Plenty of Reasons for RW to WANT to leave Seattle

[NorthHawk]

If you want to play the "Suppose" game, how would Luck look without a good pass blocking OL?
How well would he do (making the mistakes he's admitted to making) in an Offense geared for him in an Offense that is not centered around him?

We don't really know the answers, but we can guess that he wouldn't have nearly the numbers he has now, nor would he be as successful as Seattle has been when improvising.

[RiverDog]

River;

If Andrew Luck isn't the one carrying them, who is? Trent Richardson and Boom Herron? The D that gave up 58 pts to the Steelers? In this case, I'd love to see how much of a "weapon" Ty Hilton, 34 yr old Reggie Wayne, and Colby Fleener look without Andrew Luck. Be honest - these are not great players. And Seattle has aruabely had equal if not better talent with Golden Tate, Percy Harvin, Zach Miller et al. If Tate put up 99 rec and almost 1,400 yds with Srafford, I am sure he'd look at least as good as TY has with Luck.

They have a pretty fair defense, ranked 11th in the league. It's not elite by any stretch of the imagination, but they aren't chopped liver, either, and were as good or better than quarterbacks like Brees (31st), Brady (13th), Romo (19th), Worthlessburger (18th), and Rodgers (15th), all quarterbacks that are perceived to be "carrying their team" had to work with.

But that wasn't my point. I never said that Andrew Luck wasn't 'carrying his team.' My point was that you can't say on the one hand that Luck carries his team then turn right around and say that he needs more people around him. Every quarterback in the league "needs more people around him." I don't know why you would use such an observation to rationalize Luck's deficiencies yet fail to recognize the disadvantage Wilson has in terms of offensive personnel.

You're always one of the first people to discount Russell Wilson's accomplishments and are quick to note that he benefits from the top defense in the league. Luck has a defensive advantage over a number of pretty fair quarterbacks but you characterize him as 'carrying his team' while Wilson is simply along for the ride even though RW was the centerpiece of a top 10 offense both in terms of total yardage and points scored.

[Futureite]

River;

I say that Luck carries the team because he stepped onto a team that won 1 game prior and won 11 in Luck's first yr. In 2012, the Colts had the NFL's 26th ranked D and gave up 24 PPG. Their best WR was 33 years old Reggie Wayne. Vic Ballard was their best running back, averaging 3.9 YPC and totaling just over 800 yds. I did not claim Luck needs any additional weapons. He's made plenty of "good" players look great. However, if your QB IS your best player, it only makes sense to surround him with as much talent as possible. All teams do this when they believe they have a franchise QB, because the QB is the biggest difference maker on any team.

Luck does not have great O talent around him right now. He has a couple good skill players. It's really no different than Drew Brees making Robert Meachem, Marcus Colston, Lance Moore etc look like upper level players, or Aaron Rodgers making Greg Jones and Greg Jennings look like Pro bowl caliber WRs. Everyone claimed/claims Rodgers has "so many weapons", but what have Jennings and Jones done without him? They not only disappeared, they look awful. Robert Meachem looked liked a guy who, given more opportunities and less of a glut at WR, could be a pro bowler. So much so that SD signed him for 4 yrs $25 mil. Then they dropped him after 1 year and considered him a bust. Luck, Brees, Rodgers are all great QBs, and they're going to make whomever they throw to look great as well.

And, I dispute your claim that Russell Wilson does not have the same talent around him. He has had talent. He's had (1) A WR who was a leading candidate for MVP the year prior, and would have easily topped 1,300 yds that yr had he not been hurt (2) a WR that just put up 99 receptions and almost 1,400 yds in his first year apart from Wilson, and (3) a TE who made the pro bowl just two years prior to playing with Wilson. Even Syndey Friggin Rice had 1,300 YDs with Favre, and I did not even really count him due to his injuries (nonetheless, he started 16 games in 2012). The idea that Wilson's had "less" than Luck is ridiculous, IMO.

[burrrton]

Oh, my fcking gawd.

Future, *please* tell me you don't have to have this gone over with you again.

[edit]

He was targeted almost 50% more but only had like 30% more catches, and so on and so on and so on.

Tell me you checked the numbers before making an ass of yourself on this board for the 1500th time...

