The Torch was passed last night.

[Aseahawkfan]

Again, my issue was never with Penny, its with Pete not filling the OL. This why the Pats are perennial and the rest of us are transitional.

BS if the Pats are perennial because of O-line. Pats are perennial because they have Tom Brady running a high speed offense that doesn't hold on to the ball too long. They're O-line has very little pressure on them because Brady doesn't sit in the pocket running around looking to make plays. He gets the ball out quick to the read for the play called.

You fabricating some garbage about Patriot O-line play shows how little you understand the Tom Brady effect. Brady could play behind our O-line and make them look all world. Fact is Russell was taught to play in a way that makes the O-line look bad. Period, End of story. Unless Pete changes it and very soon, our QB will not last long. If Russell can't play from the pocket, he won't last long.

O-lines are rated by the effectiveness of their skill players and the scheme they run. We would do more for the O-line if we improved both our scheme and use of our skill players.

[idhawkman]

Again, my issue was never with Penny, its with Pete not filling the OL. This why the Pats are perennial and the rest of us are transitional.

BS if the Pats are perennial because of O-line. Pats are perennial because they have Tom Brady running a high speed offense that doesn't hold on to the ball too long. They're O-line has very little pressure on them because Brady doesn't sit in the pocket running around looking to make plays. He gets the ball out quick to the read for the play called.

You fabricating some garbage about Patriot O-line play shows how little you understand the Tom Brady effect. Brady could play behind our O-line and make them look all world. Fact is Russell was taught to play in a way that makes the O-line look bad. Period, End of story. Unless Pete changes it and very soon, our QB will not last long. If Russell can't play from the pocket, he won't last long.

O-lines are rated by the effectiveness of their skill players and the scheme they run. We would do more for the O-line if we improved both our scheme and use of our skill players.

Asea, you are so spot on with this. I had one issue with it though until I read the second enlarged text above.

Bottom line, Brady could play behing our oline from the last few years and make them look like all stars AS LONG AS he got to run the offensive scheme his way with the quick passes. That's what makes Brady so good. He reads a defense so quick and gets rid of the ball so quick that the oline just has to stand in the way for a split second and that's it.

[RiverDog]

I think that the truth is somewhere in between. Yes, Russell is, at times, an almost impossible QB to block for, with is tendency to break the pocket rather than step up and his obvious habit of holding onto the ball looking for the home run. But there are a whole lot of other scenarios where it's an absolute jail break that Russell does his best to salvage the play and/or avoid a sack.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think that the truth is somewhere in between. Yes, Russell is, at times, an almost impossible QB to block for, with is tendency to break the pocket rather than step up and his obvious habit of holding onto the ball looking for the home run. But there are a whole lot of other scenarios where it's an absolute jail break that Russell does his best to salvage the play and/or avoid a sack.

Brady would read and direct his O-line to pick up the coverage and move in the pocket to ensure that happens. He would use his check down far more often than Russell does. He would get the ball out on time play after play after play.

Russell was trained to play as a scrambler is the problem. When you're trained to scramble like he does, it's hard to break the habit. He needs to be retrained where scrambling is very occasional, not the standard for the offense.

On top of that, we need some kind of viable run game to keep the opposing defense honest.

Pete wanted a Fran Tarkenton. It's fun to watch when it works. It's hell on the QB if he slows down even a little. The modern NFL guys are fast and dangerous more than in Fran's day.

[RiverDog]

Pete wanted a Fran Tarkenton. It's fun to watch when it works. It's hell on the QB if he slows down even a little. The modern NFL guys are fast and dangerous more than in Fran's day.

Fran Tarkenton and Russell Wilson are the two most similar past/present quarterbacks in the NFL. Russell even says that he copied a lot of what he does after Tarkenton. That reverse spin move that Russell uses so often is classic Tarkenton. Russell does have the better arm and the better throwing motion, but their elusiveness and scrambling ability are almost identical.

