The Seahawks have given up

[Sharkonabicycle]

We weren't going to win with Wilson, period. Move on.

We got a pretty damn good haul back for someone who never led his team to a Super Bowl, never received a MVP vote, and doesn't fit the team's philosophy.

I've been saying since we traded him, just wait until about week 8-9 when the talking heads start saying, "Denver has to improve their OL to protect Wilson."

I love that everyone pretends Seattle did nothing to fix their OL over the years..... they not only tried but found it's IMPOSSIBLE to build a great OL around a guy like Wilson. There's a reason multiple times during his time with Seattle an all pro left tackle was visibly screaming at him after a play.... yah, because when your QB is dropping back 8+ yards and taking 8 seconds to locate a guy down field for a HUGE bomb and ignoring a simple over the middle pass... it's going to piss you off as an edge blocker lol.

 

[flyerhawk]

I thought I was clear in saying the NFL makes it extremely difficult to stay on top. Once a team makes it to the top of the mountain every player wants to be shown THE MONEY. Not only good pay, players wanted to be the highest paid at their position and that included Russell Wilson and to be the highest paid QB in the league is a difficult burden to over come for a team. Certainly makes it hard to maintain the quality of the roster, especially while others on the roster expected, demanded actually, to be rewarded richly also, That combined with picking at the tail end of draft rounds is a rather large obstacle to over come and that is why other teams have fallen off the path of success so often with the exception of one or two.
Pete has done a fantastic job of winning under the circumstances. While some want to give RW the credit for winning and Pete the blame for not winning enough, it is either unrealistic expectations or a bias against Pete philosophy combined with a age prejudice. Those folks are easy to spot because they'll repeatedly mention Petes age, describe his offense ( and sometimes his defense) as antiquated. Now this is where I strongly disagree with them. No one is reinventing the wheel in the NFL, Pete offense will work, has worked and will work in the future. He's still sharp and hasn't forgotten how to win. Yes I'm a believer in Pete and believe we'll rue the day we wished him gone, once he does retire.

I understand the claim. It just doesn't seem to comport with reality. The Packers have been consistently very good for the past several years despite having one of the highest paid QBs in the NFL. The Chiefs are very good and have a very highly paid QB.

Yes, hitting gold on a rookie QB that makes an immediate impact does give a team a window to build their team. But every team has to pay that QB after a few years or let them walk and hope to hit it big.

The teams that consistently are good are the ones that keep franchise QBs.

Pete's age is a real thing. And criticizing others for pointing that out is just a form of ad hominem. He's the oldest head coach of all time, not including some short term interims. And one of the coaches that was older than him owned the team.

Pete has been a great coach for us. The greatest in franchise history. But we should also be able to admit that questions about his willingness to adapt his philosophy are not without merit.

It just seems strange to me that you have such a strong conviction that Pete's system is perfectly fine. You seem to think that the problem was Russ I guess.

 

[flyerhawk]

I've been saying since we traded him, just wait until about week 8-9 when the talking heads start saying, "Denver has to improve their OL to protect Wilson."

I love that everyone pretends Seattle did nothing to fix their OL over the years..... they not only tried but found it's IMPOSSIBLE to build a great OL around a guy like Wilson. There's a reason multiple times during his time with Seattle an all pro left tackle was visibly screaming at him after a play.... yah, because when your QB is dropping back 8+ yards and taking 8 seconds to locate a guy down field for a HUGE bomb and ignoring a simple over the middle pass... it's going to piss you off as an edge blocker lol.

So Russ was the problem. OK. We'll find out this year.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

understand the claim. It just doesn't seem to comport with reality. The Packers have been consistently very good for the past several years despite having one of the highest paid QBs in the NFL. The Chiefs are very good and have a very highly paid QB.

The Packers over the course of Rodgers career have had less then ideal results which lead to a change at HC. Now in part because of Rodgers salary have lost his favorite target, but there seems to be some unhappiness with Adams over how things are going in GB also.
The Chiefs since Mahomes are on a similar path the Seahawks have already traveled. Got to the top of the mountain, got back to near the top only to fail, then not make it to the SB and now are losing Hill over money and having to make tough decisions with the roster.
So I contend they back my claims about highest paid QBs and how that impacts the roster decisions.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

I understand the claim. It just doesn't seem to comport with reality. The Packers have been consistently very good for the past several years despite having one of the highest paid QBs in the NFL. The Chiefs are very good and have a very highly paid QB.

Yes, hitting gold on a rookie QB that makes an immediate impact does give a team a window to build their team. But every team has to pay that QB after a few years or let them walk and hope to hit it big.