Future, I'd call you the worst troll on the planet, but bad trolls are a headache to reply to. You're just tiring. It's like you think it's a war of attrition that if you just repeat your BS, then go away for a while, then repeat it again, it'll eventually become accepted.

Maybe that works for you on espn.com. It won't here.

[Anthony]

River;

I say that Luck carries the team because he stepped onto a team that won 1 game prior and won 11 in Luck's first yr. In 2012, the Colts had the NFL's 26th ranked D and gave up 24 PPG. Their best WR was 33 years old Reggie Wayne. Vic Ballard was their best running back, averaging 3.9 YPC and totaling just over 800 yds. I did not claim Luck needs any additional weapons. He's made plenty of "good" players look great. However, if your QB IS your best player, it only makes sense to surround him with as much talent as possible. All teams do this when they believe they have a franchise QB, because the QB is the biggest difference maker on any team.

Luck does not have great O talent around him right now. He has a couple good skill players. It's really no different than Drew Brees making Robert Meachem, Marcus Colston, Lance Moore etc look like upper level players, or Aaron Rodgers making Greg Jones and Greg Jennings look like Pro bowl caliber WRs. Everyone claimed/claims Rodgers has "so many weapons", but what have Jennings and Jones done without him? They not only disappeared, they look awful. Robert Meachem looked liked a guy who, given more opportunities and less of a glut at WR, could be a pro bowler. So much so that SD signed him for 4 yrs $25 mil. Then they dropped him after 1 year and considered him a bust. Luck, Brees, Rodgers are all great QBs, and they're going to make whomever they throw to look great as well.

And, I dispute your claim that Russell Wilson does not have the same talent around him. He has had talent. He's had (1) A WR who was a leading candidate for MVP the year prior, and would have easily topped 1,300 yds that yr had he not been hurt (2) a WR that just put up 99 receptions and almost 1,400 yds in his first year apart from Wilson, and (3) a TE who made the pro bowl just two years prior to playing with Wilson. Even Syndey Friggin Rice had 1,300 YDs with Favre, and I did not even really count him due to his injuries (nonetheless, he started 16 games in 2012). The idea that Wilson's had "less" than Luck is ridiculous, IMO.

Well Future you just proved your a moron.

Lets look at it

Lucks oline ranked top 10 in the league in pass blocking. Lucks Wr ranked top 10. Wilsons oline ranked bottom 3rd in the league in pass blocking,. Wilson Wr ranked 24th. Hmm so basically as usual your wrong, oh and that 1 win team that everyone knew sucked for luck, well they won 2 game that year by the way they went 10-6 the year before and did not loose many people form 2010-2011. SO your full of crap as usual. OH and lets not forget Luck has also played a by fay easier schedule facing top 10 defense on avg 3 times a year compared to Wilson 8. IN other words you need to shut up because you are looking foolish and wrong.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/11/6/716 ... elp-bandit

enough said troll

[obiken]

There is no doubt that Luck is the better passer, but the better qb? No.

[burrrton]

There is no doubt that Luck is the better passer

LOL. Uh, actually, there is a *lot* of doubt Luck is the better passer.

Well, unless you rely on The Eye Test™.

[obiken]

If you watch any of the known broadcasters in America that are football experts, they all say Luck is the best passer. I don't think it matters, RW wins another title and Luck is going to be sucking wind for a legacy.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Wilson may never be called a better passer than Luck, even if evidence to the contrary continues to mount. Wilson can just flat out play and win. The playoff game against Atlanta, while not a win, was amazingly fun to watch and Russell was the reason why. The comeback wins against Chicago season before last and last years NFCCG against Green Bay were awesome. He flat out destroyed Green Bay's soul with that TD pass to Kearse. I also like how he never gave neither Rogers nor Manning a shot in over time by taking the first possession all the way for a score.

I know Future isn't saying Wilson isn't a good player, but, I don't care about that or what any media pundit has to say. Wilson is a great passer, he's a competitor, and he's dedicated. Luck can have the stats and the misguided notions that he's so much better as a pure QB. I'll take Wilson's game all day, every day, and I think all the fans on this board feel the same way.

[Anthony]

There is no doubt that Luck is the better passer, but the better qb? No.

Actually there is plenty of facts and stats that do not support that claim. He does however get to throw more.