But when Tarkenton slowed down, he was able to adjust his game and had a relatively successful post 30 career.

Russell and Tarkenton posed for a picture once. I wish I could dig it up.

[NorthHawk]

Brady would read and direct his O-line to pick up the coverage and move in the pocket to ensure that happens. He would use his check down far more often than Russell does. He would get the ball out on time play after play after play.

Russell was trained to play as a scrambler is the problem. When you're trained to scramble like he does, it's hard to break the habit. He needs to be retrained where scrambling is very occasional, not the standard for the offense.

On top of that, we need some kind of viable run game to keep the opposing defense honest.

Pete wanted a Fran Tarkenton. It's fun to watch when it works. It's hell on the QB if he slows down even a little. The modern NFL guys are fast and dangerous more than in Fran's day.

I think you have to factor in the different type of Offense that the Pats run compared to what we have done under Carroll.
They tailor it to the personnels strengths and use their players as a group to their best advantage. It evolves year after year.
We, on the other hand have had a set type of philosophy that doesn't or at least hasn't changed. It's still a very conservative Offense whereas the Pats will open it up if the situation and personnel dictate it as the best way to win.
For example when they had Moss they threw deep a lot, and when they had a good RB, they ran more while we got Graham and tried to turn him into a complete TE when in fact he is really just a big WR.
We will probably never see a dominating FA WR come here because of that and it may be a waste of a pick if we ever select a Julio Jones type of player in the draft.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think you have to factor in the different type of Offense that the Pats run compared to what we have done under Carroll.
They tailor it to the personnels strengths and use their players as a group to their best advantage. It evolves year after year.
We, on the other hand have had a set type of philosophy that doesn't or at least hasn't changed. It's still a very conservative Offense whereas the Pats will open it up if the situation and personnel dictate it as the best way to win.
For example when they had Moss they threw deep a lot, and when they had a good RB, they ran more while we got Graham and tried to turn him into a complete TE when in fact he is really just a big WR.
We will probably never see a dominating FA WR come here because of that and it may be a waste of a pick if we ever select a Julio Jones type of player in the draft.

And Brady makes it work as no other QB ever has in history. Any team comparing to the Pats is ludicrous since the Pats have two figures that can't be equaled or replicated by adjusting scheme, personnel, or anything else named Brady and Belichick. By some stroke of fate these two together are the best every to do it in NFL history and you can't replicate or compare that like it can be accomplished by adjusting some other element of the team. Every team would love to be the Patriots, but if you don't have those two elements and possibly the owner, then it won't work. Nothing a team can do can match the Patriots with those two. They for whatever reason make it all work.

Fact is the Seahawks have been one of the most successful teams of the last eight years not named New England, yet in some Seattle fans minds we're doing something wrong. Second to New England in their minds means we should trash the coach and start over. And I don't get the gold on the other side of the rainbow thinking considering there is no evidence to support this other than one year of missed playoffs suddenly throwing a vocal minority into a tizzy.

Why do I want to get rid of the second best team builders behind New England because we're not New England? I don't. Not sure why anyone else does either. Assuming our lunch is going to be taken because a few other teams have a great year is ridiculous. Each year is new. We can be right back in it quickly. I know you're not one of the people talking like this, but it's that type of thinking that annoys me. People to accept we're not New England and no one else is but New England. But we're right there in the next tier behind New England with a young great QB and a great HC and GM. We need to let them do their job rather than make assumptions because some team drafted some guy that hasn't proven himself worth a damn.

[RiverDog]

Fact is the Seahawks have been one of the most successful teams of the last eight years not named New England, yet in some Seattle fans minds we're doing something wrong. Second to New England in their minds means we should trash the coach and start over. And I don't get the gold on the other side of the rainbow thinking considering there is no evidence to support this other than one year of missed playoffs suddenly throwing a vocal minority into a tizzy.

In this forum, there's just one poster (S4E) that wants to dump Pete and start all over.

