What will the Seahawks record be in 2022?

[flyerhawk]

They did, but that was possibly the worst 12 win team I have ever seen. There was 0 chance they were winning more than 1 game in the playoffs that year.

I'd guess they win 11 with a fully healthy Wilson last year but it was still going to be maybe 1 win in the playoffs and then done. That's pretty much all Seattle was destined for if they kept Russ. Always good for 10 wins, but never really a threat to win anything.

Wasn't Russ's fault per se, but it's hard to win with one guy eating up all the cap. They didn't get near enough in return from Denver IMO but I get the move and I think it needed to be done.

I'm not really interested in litigated the whole "should we have kept Russ" debate anymore. What's done is done.

But I'm also not going sit around and pretend that Russ was the problem with the team. And I'm not going to hope that we are a 2 or 3 win team just so we have a chance at getting one of the top QB prospects.

 

[MrS]

We lost the 2nd Super Bowl because of Wilson? Are you freaking serious?

Did you forget the part where he threw the game ending INT?

 

[flyerhawk]

Did you forget the part where he threw the game ending INT?

OK. No point taking you seriously if that is your point.

 

[MrS]

Cant deny the facts.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Did you forget the part where he threw the game ending INT?

Wouldn't have happened if the defense stopped the Pats in the final minutes. Lots of blame to be had for that second half.

 

[Screamin12th]

Wouldn't have happened if the defense stopped the Pats in the final minutes. Lots of blame to be had for that second half.

Yeah with out a doubt the defense lost the Hawks a chance at a repeat. They couldn't stop Brady at all in the 4th quarter and he just dinked and dunked them down the field. I think people forgot that Tom Brady threw 4 TD 2 in the 4th quarter and two drives one of 9 plays and one of 10 plays.
3rd and 14 Hawks D gave up a first, 3rd and 8 gave up another first, this was the first 4th quarter scoring drive. Pats were 8-14 in converting 3rd downs and had 22 firsts for the game and 21 of those were passing. 320 passing yards.. no one remembers that? 72 total plays for the Pats because the Seahawks defense couldn't get off the field in the 2nd half. No one remembers that? Only 53 plays for the hawks offense.... No one remembers that?

Hawks went into some kind of bullshit prevent for part of the 3rd and the whole 4th quarter.

Also Pete who is so risk adverse on offense that he took any and all chances away from the offense for 90% of the second half then to call a pass play when it mattered the most. People like to say "But he threw the INT" yes and Brady threw 2 of them so what. The Hawks should have never been in that position in the first place.

 

[Jikkle]

If Trey Lance is the starting QB for the 49ers, they're fucked. They have an incredible roster, but a QB problem. They shouldn't be trying to unload Jimmy G because IMO he's nothing more than a game manager, but Trey Lance will be a turnover machine.

Maybe I've bought too much into Hard Knocks but I hope/think the Lions will play inspired this year.

Lance will be a net positive over Jimmy G.

Now I don't buy into this he's a dark horse MVP candidate and he'll explode on the scene like Mahomes and Lamar did year 2 but he'll improve the running game because he himself is a threat with the ball in his hands and he can actually punish defenses that over-commit to stopping the run by hitting the deep ball.

He's going to have plays that wow you a game and plays where he throws behind an open guy on 3rd and 6 and make you groan. Just part of the growing pains of a guy that doesn't have much football under his belt and still refining his mechanics.

But Jimmy G was just like a pitcher with one really good pitch and that's it. Jimmy was excellent hitting guys like Deebo and Kittle down the middle of the field in that 10 to 20 yard range and that's it. Couldn't/wouldn't throw deep or really attack outside the numbers. He was also prone to making back-breaking INTs and while he had moments of being clutch he completely disappeared in the playoffs.

 

[Jikkle]

I went with 6 wins for you guys.

A glance at your schedule and I think the winnable games non-division games for you are:

Falcons, Lions, Giants, Panthers, and Jets

Two I see as I wouldn't put money on you but I wouldn't fall out of my chair if you won:

Saints and Raiders

The rest you definitely wouldn't be favored to win.

You're likely not going to beat all those guys that I consider beatable but probably most of them but you'll likely at least beat one team you have no business beating as most average to below average teams at least have one loss against a lesser opponent and at least one win against an opponent better than they are.

I'm guessing you'll win 1 or 2 divisional games.

One of those might be the Rams week 17 if they have nothing to play for and another might be the 9ers or Cardinals.

 

[Podunkparte]

I'm not really interested in litigated the whole "should we have kept Russ" debate anymore. What's done is done.

But I'm also not going sit around and pretend that Russ was the problem with the team. And I'm not going to hope that we are a 2 or 3 win team just so we have a chance at getting one of the top QB prospects.