The teams that consistently are good are the ones that keep franchise QBs.

Pete's age is a real thing. And criticizing others for pointing that out is just a form of ad hominem. He's the oldest head coach of all time, not including some short term interims. And one of the coaches that was older than him owned the team.

Pete has been a great coach for us. The greatest in franchise history. But we should also be able to admit that questions about his willingness to adapt his philosophy are not without merit.

It just seems strange to me that you have such a strong conviction that Pete's system is perfectly fine. You seem to think that the problem was Russ I guess.

I have to start wondering if the new thing will be to do exactly what Seattle did... trade your aging overpaid QB.

The only team with a HOF QB that has done anything recently is the Patriots... and that's because Brady took discounts and did multiple contract restructures. The Packers, Chiefs, Seahawks, Saints (with Brees), all seem to have one thing in common. Won a Super Bowl and then the QB money kicked in and RIP team.

While the QB is the most important position on the field, there's 21 other guys that gotta get paid too.... and a QB taking up that much money really hamstrings things. I mean you look at the last couple decades... there really hasn't been a HIGHLY paid QB on any team with the exception of Tom who again, has taken contract hits.

Rodgers super bowl winning salary hit was around $7M. Brady was being paid $20M at the time. Eli outside of 2010 was never really paid that high. Brees was fairly cheap and then ballooned a year later. Did the Saints do anything after? Nope, got to the playoffs but that was it.

I dunno, it'll be interesting to see where the market for QBs goes. And nowadays it's expected if you draft a QB to just fuckin' march em' out there day 1. The 49ers had gpaarporlrrolrol but yah. I mean end of day a franchise cares about winning games to make the playoffs because ticket sales, and let's not pretend that's not what it's all about for owners... but ya have to start wondering if there's going to be a mentality change across the league.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

So Russ was the problem. OK. We'll find out this year.

Yah it'll be interesting this year to see how Russ does in Denver. When I read your last sentence of "We'll find out this year" that's what I'm curious on. Will Denver's OL receive criticism similar to how Seattle's did in the past given Wilson's playstyle (difficulty with pre-snap reads and constantly looking deep down field with aging legs)? Yah.... we will see. Cause that's what I'm betting on. The talking heads will start saying, "Denver needs OL help." And IMO it's not that they do, but that Wilson's playstyle leads to a lot of pressure/sacks.

For Seattle, we're going to be starting 3 new guys and a QB with hardly the arm talent that Wilson has so that can hardly be comparable to prior seasons... but it will be interesting to see Waldron's offense get going. The OL and Walker were VERY much Waldron led picks....

As for your bit of snarky reply in "So Russ was the problem. OK." IMO to some EXTENT, yes. That's why I brought up Duane Brown visibly yelling at him on the TV after he takes a sack while dropping 8 yards.... I'm not the only one that notices and the all pro left tackle sure as hell picked up on it too lol. Now don't get me wrong, Seattle has also just had some horrendous blocking at times, but I consider it a bit of shared responsibility given how Russ plays.

 

[flyerhawk]

The Packers over the course of Rodgers career have had less then ideal results which lead to a change at HC. Now in part because of Rodgers salary have lost his favorite target, but there seems to be some unhappiness with Adams over how things are going in GB also.
The Chiefs since Mahomes are on a similar path the Seahawks have already traveled. Got to the top of the mountain, got back to near the top only to fail, then not make it to the SB and now are losing Hill over money and having to make tough decisions with the roster.
So I contend they back my claims about highest paid QBs and how that impacts the roster decisions.

There is a flaw in your thinking here.

Only one team wins a Super Bowl every year. 31 other teams do not. So if we are using the standard of winning or not winning a Super Bowl to define success then we are going to be doomed to an never ending loop of mediocrity.

The Chiefs lost in the AFC championship game last year. They are still a very good team. They have been to at least the conference championship game 4 years in a row.

The Packers certainly haven't achieved the success they wanted to achieve. But they have been to 4 conference championship games in the past 8 years. When you are building a team that is what you are trying to do. Give yourself a chance to get to the Super Bowl.

IMO, the Seahawks have failed to do so. In part because they took some big swings that cost the team.

And, IMO, the biggest screw up they did was the Jadaveon Clowney debacle. Not so much the trade itself but their decision to not resign him and have no one to replace him. The team goes into camp and it becomes clear that the team has absolutely no pass rush. They make a panic move and wildly overpay for Jamal Adams.