But I will take issue with your statement about "the Seahawks have been one of the most successful teams of the last 8 years not named New England". Technically speaking, that's absouletly true, and it's important to note that we probably would have made the playoffs last season had it not been for our place kicker, which would have made 7 consecutive playoff appearances. But it's that type of rationalizing that leads to mediocrity. Despite our respectable W/L record, we clearly were not the same team over the past 3 years that we were in the previous 3, and citing facts like that gives one justification for standing pat and not making any changes. Pete clearly recognized that this team needed a shake up if we were to return to the SB. Otherwise, we were heading in the same direction the Giants went after they won their last SB.

[c_hawkbob]

Fact is the Seahawks have been one of the most successful teams of the last eight years not named New England, yet in some Seattle fans minds we're doing something wrong. Second to New England in their minds means we should trash the coach and start over. And I don't get the gold on the other side of the rainbow thinking considering there is no evidence to support this other than one year of missed playoffs suddenly throwing a vocal minority into a tizzy.

In this forum, there's just one poster (S4E) that wants to dump Pete and start all over.

But I will take issue with your statement about "the Seahawks have been one of the most successful teams of the last 8 years not named New England". Technically speaking, that's absouletly true, and it's important to note that we probably would have made the playoffs last season had it not been for our place kicker, which would have made 7 consecutive playoff appearances. But it's that type of rationalizing that leads to mediocrity. Despite our respectable W/L record, we clearly were not the same team over the past 3 years that we were in the previous 3, and citing facts like that gives one justification for standing pat and not making any changes. Pete clearly recognized that this team needed a shake up if we were to return to the SB. Otherwise, we were heading in the same direction the Giants went after they won their last SB.

So just who, besides NE, is it that you're saying has been better than us over the last 8 years?

[Aseahawkfan]

In this forum, there's just one poster (S4E) that wants to dump Pete and start all over.

But I will take issue with your statement about "the Seahawks have been one of the most successful teams of the last 8 years not named New England". Technically speaking, that's absouletly true, and it's important to note that we probably would have made the playoffs last season had it not been for our place kicker, which would have made 7 consecutive playoff appearances. But it's that type of rationalizing that leads to mediocrity. Despite our respectable W/L record, we clearly were not the same team over the past 3 years that we were in the previous 3, and citing facts like that gives one justification for standing pat and not making any changes. Pete clearly recognized that this team needed a shake up if we were to return to the SB. Otherwise, we were heading in the same direction the Giants went after they won their last SB.

It only leads to mediocrity if the coaches are thinking that way. It's clear they are not. But at the same time, you have to give things time to fail and work.

I just don't think this BS that the torch was passed because one player was drafted like Russell, Pete, John, and company are going to roll over because some single QB was drafted. That type of thinking is ridiculous. We've beat way better QBs than some kid drafted this year.

Obiken must have a real low opinion of Russell Wilson and company to think that a lack of O-line is going to derail all their hopes and dreams for the foreseeable future after one draft. He needs to wake up a little bit and think it through better.

[obiken]

BS if the Pats are perennial because of O-line. Pats are perennial because they have Tom Brady running a high speed offense that doesn't hold on to the ball too long. They're O-line has very little pressure on them because Brady doesn't sit in the pocket running around looking to make plays. He gets the ball out quick to the read for the play called.

You fabricating some garbage about Patriot O-line play shows how little you understand the Tom Brady effect. Brady could play behind our O-line and make them look all world. Fact is Russell was taught to play in a way that makes the O-line look bad. Period, End of story. Unless Pete changes it and very soon, our QB will not last long. If Russell can't play from the pocket, he won't last long.

O-lines are rated by the effectiveness of their skill players and the scheme they run. We would do more for the O-line if we improved both our scheme and use of our skill players.

Oh I dont by that BS at all, NO way could Brady play behind our OL.

[RiverDog]

So just who, besides NE, is it that you're saying has been better than us over the last 8 years?