[Anthony]

If you watch any of the known broadcasters in America that are football experts, they all say Luck is the best passer. I don't think it matters, RW wins another title and Luck is going to be sucking wind for a legacy.

Dude they can say what they want, but again the facts and stats do not support it. The experts are just as much media zombies as anyone. He was the #1 pick, he has thrown for a lot of yards so he much be great. However that does not mean it is true.

[burrrton]

If you watch any of the known broadcasters in America that are football experts, they all say Luck is the best passer.

I think Anthony just covered this, but "experts" say all kinds of things.

In the end, the best passer will have the best statistics, and while Luck throws for more yards, that's purely a function of throwing a sht-ton more passes. He does virtually nothing else better than Wilson, except Eye Test™.

[kalibane]

Brady's receivers are terrible. Cmon. The best one of them was Edelman, a converted mid major QB. He does have a great TE, but hard to argue much else. And the only yr he did have bigtime weapons, he threw 50 TDs and led the best O on history at that time. He us an example of what I always talk about with big stats; a great QB can game manage OR put up big numbers over an entire season, game in and game out. There are only a handful of those guys in the NFL today. The "stats aee for losers" or "volume" argument applies to guys that put up big numbers but in general, do not even lead their teams to winning a div (Cutler, Stafford, etc).

Yeah I can see how having what essentially is the Randy Moss of TE's who's presence on the field guarantee's single coverage everyone else is just an afterthought to how good his receivers are.

Let's see what happens when we look at Brady's first three years where he was throwing to the likes of David Patten and Troy Brown aka Seahawk equivalent receiving corps.

Brady: 10,227 yards passing at 61.9% with 69 TDs 38 INTs
Wilson: 9,950 yards passing at 63.4% with 72 TDs 26 INTs

And stop with the bringing up Golden Tate stuff. It's a hell of a lot easier to get open when you get to play 1 v 1 the entire game because the other team is devoting 2-3 defenders to the other WR. When he was here Tate was the one getting safety help. Tate is a good complimentary WR but he's TJ Houshmanzedah to Megatron's Ocho Cinco.

[burrrton]

Luck can have the stats...

He doesn't have the stats- he has a stat (pure yardage).

...and the misguided notions that he's so much better as a pure QB.

Well, "pure QB" is sufficiently nebulous and subjective that the argument can be made for Luck on that- he's a complete stud.

It's the claim that he is a better *passer* that can be checked objectively, and he simply hasn't been as good as RW in most categories.

[burrrton]

And stop with the bringing up Golden Tate stuff. It's a hell of a lot easier to get open when you get to play 1 v 1 the entire game because the other team is devoting 2-3 defenders to the other WR.

Yep, and Tate's increased production was also purely due to volume. We don't throw as often as DET.

It's worth noting, too, that Tate caught a higher percentage with us (if I recall- I'll have to go back and check again).

[kalibane]

I remember he led the league in catch percentage one season. So that's likely true.

[curmudgeon]

Are there any known broadcast experts??

[HumanCockroach]

Actually Tates "success" statistics DROPPED in EVERY category across the board in Detroit , except for stats directly affected by opportunity increase. (things like YAC, YPC,YPA,TD PER RECEPTION, ETC) but as with when he was IN Seattle and Future INSISTED he was the equivalent of SF third receiver ( Williams I think) and was NOT a starting caliber receiver, he only looks at raw yardage, not you know actual success or facts.

Same thing he does with ALL Seattle players in the passing game ( see comparisons between Luck and Wilson, which Wilson dwarfs Luck in the MAJORITY of ALL passing categories except yardage and TDs ( both of which are directly tied to attempts, hence Wilson throwing TDs at a higher percentage than Luck) or his never ending attempt to claim Kao and Wilson are similar, because yardage through the air are similar, dismissing whatever whenever it is convenient.

[Futureite]

Actually Tates "success" statistics DROPPED in EVERY category across the board in Detroit , except for stats directly affected by opportunity increase. (things like YAC, YPC,YPA,TD PER RECEPTION, ETC) but as with when he was IN Seattle and Future INSISTED he was the equivalent of SF third receiver ( Williams I think) and was NOT a starting caliber receiver, he only looks at raw yardage, not you know actual success or facts.