Again, you can't have a team that relies on low risk offense and running the ball when your defense can't get off the field. When we ran that style offense in the SB years, we could afford some early 3 and outs because our defense would give the offense the ball back enough to let the running game wear the other team down. But you can't go 3 and out only to see the other team run a 15 play 8 minute drive even if they don't score. Because the Hawks defense wears down and the Seahawks offense gets no rhythm.

 

[flyerhawk]

I have to start wondering if the new thing will be to do exactly what Seattle did... trade your aging overpaid QB.

The only team with a HOF QB that has done anything recently is the Patriots... and that's because Brady took discounts and did multiple contract restructures. The Packers, Chiefs, Seahawks, Saints (with Brees), all seem to have one thing in common. Won a Super Bowl and then the QB money kicked in and RIP team.

The Packers have been to the conference championship twice in the last 3 years. The Chiefs have been to the conference championship game the last 4 years. How is that like the Seahawks? The Saints are similar in that they went through a drought of picking good players as well and the team struggled. Once they had some good players again, they were a SB contender again.

While the QB is the most important position on the field, there's 21 other guys that gotta get paid too.... and a QB taking up that much money really hamstrings things. I mean you look at the last couple decades... there really hasn't been a HIGHLY paid QB on any team with the exception of Tom who again, has taken contract hits.

Ummmm Matt Stafford is getting paid more than Russell Wilson.

Rodgers super bowl winning salary hit was around $7M. Brady was being paid $20M at the time. Eli outside of 2010 was never really paid that high. Brees was fairly cheap and then ballooned a year later. Did the Saints do anything after? Nope, got to the playoffs but that was it.

How bout Peyton Manning?

I dunno, it'll be interesting to see where the market for QBs goes. And nowadays it's expected if you draft a QB to just fuckin' march em' out there day 1. The 49ers had gpaarporlrrolrol but yah. I mean end of day a franchise cares about winning games to make the playoffs because ticket sales, and let's not pretend that's not what it's all about for owners... but ya have to start wondering if there's going to be a mentality change across the league.

The ideal situation is to have a great QB on a rookie contract. But that is lottery ticket
The 2nd best situation is to have a great QB long term.

Other situations make it close to impossible to win a SB.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

There is a flaw in your thinking here.

Only one team wins a Super Bowl every year. 31 other teams do not. So if we are using the standard of winning or not winning a Super Bowl to define success then we are going to be doomed to an never ending loop of mediocrity.

The Chiefs lost in the AFC championship game last year. They are still a very good team. They have been to at least the conference championship game 4 years in a row.

The Packers certainly haven't achieved the success they wanted to achieve. But they have been to 4 conference championship games in the past 8 years. When you are building a team that is what you are trying to do. Give yourself a chance to get to the Super Bowl.

IMO, the Seahawks have failed to do so. In part because they took some big swings that cost the team.

And, IMO, the biggest screw up they did was the Jadaveon Clowney debacle. Not so much the trade itself but their decision to not resign him and have no one to replace him. The team goes into camp and it becomes clear that the team has absolutely no pass rush. They make a panic move and wildly overpay for Jamal Adams.

Again, you can't have a team that relies on low risk offense and running the ball when your defense can't get off the field. When we ran that style offense in the SB years, we could afford some early 3 and outs because our defense would give the offense the ball back enough to let the running game wear the other team down. But you can't go 3 and out only to see the other team run a 15 play 8 minute drive even if they don't score. Because the Hawks defense wears down and the Seahawks offense gets no rhythm.

I don't claim the Seahawks ( or Pete) haven't made decisions that didn't work out, because obliviously they have. I do think some of these decisions have been driven by the obstacle of dealing with cap decisions that in part come with shelling out gobs of money to the QB . I still have confidence in Pete, I approve of the off season moves. I'm looking forward to the season, knowing that wins are going to be hard to come by, but having faith in the future.

 

[flyerhawk]

I don't claim the Seahawks ( or Pete) haven't made decisions that didn't work out, because obliviously they have. I do think some of these decisions have been driven by the obstacle of dealing with cap decisions that in part come with shelling out gobs of money to the QB . I still have confidence in Pete, I approve of the off season moves. I'm looking forward to the season, knowing that wins are going to be hard to come by, but having faith in the future.

I know this is the claim. I just don't see any evidence that supports the claim.

The real challenge for teams isn't the salary cap. The Rams have shown that to be true.

The challenge is amassing talent whether via FA, trades or the draft. Most NFL player careers are short lived. Which is why great defenses only last a few seasons.