I said that his statement was technically true, that no one besides NE has been better than us over the past 8 years. The problem is that the past 3 years performance has established an unmistakable trend of bubble teams compared to the previous 3 years of championship caliber teams and that citing that 8 year record as a means to defend those bubble teams can lead to acceptance of mediocrity.

Fortunetly, Pete recognized the drift this team has experienced and cleaned house, which earned him a ton of respect in my book.

[Seahawks4Ever]

OMG Dog; I nearly fell over choking with laughter at your statement praising PC for recognizing some sort of "drift" and now you have a measure of respect because of that recognition and his "fixing" it.

Surely you are joking Riv. How can you say PC recognized something he himself CREATED??? Pete is the one who penny pinched the O-Line to save money to spend else where. Pete is the one who made several DUBIOUS trades that did NOTHING to help our team and only ate up salary cap space.

Pete is also the one who stayed with Darrell Bevel when most everybody, and by everybody I just don't mean fans I mean many many experts such as former NFL head coaches and GM's REPEATEDLY said how Bevell was a HUGE DETRIMENT to our offense.

Michael Bennett, I could care less that he is gone, after he stopped jumping off sides timing his pass rush his production really fell off. Was it a hurt foot? I don't know and I don't care he wasn't worth what he was being paid.

Richard Sherman is a different case, right up until he was hurt he was considered not only one of the top CB's in the NFL but MANT said he was the TOP CB in the NFL. The ONLY thing Sherm did wrong was that he opened his mouth letting all of us 12's that not every Seahawks, especially most of those on the DEFENSE were not down with Darrell Bevell and the infantile predictable offense he continued to run with the backing of PC. So, Pete WAS forced to fire DB so in a SNIT cutting off his nose to spite his face he then CUT Sherman. He had not "lost a step" and all of the other lies Pete said. The day that Pete said that about Sherm I guarantee will by the day that many will say he lost the team. It is about REPECT, how CAN anyone respect him???

[NorthHawk]

Richard Sherman is a different case, right up until he was hurt he was considered not only one of the top CB's in the NFL but MANT said he was the TOP CB in the NFL. The ONLY thing Sherm did wrong was that he opened his mouth letting all of us 12's that not every Seahawks, especially most of those on the DEFENSE were not down with Darrell Bevell and the infantile predictable offense he continued to run with the backing of PC. So, Pete WAS forced to fire DB so in a SNIT cutting off his nose to spite his face he then CUT Sherman. He had not "lost a step" and all of the other lies Pete said. The day that Pete said that about Sherm I guarantee will by the day that many will say he lost the team. It is about REPECT, how CAN anyone respect him???

Being a mind reader is your friend.

[obiken]

]

Richard Sherman is a different case, right up until he was hurt he was considered not only one of the top CB's in the NFL but MANT said he was the TOP CB in the NFL. The ONLY thing Sherm did wrong was that he opened his mouth letting all of us 12's that not every Seahawks, especially most of those on the DEFENSE were not down with Darrell Bevell and the infantile predictable offense he continued to run with the backing of PC. So, Pete WAS forced to fire DB so in a SNIT cutting off his nose to spite his face he then CUT Sherman. He had not "lost a step" and all of the other lies Pete said. The day that Pete said that about Sherm I guarantee will by the day that many will say he lost the team. It is about REPECT, how CAN anyone respect him???

To me Sherm is not going to recover, that is a fantasy, you don't bounce back from a torn Achilles. Moreover, Sherm was overrated, he was playing with the best players at SS and FS in the league. I dont think he was dog food, but look how it went when we lost ET last year, VS now losing Sherm. I am not wishing him any ill will but I think RS saw the 9ers coming.