Same thing he does with ALL Seattle players in the passing game ( see comparisons between Luck and Wilson, which Wilson dwarfs Luck in the MAJORITY of ALL passing categories except yardage and TDs ( both of which are directly tied to attempts, hence Wilson throwing TDs at a higher percentage than Luck) or his never ending attempt to claim Kao and Wilson are similar, because yardage through the air are similar, dismissing whatever whenever it is convenient.

Here is the most fair QB ranking I've seen by a professional writer. And he echoes a lot of what I have posted before -

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ran ... ut#page=18

He puts Wilson at 10, Kap at 17 and lists realistic pros and cons for each (I put Wilson 10-12 range, Kap about 15). We are closing that gap this year and fully overcoming it though . So, enjoy watching it happen. Failure + hard work = Success.

[monkey]

I thought you guys were past feeding the troll by now...guess not.

[Futureite]

I thought you guys were past feeding the troll by now...guess not.

That's the problem with some people. Cannot handle divergent opinions. I post an article that basically follows my rating scale verbatim - even to the point of underrating Kap 2 slots according to my own opinion - and you come back with this childish troll crap in response. I guess the subtle ribbing and verbal jousting at the end was too much for you. Give me a break. It's all in fun dude.

[monkey]

Andrew luck has "carried" his team where exactly?? What has he won? Exactly.
Andrew Luck is about to become very rich, so rich that his team around him will suck. But hey, at least Colts fans can say he "carries" the team...and throws a lot for a lot of yards. (And interceptions).
Im sure the excuse that he can't win the big game because the team around him sucks will warm the cockels of their little hearts.

[Futureite]

Actually Tates "success" statistics DROPPED in EVERY category across the board in Detroit , except for stats directly affected by opportunity increase. (things like YAC, YPC,YPA,TD PER RECEPTION, ETC) but as with when he was IN Seattle and Future INSISTED he was the equivalent of SF third receiver ( Williams I think) and was NOT a starting caliber receiver, he only looks at raw yardage, not you know actual success or facts.

Same thing he does with ALL Seattle players in the passing game ( see comparisons between Luck and Wilson, which Wilson dwarfs Luck in the MAJORITY of ALL passing categories except yardage and TDs ( both of which are directly tied to attempts, hence Wilson throwing TDs at a higher percentage than Luck) or his never ending attempt to claim Kao and Wilson are similar, because yardage through the air are similar, dismissing whatever whenever it is convenient.

No, you just have this never ending quest to make Wilson more than what he is. Of course he "dwarfs" (major stretch btw) other QBs in some categories - he is prob the most elusive QB in the history of this league and one play as a direct result of that boosts his QB rating, YPA, etc. Anyone objective person that watches him play knows this.

You can continue pulling stats, but the Seahawks have a pretty bad record when giving up mid 20's in points. That falls on the QB. A perfect example of what I am talking about is the SB. Pass game was sporadic at best. 12 total completions and a number of 3 and outs when it mattered in the 2nd half. Not one completion until the first half was almost over. Yet Wilson made a couple of huge splash plays as he always does and look at his final QB rating for that game.

He's a good QB with a unique skllset, and he's perfect for a team that wants to win and IS BUILT SPECIFICALLY to win with run game and D. There's a reason Carroll chose a 5'10 running QB to start and allocates all of his resources to D. And it's not because he believes he has Andrew Luck.

[Anthony]

SO I did not read Futures last post so let me guess, ahh the eye test, and winning does not matter, only the few stats that are good for luck count the bad ones do not, blah blah blah., Future your wrong your a troll begone.

[jshawaii22]

You know, Future, It's not like Pete Carroll has never coached a passing QB. Look at Southern Cal and the run of quality dropback, downfield passing QB's under Pete and then come back and tell us all again how he doesn't know how to coach a throwing QB. Rightttt.

How about, they watched film of Russell, met Russell, talked to his coaches and JS saw an opportunity that he COULD be something different and convinced PC to give the kid a chance. No one in Seattle will tell you the team had it 'planned'.. Matt Flynn, anyone? No, we signed a short, incredibly intelligent and driven QB for a stupid amount of $$$ and then watched him come into his own and be something totally different and then we watched as Russell bullied his way into the starting job and THEN the Coaching Staff saw a way to build an offense around him without having to spend the limited cap $$$ on the OLine and Receivers as they would have to with Luck or RGIII.