You don't usually get great players from FA so I don't think that high priced QBs really are the problem.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

The Packers have been to the conference championship twice in the last 3 years. The Chiefs have been to the conference championship game the last 4 years. How is that like the Seahawks? The Saints are similar in that they went through a drought of picking good players as well and the team struggled. Once they had some good players again, they were a SB contender again.

Fair point, can't argue with that. Just saying they're not winning SBOWLs. You could argue Seattle was always a Super Bowl contender at least until recent years which was dicey given COVID and Wilson's age starting to show.

Ummmm Matt Stafford is getting paid more than Russell Wilson.

He is now, but I don't believe in 2021 Matt Stafford was making more than Wilson nor was his cap hit is large before signing his new contract. And sure enough, the Rams had to let a lot of players go this offseason.

How bout Peyton Manning?

I mean had the one SuperBowl in Indy against the lowly Bears and lost another. His contract in Denver was fairly affordable but he was annihilated by a Seattle team that was paying a QB < $1M lol.

The ideal situation is to have a great QB on a rookie contract. But that is lottery ticket
The 2nd best situation is to have a great QB long term.

Other situations make it close to impossible to win a SB.

Yah hard to disagree with you there. I just think Wilson's expiration date is going to be a little quicker than normal given his reliance on his legs with making plays happen. His signature spin move no longer seems to work as well, either.

 

[Judge Fudge]

I know I haven't said much on this, if anything.............

I never saw this as us "giving up" or "Rebuilding". More of like a "re tooling"

The plan as it was, was broken. It had been for a few years. We caught a few breaks in 19-20 to make the playoffs but it's clear we weren't the dominant team as years past.

Now we make a drastic move and fix some of the holes so that we could have a chance of competing better in the future

 

[HaroldSeattle]

The real challenge for teams isn't the salary cap. The Rams have shown that to be true

The Rams over coming the cap obstacle does not mean the salary cap isn't the problem. Lets see if that works out for them over time.

The challenge is amassing talent whether via FA, trades or the draft.

Correct and no one has the perfect solution. I feel rebuilding is more in Petes wheelhouse then maintaining, but he did at least OK at maintaining the roster, otherwise the Seahawks would have hit hard times long ago. Now it is back to rebuilding and they appear off to a good start.

 

[flyerhawk]

The Rams over coming the cap obstacle does not mean the salary cap isn't the problem. Lets see if that works out for them over time.

Well they went all in and emptied their draft pick cupboard. Can't do that perpetually. So they are almost certainly going to go through some pretty lean times in the not distant future. Could be next year if Donald retires.

Correct and no one has the perfect solution. I feel rebuilding is more in Petes wheelhouse then maintaining, but he did at least OK at maintaining the roster, otherwise the Seahawks would have hit hard times long ago. Now it is back to rebuilding and they appear off to a good start.

Well we really have no idea, do we? Everyone thinks their draft is good. So I don't think we can say we are off to a good start until we see these guys perform on the field. Honestly the only real difference this year to year's past is we had the Number 10 pick and the Seahawks actually followed consensus rather than their own goofy system.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Well we really have no idea, do we? Everyone thinks their draft is good. So I don't think we can say we are off to a good start until we see these guys perform on the field.

Which is why I said "they appear off to a good start".

 

[flyerhawk]

Which is why I said "they appear off to a good start".

Fair enough.

For me, I want to see them perform. I think recent drafts have been more promising but we still have a pretty small number of wins in our drafts over the past 6 or 7 years.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I think recent drafts have been more promising

Really? Because I don't feel recent drafts have been more promising.

 

[flyerhawk]

Really? Because I don't feel recent drafts have been more promising.

2021 was rough because we only had 3 picks.
2020 I liked Brooks, Taylor, Lewis and Robinson.
2019 had Blair, Metcalf, Barton and Homer
2018 Penny, Green, Dissly, Griffin, Flowers, Dickson

Metcalf, Brooks, and Taylor all have a chance of being Pro Bowlers. Griffing and Dickson are already Pro Bowlers.

2013-2016 was pretty bleak.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

2021 was rough because we only had 3 picks.
2020 I liked Brooks, Taylor, Lewis and Robinson.
2019 had Blair, Metcalf, Barton and Homer
2018 Penny, Green, Dissly, Griffin, Flowers, Dickson

Metcalf, Brooks, and Taylor all have a chance of being Pro Bowlers. Griffing and Dickson are already Pro Bowlers.

2013-2016 was pretty bleak.

Yeah this draft looks more promising then any of those IMO.

 

[flyerhawk]

This is encouraging.