[mykc14]

Richard Sherman is a different case, right up until he was hurt he was considered not only one of the top CB's in the NFL but MANT said he was the TOP CB in the NFL. The ONLY thing Sherm did wrong was that he opened his mouth letting all of us 12's that not every Seahawks, especially most of those on the DEFENSE were not down with Darrell Bevell and the infantile predictable offense he continued to run with the backing of PC. So, Pete WAS forced to fire DB so in a SNIT cutting off his nose to spite his face he then CUT Sherman. He had not "lost a step" and all of the other lies Pete said. The day that Pete said that about Sherm I guarantee will by the day that many will say he lost the team. It is about REPECT, how CAN anyone respect him???

There was NO WAY he was going to be on our roster with a $13 mil/year cap hit coming off of a torn Achilles in the last year of his contract especially when the team didn't have any cap room! I don't know why you are out to prove that PC did something shady here. Keeping Sherman in that situation would be incredibly stupid. Anybody with any business savvy or the most basic understanding of how the salary cap/players contracts work should be able to see that. If he was coming off of an All-Pro season, had multiple years left on his contract AND THEN the Hawks cut him I would say that maybe you were on to something, but that's just not the case and no amount of digging/whining/venting your frustration is going to change that.

I would also add that the only time PC would have been 'forced to fire' Bevell was after the SB... and he didn't. If you want to spend time writing about PC's mistakes that would be one to grab onto, but letting go of Sherm was a complete and utter no-brainer.

[Aseahawkfan]

Oh I dont by that BS at all, NO way could Brady play behind our OL.

Russell produced to the tune of most Tds in the league. Not sure why you think Brady wouldn't have done as well or better.

I guess 9th best in the league and most passing TDs behind our crap O-line isn't enough for you:

9 Russell Wilson, QB SEA 339 553 61.3 3,983 7.20 74 34 11 43 95.4 249

Russell dropped to a mediocre 95.4 passer rating behind our crap O-line. Oh, the O-line is so important. If only we had a better one, Russell would throw for fifty TDs and be number one every year.

I'll say it again: O-line is over-rated as a determiner of playoff or Super Bowl success. Our team fell off last year because our defense and run game fell off due to injuries, not poor O-line play.

[HumanCockroach]

Might want to rethink that "no way" obi... I agree it's difficult, but impossible? No, not even close there's been multiple players in the last couple years to not only recover, but actually improve when they return.

He probably won't ever be the first ballot HOF player he was before the injury, but pro bowl, all pro caliber again? Possibly, might even be probably. Torn Achilles aren't the end of careers anymore, similar to ACL tears pre mid eighties.

[NorthHawk]

The problem would be our playbook the last few years wouldn't have complemented Brady's talents in the same way NE's playbook does.

[Aseahawkfan]

The problem would be our playbook the last few years wouldn't have complemented Brady's talents in the same way NE's playbook does.

It hasn't benefited our QB the last few years. The whole scrambilng offense was great the first two or three years when Russell was learning and he could use his legs to make teams look like idiots. It's not as great when you want your QB to have a long career and learn now to read and dissect defenses with a quick, precise passing game mixed in with occasional big plays.

[NorthHawk]

I was thinking more in terms of our Offense being unimaginative and staid, unlike the Pats who change depending on the makeup of the players.

[Aseahawkfan]

I was thinking more in terms of our Offense being unimaginative and staid, unlike the Pats who change depending on the makeup of the players.

Have the Pats changed much? I know they snap and throw faster, but player wise they seem to have a model they like. Wes Welker, Edelman, and Whitehead were those shifty possession receiver with a big scoring receiver like Gronk and Randy. I know they had more of a running offense very early in Brady's career, but moved away from it as Brady became the engine of the offense. I don't see New England as doing much different than they've done other than moving to a high temp offense the past 4 or 5 years.

[NorthHawk]

They used to throw deep a lot when they had Moss and they use Gronk pretty well as a TE, unlike us who tried to stifle the qualities that made Graham a dangerous TE.
Now with smaller receivers they dink and dunk a lot of the time. When they had a good RB, they ran the ball a lot, too.
We've just been a run first team that became in the last few years far too predictable.