One of the things Pete does, and it probably took him 10+ years to get it, is to players to be involved in molding the team to be in the best interests of what the players can do. I sat through the Holmy years and could never understand why better players could not get any chance to play. It just wasn't the Holmgren way.

Pete will get his next Lombardi. Maybe not this year, but in 2 or 3.. AT that point, I had this odd premonition that he retired and this other Coach who left the 49ers, gets tired of losing in College and returns to coach the Seahawks. Made me gag and laugh at the same time.

[kalibane]

Here is the most fair QB ranking I've seen by a professional writer. And he echoes a lot of what I have posted before

Oh hey everyone let's all go find the one link we like the best and call it the most "fair" rankings we've ever seen. Here's mine, easily the most "fair" I've seen. And it's definitely fair because I said it's fair.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... akes-a-hit

We've seen this routine before Future...

[burrrton]

Anyone objective person that watches him play knows this.

Translation: Eye Test™.

Way to back up my point, Future. Thanks.

You can continue pulling stats, but the Seahawks have a pretty bad record when giving up mid 20's in points. That falls on the QB.

So you're saying when teams give up a lot of points, their record suffers? And giving up a lot of points is on the QB because shut up?

Jeezus, Future- you sound smart. Tell us more.

And it's definitely fair because I said it's fair.

Also Eye Test™.

[Anthony]

You can continue pulling stats, but the Seahawks have a pretty bad record when giving up mid 20's in points. That falls on the QB.

Future yes it has happened 11 times and we have won 2 of them however in 8 of the other 9 our QB led us to a lead late into the 4th qtr. Not his job to stop the other team too, Atlanta playoff ring a bell moron.

[NorthHawk]

We don't have a prolific Offense by design.
One of Pete's first press conferences as the coach laid out his plan and it was a ball control Offense with a stingy Defense.
Our Offense is more about blocking than passing as noted by Cables criteria for OL, and the demands of the WRs to be able to block first.

By definition, our Offense will have trouble regularly putting up high point totals. It's simply not designed to do that.
It doesn't diminish the QB's ability or talents, but it does limit the opportunities to accumulate big statistics and somewhat hamstrings the Offenses ability to overcome large deficits and compete in a shootout.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="kalibane"]

Oh hey everyone let's all go find the one link we like the best and call it the most "fair" rankings we've ever seen. Here's mine, easily the most "fair" I've seen. And it's definitely fair because I said it's fair.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... akes-a-hit

I like that too other than Luck at #3. I like how they had the guts to move Peyton Manning down too, as well as Brady. Brady is a dink and dunker these days and was exceptionally fortunate the LOB was a mash unit in the SB. I hope they get back for the rematch.

[burrrton]

By definition, our Offense will have trouble regularly putting up high point totals. It's simply not designed to do that.

Yep, but it's worth remembering that even with that caveat, we were *still* a Top-10 scoring offense.

Nothing to beat our chests over, but it's not like our scoring is in the toilet, either.

[Hawktawk]

We don't have a prolific Offense by design.
One of Pete's first press conferences as the coach laid out his plan and it was a ball control Offense with a stingy Defense.
Our Offense is more about blocking than passing as noted by Cables criteria for OL, and the demands of the WRs to be able to block first.

By definition, our Offense will have trouble regularly putting up high point totals. It's simply not designed to do that.
It doesn't diminish the QB's ability or talents, but it does limit the opportunities to accumulate big statistics and somewhat hamstrings the Offenses ability to overcome large deficits and compete in a shootout.