His play wasn't the problem, but having to pay him $40M a year to stay certainly would have hindered our ability to build another quality team. That kind of money to 1 guy simply tips the scales too far to afford top talent at other positions and it's been shown time and again that you need more than just a top 5-7 QB to win consistently.

And with 2 1sts and 2 2nds next year, we're well within range to get a top QB prospect with 6 or 7 wins.

 

[flyerhawk]

His play wasn't the problem, but having to pay him $40M a year to stay certainly would have hindered our ability to build another quality team. That kind of money to 1 guy simply tips the scales too far to afford top talent at other positions and it's been shown time and again that you need more than just a top 5-7 QB to win consistently.

And with 2 1sts and 2 2nds next year, we're well within range to get a top QB prospect with 6 or 7 wins.

What teams win consistently without a top 5-7 QB?

 

[cdumler7]

His play wasn't the problem, but having to pay him $40M a year to stay certainly would have hindered our ability to build another quality team. That kind of money to 1 guy simply tips the scales too far to afford top talent at other positions and it's been shown time and again that you need more than just a top 5-7 QB to win consistently.

And with 2 1sts and 2 2nds next year, we're well within range to get a top QB prospect with 6 or 7 wins.

I would say the bigger issue is the lack of drafted players/traded for players actually panning out. Plenty of teams are winning with high priced QB's at the helm. They've also figured out how to surround that QB with quality talent by good evaluation in the draft and signing more role players in free agency. To me what I saw was the Seahawks trying to continue to operate like Wilson was on his rookie deal where they could take all the chances in the world with trades and not have it blow up the team. They didn't adjust once he got paid.

 

[MrS]

His play wasn't the problem

this is debatable. he was awful over the last half of 2020 and lost 8 games he started last year.

 

[flyerhawk]

I would say the bigger issue is the lack of drafted players/traded for players actually panning out. Plenty of teams are winning with high priced QB's at the helm. They've also figured out how to surround that QB with quality talent by good evaluation in the draft and signing more role players in free agency. To me what I saw was the Seahawks trying to continue to operate like Wilson was on his rookie deal where they could take all the chances in the world with trades and not have it blow up the team. They didn't adjust once he got paid.

And they had several drafts that were complete trash. You just can't whiffing on draft picks and continue to be a successful team.

I see the Saints as the perfect example of this. They win a Super Bowl. They were really good for a few years. Then they blew a few drafts and they were a marginal playoff team. Then they have a couple of very good drafts and they were Super Bowl contenders.

 

[cdumler7]

And they had several drafts that were complete trash. You just can't whiffing on draft picks and continue to be a successful team.

I see the Saints as the perfect example of this. They win a Super Bowl. They were really good for a few years. Then they blew a few drafts and they were a marginal playoff team. Then they have a couple of very good drafts and they were Super Bowl contenders.

Exactly. I know everyone is big on the Rams doing the "F Them Picks" thought process, but eventually that does hurt. They were very fortunate to not have any injuries to key players throughout the season. Also helps they have a very rich owner that allows them to manipulate the cap like crazy. Going to be interesting in a few years when maybe some of that comes back to bite them. I think of the Saints and Steelers and them struggling with the cap there for a couple of years because of going crazy for a couple of years trying to win a championship.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Plenty of teams are winning with high priced QB's at the helm

Some examples of high price QBs that had more success then Seahawks had with RW?

 

[cdumler7]

Some examples of high price QBs that had more success then Seahawks had with RW?

That is not what I said. What I did say was that plenty of teams are winning with high priced QB's. Someone earlier had commented that Wilson hindered the Seahawks ability to build a quality team. The fact that the Seahawks have been winning with what I would consider an average roster beyond Wilson shows just what a great QB can do. His pay is not why the Seahawks are struggling to build a roster. Bad management of draft capital and cap money are what have done that.

To me a great QB can get you to the playoffs almost every single season no matter the roster around them. Obviously can't be worst roster in history, but if they are a competent roster the QB can get them to the playoffs. It is in the playoffs that we really begin to see the quality of the rest of the roster. Manning had it a lot of years with the Colts where he could carry them to the playoffs, but the talent around him just wasn't always great especially on the defensive side of the ball. The two times he had a quality defense in the playoffs he won a Super Bowl. I don't view Brady as the most talented QB to ever play the game. He has though had some of the best rosters around him that make life much easier in the playoffs.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

That is not what I said. What I did say was that plenty of teams are winning with high priced QB's. Someone earlier had commented that Wilson hindered the Seahawks ability to build a quality team. The fact that the Seahawks have been winning with what I would consider an average roster beyond Wilson shows just what a great QB can do. His pay is not why the Seahawks are struggling to build a roster. Bad management of draft capital and cap money are what have done that.

