I know a lot of NFL history, but I certainly could have missed it. Even with that said, the amount of moves is indeed unparalleled , which is kind of what my point was really addressing ( though I acknowledged the success after doing so).

It's the most impressive rebuild I have ever seen or heard of, but like I said, maybe time has tarnished the old school moves of the past.

My radar always pops up when people start throwing around terms like unparalleled and historic. I'm not necessarily speaking of you, but there are some that think that the game began with SB I, or worse yet, when Joe Montana and Bill Walsh became household names.

If you're so bored that you're going back over days old posts from an old coot like me, here's a really good football book that does a great job of explaining how the NFL became what it is today. I highly recommend it for any diehard fan like yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Game-Mic ... 0375725067

Also, I haven't seen it this year, but NFL Network ran a series called "Full Color Football", about the history of the AFL, that likewise helps explain the evolutionary process of the NFL. Here it is on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgsAdf1RcdU

Thanks I'll check them out. I've done a lot of work watching that stuff, but most of it was position specific when I was younger, or generalised information I read was I was young ( or at least younger).

[RiverDog]

Funny thing, I checked out the YouTube link to make sure the Full Color Football link worked and even though I've seen it a dozen times, I spent 1.5 hours re-watching it this morning. It really is a well done documentary.