Atlanta in the playoffs in 2012 Wilson overcomes a 23 point deficit and breaks Sammy Baughs rookie playoff passing yardage mark by 50 yards, throwing for just under 400 yards. The record had stood since 1937.Defense took a dump and ruined it. 2013 vs Tampa at the Klink Wilson set the team all time greatest margin overcome roaring back from a 21 -0 deficit just before the half. I was at that game.The blocking was terrible. Wilson got hit on virtually every play. 10 personal fouls could have been called. The defense gave up over 200 yards rushing and the ST gave up a TD. Sounds like RW got them that one eh?. 2012 3 games over 50 points in a row in Dec. Team record for offense vs AZ last DEC Wilson throws for 387 and rushes for 87. Pretty good offense there even with Hauschka missing 3 field goals it was a laugher. On MNF he became the only man in NFL history to put up 200 passing and 100 rushing in MNF history. Pretty amazing thinking of some of the dual threat guys, Young,RG111, Cunningham, Vick, Kap, Staubach etc.Then vs the Rams he became the only man in the history of the league to put up 300 passing and 100 rushing, very nearly overcoming a defense that allowed an undrafted FA rook to complete 22 of 24 passes and a special teams unit that turned in the absolute worst performance I have ever seen in 55 years on the planet. I could go on a while longer. All the NFL win records and TD records first 2 years with fewer throws.Even the NFC Title game he came from absolutely dead to absolutely deadly in shockingly quick fashion and popped up after a shot to the head that would have put anyone else on these top 10 lists to sleep and off on a stretcher. Bada Boom Bada Bing enjoy your plane ride home suckers.

Underestimate Russell at your peril.He is capable of winning any way he needs to.

Hes my #1 by a mile, not just because hes our guy. But because he has more ways to beat a team than any other guy in the league and he does them all very well. HOF in 10 years or so, maybe 15 the way this guy takes care of himself and the way he is put together physically.

These are the good old days. Did I die and go to heaven or what?

[NorthHawk]

I've never underestimated Wilson - except in his first year.
It's perfectly clear that our Offense isn't designed to be prolific.
You can't be a run first, ball control Offense and score points at a prodigious rate.
Those two things are incompatible as the longer you control the ball (ball control), and the more time you take off the clock, the less time and opportunities you have to score a lot of points.

Maybe with Graham in the mix and if Matthews wins a spot, our Offense will change, but with our emphasis of the OL on run blocking over pass blocking, it's possible we won't have much of a chance to really use them as well as we might otherwise do with good pass blocking.

Pete recently said something along the lines of he wants our Offense to be the best in the league when things break down. I interpret that to mean there won't be much of an emphasis on pass protection in the longer term, so Wilson will probably not get the same opportunity as Luck to show what he can do in a standard Offense.
This will mean he will always be overlooked for the talented player he really is. That is, unless our Offense changes to more of a pass oriented Offense like other teams.

[HumanCockroach]

Am I the only person confused by the changing of the definition in the term "prolific offense"? I was taught, and spent the majority of my life believing that a "prolific offense" meant garnering yards, scoring points, accumulating first downs, and controlling the ball.... When did it change to "prolific offense" means throwing the ball fifty or sixty times a game? I missed the memo, as Seattle's offense routinely accomplishes what I grew up learning a prolific offense was, Bill Walsh must be rolling over in his grave, knowing that his offense wasn't one.

[kalibane]

Well I think society in general tends toward hyperbole these days. That being said I wouldn't call our offense prolific. I think the best term for it is highly efficient.

[NorthHawk]

We have had 2 players that made this Offense work.
Last year Lynch broke 130 tackles - the player closest to that total was 100.
Wilson ran for 850 yards with most of it not designed plays.
A bunch of those explosive plays that people talk about are Wilson scrambling and Lynch on a rampage and happened on the ground.
Depending on that to continue in my mind is foolish. It's why I want better OL performance.
Maybe with Graham and Matthews (if the playoffs were no fluke), we can get an aspect on Offense that will help make some of the opposing Defenses look away from focusing on those 2 players.
However, pass blocking will have to improve if we want to see a better overall pass Offense.

Someone last year brought up a stat that 75% of the sacks the Seahawks gave up were against a 4 man rush.
It seems to me that 2 things were probably at play:
1) The OL couldn't stop 4 DL with 5 OL.
2) The receivers couldn't get separation - or get it quick enough.

The OL talent level looks to be less than last year without Unger and unless Bailey takes a big step, the LG spot won't be any better, either.
The Jets seem to think that Carpenter is better at pass blocking than run blocking, so if true, we will have a lesser pass blocking line.

I think Wilson is probably worth more to Seattle than any other team because of the pass blocking deficiencies.
I'm glad he's signed for the next 5 years.

[Futureite]

Man, there is no way to logic this here. Ok, I get that. But you have a QB running for over 800 yds and every ex QB under the sun states that stunts development, and it's just somehow inapplicable to Russell Wilson. Last yr I read everyone under the sun here claim this would be RW's break out yr, he has Harvin, etc, you start out 3-3 as a pass first O and drop Harvin, and now the exact same arguments are brought up. There was a slow recoil from the shock of all that failing, then a rationalization of it, and finally a denial that it ever occured. Same story different yr!

He's had a couple big games but never come close to having proved he can carry an O. Other QBs can do that in part because they've had yrs of practice doing it, while you point and claim they're lesser QBs because they are tossing ints. The irony is, that very fact is the reason they ARE better than RW. They get the reps, more experience, and unlike RW they do not have legs that can be called upon to bail out themselves or their O. So, they learn a hell of a lot more about how to play the position and the nuances of it than a running QB does. Every QB under the sun has said this - from Warner, to Young, Brad amd Montana, yet somehow it doesn't apply to Russell Wilson.

Must be nice to have the best D, run game and sit back and claim your QB is on par with both of those units, just doesn't "need" to show it. Jesus; even Michael Jordan didn't become MJ until he had to over the course of a full season, over and over again. So far your guy hasn't, and even in big single game postseason crunch time games he's had a mixed bag of great and aweful performances.

[Futureite]

We have had 2 players that made this Offense work.
Last year Lynch broke 130 tackles - the player closest to that total was 100.
Wilson ran for 850 yards with most of it not designed plays.
A bunch of those explosive plays that people talk about are Wilson scrambling and Lynch on a rampage and happened on the ground.
Depending on that to continue in my mind is foolish. It's why I want better OL performance.
Maybe with Graham and Matthews (if the playoffs were no fluke), we can get an aspect on Offense that will help make some of the opposing Defenses look away from focusing on those 2 players.
However, pass blocking will have to improve if we want to see a better overall pass Offense.

Someone last year brought up a stat that 75% of the sacks the Seahawks gave up were against a 4 man rush.
It seems to me that 2 things were probably at play:
1) The OL couldn't stop 4 DL with 5 OL.
2) The receivers couldn't get separation - or get it quick enough.

The OL talent level looks to be less than last year without Unger and unless Bailey takes a big step, the LG spot won't be any better, either.
The Jets seem to think that Carpenter is better at pass blocking than run blocking, so if true, we will have a lesser pass blocking line.

I think Wilson is probably worth more to Seattle than any other team because of the pass blocking deficiencies.
I'm glad he's signed for the next 5 years.

He makes that Oline look a lot worse than it is because he holds the ball too long and tries to extend too many plays. Plus, he prefers to move. Even Greg Cosell ststed on air that RW's coaches will never tell you this, but have told HIM that RW has trouble seeing over the line, and thus has to move more to create vision lanes. Cosell also stated they have told him it limits what their O can do in the pass game.

Now of course I'm making this up, I'm using one person's opinion as substantiation like I always do, I'm a hater, I'm biased etc. In reality I prob have the most balanced and realistic opinion of him of anyone here.

On one hand you have a guy like HC who believes RW us Montana, despite the fact that Montana threw a gazillion times more than RW, was always in the top 10 uf not 5 in "inflated volume stats", and prob didn't rush fir as many yds in his entire career as RW did last yr.

On the other have you have me, who puts him 10-12 range and fully acknowledges he could potentially climb a lot higher OVER TIME if he played in the right system and could learn how to play traditional QB.

You tell me who is biased and who ia onpoint.

[mykc14]

you start out 3-3 as a pass first O and drop Harvin.

LOL, you really have no idea do you, do you even look at stats when you make these stupid claims to see if they could actually be true? Lets look at this claim of some sort of 'pass first offense' that somehow changed after the team went 3-3. So he had 174 of his 452 attempts in those first 6 games which is 38%. Lets see 6 games out of 16 is... 38%. LOL, LOL, LOL. That is way too funny. He actually had 38% of his attempts in 38% of the season. In other words the offense didn't go from some sort of 'pass first' offense to run first. It went from a run focused offense that had to TRY to get Harvin the ball to a run focused offense that didn't have to force the ball to Harvin. The amount of passing stayed the same throughout the whole season.

[Anthony]

[quote="Futureite"] you start out 3-3 as a pass first O and drop Harvin.


we went form avg 28 attempts in the first 6 games to 28 in the next 10 how did we change anything, All that changed were the types of pass plays. Answer it did not, its just another Future lie.