His pay and the fact that Seahawks were picking near the end of rounds was the main reason for not hitting in the draft. Teams picking near the end of rounds all have the same problem. The premium positions have all the cream taken all ready, so you can either reach for a premium position, you can settle for a non premium position like say RB, or you can trade down ( or try), or you can trade the pick for a player. You see the Rams trading their first for like 6 years now, you saw the Chiefs pick a RB in the first (CEH), you see Pats trading down, or taking a RB or reaching. Right now you see the Chiefs and Packers having/choosing to move on from high price stars, this has much to do with how much they are paying the QB. Teams with high price QBs win similar to how the Seahawks were winning but not being able to do much more. Not a single team with a expensive QB can/has maintain a strong over all roster, they always end up making hard choices and letting expensive players at other positions leave IMO.
This year with better draft position the Seahawks draft (on paper) looks great.

 

[cdumler7]

His pay and the fact that Seahawks were picking near the end of rounds was the main reason for not hitting in the draft. Teams picking near the end of rounds all have the same problem. The premium positions have all the cream taken all ready, so you can either reach for a premium position, you can settle for a non premium position like say RB, or you can trade down ( or try), or you can trade the pick for a player. You see the Rams trading their first for like 6 years now, you saw the Chiefs pick a RB in the first (CEH), you see Pats trading down, or taking a RB or reaching. Right now you see the Chiefs and Packers having/choosing to move on from high price stars, this has much to do with how much they are paying the QB. Teams with high price QBs win similar to how the Seahawks were winning but not being able to do much more. Not a single team with a expensive QB can/has maintain a strong over all roster, they always end up making hard choices and letting expensive players at other positions leave IMO.

I would agree that there are more struggles once you pay a Qb. How can there not be to go from under $1 million a year to now in the $40 million range (soon to be $50 million). What you don't see is those teams trading away their prize QB because they see the rest of the roster being tough to develop. I mean there is reason the Packers fought so stinking hard to keep Rodgers this offseason. They know without him they are a bottom tier team even if they have a strong roster.

And this is why there are ebb and flows for those top teams going from playoff contender to Super Bowl contender and back and forth. Brady had a 10-year spot where he wasn't winning Super Bowls but the Patriots didn't all of a sudden kick him to the curve thinking he was the problem. Chiefs are figuring out now that Mahomes has been paid what they have to do to build the roster around him in a different way. To me there is nothing more valuable than having a top-10 QB in the NFL. You get that then you work to figure out the rest.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I would agree that there are more struggles once you pay a Qb. How can there not be to go from under $1 million a year to now in the $40 million range (soon to be $50 million). What you don't see is those teams trading away their prize QB because they see the rest of the roster being tough to develop. I mean there is reason the Packers fought so stinking hard to keep Rodgers this offseason. They know without him they are a bottom tier team even if they have a strong roster.

And this is why there are ebb and flows for those top teams going from playoff contender to Super Bowl contender and back and forth. Brady had a 10-year spot where he wasn't winning Super Bowls but the Patriots didn't all of a sudden kick him to the curve thinking he was the problem. Chiefs are figuring out now that Mahomes has been paid what they have to do to build the roster around him in a different way. To me there is nothing more valuable than having a top-10 QB in the NFL. You get that then you work to figure out the rest.

Yes teams don't trade away top QBs as a rule until they get rather old like Matt Ryan for example. Main reason is unlike RBs or WRs who are out of league when they hit 34 ( RW age this year) QBs who just sit in the pocket can get by with losing some of their mobility....unless mobility is a big part of their success like it is with RW. RW is/was a unique situation and I for one was for trading him and felt it had to be done while the Seahawks could still cash in on his trade value.
QBs are a catch 22 can't win without one and once you have to pay them, tough to do more then make the playoffs ( as the Seahawks did). Brady was unicorn as he has accepted under market value contracts much of his career. QBs as rule never do that.

 

[flyerhawk]

I would agree that there are more struggles once you pay a Qb. How can there not be to go from under $1 million a year to now in the $40 million range (soon to be $50 million). What you don't see is those teams trading away their prize QB because they see the rest of the roster being tough to develop. I mean there is reason the Packers fought so stinking hard to keep Rodgers this offseason. They know without him they are a bottom tier team even if they have a strong roster.

And this is why there are ebb and flows for those top teams going from playoff contender to Super Bowl contender and back and forth. Brady had a 10-year spot where he wasn't winning Super Bowls but the Patriots didn't all of a sudden kick him to the curve thinking he was the problem. Chiefs are figuring out now that Mahomes has been paid what they have to do to build the roster around him in a different way. To me there is nothing more valuable than having a top-10 QB in the NFL. You get that then you work to figure out the rest.

Exactly. A lot of Hawks fans have convinced themselves that it is better to not have 40 million in cap committed to a QB than to have a top level QB. Historically speaking, that hasn't been the case.