"well known"? that Pete's "pared back playbook" ...somehow produced monster seasons for BOTH our WR playmakers?? The evidence of a vanilla flavored offense aren't well supported by your "well known" claim.
curmudgeon wrote:NO seems logical. Offensive minded coach who had success with a diminutive QB….
I-5 wrote:That Saints package sounds like a joke for a QB of Wilson’s calibre and age, considering what the Jets got for a box safety.
c_hawkbob wrote:To be clear that ain't a "Saints package" that's a "some Joe on the internet wet dream" package.
RiverDog wrote:A wet dream? I can't speak for anyone else in here, but I don't wake up wet after I've been dreaming about sports.
NorthHawk wrote:That the Giants decided to keep Jones doesn't preclude an upgrade at QB. The fans are all over Mara and there is pressure to improve,
so a trade there is one of the more realistic scenarios should there be a parting from the Seahawks. There is talk that Gettleman is on
the way out, too so a new GM might want to make a splash upon taking over the reins.
RiverDog wrote:Russell has never gone through a season quite like this one. He's never experienced a losing season in 10 years with us, and when he was at Wisconsin, they were Big 10 champs and went to the Rose Bowl. In his junior year at NC State, the team went 9-4 and won their bowl game. You have to go all the way back to his sophomore year in college to find a losing team that he played on.
This must be a pretty humbling experience for a man who is constantly upbeat and full of catchy cliches that lives in a fish bowl where he's had to spend the majority of his adult life in.
TriCitySam wrote:I don't quite get those who felt Pete's "pared back" playbook last year was a bad thing. We had been losing, and won out after the Giants game. In those final games, we ran the ball 47% of the time. That would have put us 7th in the R/P category. Ravens, Patriots, Saints, Vikings, Browns among those who ran more - an put us about even with GB. In retrospect, seems like a good decision by Pete......and if in fact that made Russ "lose his enthusiasm", what does that say about Wilson? He says he only cares about winning....and they won out after having lost 4 of 7. So does did he care about "let Russ cook" or winning?
tarlhawk wrote:He tries to be upbeat in press conferences...and this comes across as not accepting blame...but he beats up himself internally more than displayed by his subdued yet upbeat messaging. All his main confidence boosters...winning culture...great fan base...and budding team mate friendships...have been strained by his injury/pride of having his iron man rep lost this season...the severely damaging loss of his life coach (Sep 17, 2021 · Trevor Moawad, who was Wilson's longtime mental-conditioning coach, business partner and "best friend," died from cancer this week at age 48. Heaven just got better. I love you ) *right before the Titan's game* We pass it off as Russell having suffered loss before and seemed resilient...but Russ is a bit older and perhaps leaned a lot more on this "coach" than revealed. The injury just compounded a life still healing with time...and the reality of life grounded him with its sudden complications . . .
tarlhawk wrote:We all sometimes see sports as an escape to a place where any team (and we hope especially our own) can win with huge effort on display and while caught up in the moment of distraction we forget life going on in real time.
TriCitySam wrote:I don't quite get those who felt Pete's "pared back" playbook last year was a bad thing. We had been losing, and won out after the Giants game. In those final games, we ran the ball 47% of the time. That would have put us 7th in the R/P category. Ravens, Patriots, Saints, Vikings, Browns among those who ran more - an put us about even with GB. In retrospect, seems like a good decision by Pete......and if in fact that made Russ "lose his enthusiasm", what does that say about Wilson? He says he only cares about winning....and they won out after having lost 4 of 7. So does did he care about "let Russ cook" or winning?
RiverDog wrote:We had not been losing.
The 'paring back' supposedly came after a 37-34 loss to the Cards in OT. We came into the game undefeated at 5-0. Russell threw 3 interceptions, which is what Pete is said to have reacted to. In the following game, a convincing 10 point win over the Niners, Russell still threw 37 times while we ran on just 28 plays, or about 57% of the time, so if there was a paring back, it wasn't very obvious.
RiverDog wrote:We had not been losing.
The 'paring back' supposedly came after a 37-34 loss to the Cards in OT. We came into the game undefeated at 5-0. Russell threw 3 interceptions, which is what Pete is said to have reacted to. In the following game, a convincing 10 point win over the Niners, Russell still threw 37 times while we ran on just 28 plays, or about 57% of the time, so if there was a paring back, it wasn't very obvious.
TriCitySam wrote:That could be....but it doesn't make sense to me. First, why would Pete make a change after a 5-0 start and just one loss? Second, when you look at the R/P ratio, it was ranging in the 37% range - when it made the jump was AFTER the Giants game (a 34% R/P ratio). That's when I heard Pete was paring back the passing game, and the numbers back it up.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests