Pete Carroll Responds to Harbaugh on Seattle Seahawks' 'Physical Play'
Following Jim Harbaugh’s comments to the media last week about the physicality of the Seattle secondary, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll addressed the media on Monday and had a response to the issues that the 49ers coach mentioned.
Carroll said that what he saw when reviewing the game wasn’t out of the ordinary for his team.
“I just looked at the film, and I heard about the comments, I just wanted to see what was the point,” said Carroll. “I thought it was a very normal game.”
With the Seahawks ranked seventh in the league in passing defense, it’s not as if Carroll is going to recognize any plays that could’ve been called as penalties. There isn’t a coach in the league who would say anything different, particularly a coach who expects his team to play tough.
While crediting his own defense, Carroll also credited the toughness of a San Francisco team that holds the top spot in the league in passing defense. The 49ers have limited teams to fewer than 175 passing yards per game.
“I thought our guys played really hard and tough, and they did too, and that was it,” Carroll said.
In Harbaugh’s Friday press conference, he suggested that he would be having further discussions with league officials on whether or not the Seahawks' physical play was within the rules.
“I don’t really know what the reference was about,” said Carroll. “I just hope it doesn’t go any farther, like to the league, there’s no need for it to.”
Unfortunately, fans of both teams will have to wait until Week 16 to see how this all plays out when the two teams face each other at CenturyLink Field, Dec. 23.
Brandan Schulze is a Navy veteran and member of the Military Sea Hawkers, the military chapter of the official booster club for the Seattle Seahawks. For more information on the chapter, visit www.militaryseahawkers.com. Membership is free for all military service members and veterans.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?