2 things need to be put to rest.....
- Thread starter RCATES
- Start date
Flyingsquad23
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,386
- Reaction score
- 587
RCATES":i8eux8c7 said:
Both of these claims are bogus.
TypeSly
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 0
Flyingsquad23":14pcnvyf said:
+1
BubbaGump
New member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2018
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with the original poster. What category has Russell improved in the last 3 years? I don’t see anything different and he has a vastly improved supporting cast and does not seem elite. I have been a huge Russ fan since his arrival but have come to the conclusion that he has hit his ceiling. I’m not saying he is trash but he is not elite. As for Pete, what can you say. His non ability to adjust his style of gameplay is his down fall IMHO.
Flyingsquad23
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,386
- Reaction score
- 587
Show me what...that they will still be winning at a higher rate than 90% of the league. Or maybe the awful luck of making the playoffs.
Go ahead and sit in your pity pool for the next 5 years so you can burn me with the accomplishments of a HOF coach.
Go ahead and sit in your pity pool for the next 5 years so you can burn me with the accomplishments of a HOF coach.
TwistedHusky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 6,917
- Reaction score
- 1,109
#1 Wilson would absolutely do better under an upper-tier offensive-minded coach.
#2 has no way to validate. Define 'contender'. Completely subjective word because everyone has a different definition of it and it also depends on when you are making the judgment.
Will Pete make another SB as a coach here? Of course not, but that is a weird benchmark. Few coaches make the SB repeatedly.
It makes no sense to expect Pete to win another conference championship. Of course not.
Will he win a division playoff game at some point in the future as a coach here? Unlikely. Possible but really unlikely because getting outcoached in the playoffs is much harder for his players to overcome.
But we are 'contenders' at the 3/4 point almost every year. Just not by the time the playoffs actually start.
#2 has no way to validate. Define 'contender'. Completely subjective word because everyone has a different definition of it and it also depends on when you are making the judgment.
Will Pete make another SB as a coach here? Of course not, but that is a weird benchmark. Few coaches make the SB repeatedly.
It makes no sense to expect Pete to win another conference championship. Of course not.
Will he win a division playoff game at some point in the future as a coach here? Unlikely. Possible but really unlikely because getting outcoached in the playoffs is much harder for his players to overcome.
But we are 'contenders' at the 3/4 point almost every year. Just not by the time the playoffs actually start.
The term "contender" makes little sense statistically. Where do you draw the line?
1% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Patriots/Vikings/Cardinals/49ers
2% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Dolphins/Raiders
3% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Colts/Browns
4% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Ravens/Bucs
6% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Seahawks/Titans/Bills/Rams
12% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Packers/Steelers
15% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Chiefs/Saints
All of these teams still have a chance this season, and we've seen plenty of champions over the years who had a relatively low percentage at this time of the year.
I suspect what fans usually mean when they say their team isn't a contender is "I was hoping we would be at a higher percentage right now, but because we are a lower percentage I don't want to get my hopes up. Therefore I am going to pretend it's 0% in order to save myself disappointment down the road."
1% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Patriots/Vikings/Cardinals/49ers
2% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Dolphins/Raiders
3% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Colts/Browns
4% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Ravens/Bucs
6% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Seahawks/Titans/Bills/Rams
12% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Packers/Steelers
15% likely to win the Super Bowl? - Chiefs/Saints
All of these teams still have a chance this season, and we've seen plenty of champions over the years who had a relatively low percentage at this time of the year.
I suspect what fans usually mean when they say their team isn't a contender is "I was hoping we would be at a higher percentage right now, but because we are a lower percentage I don't want to get my hopes up. Therefore I am going to pretend it's 0% in order to save myself disappointment down the road."
BubbaGump":l2lx4inl said:
The excuses for Russ have ran dry. Many Homers here will still cling to hope but he is what he is. No O-Line change, receivers or O-Cord is going to change a thing. He needs help to be successful. Glorified game manager.
Jerhawk
Well-known member
1. I blame the system more than Russ. Put Russ in the Chiefs system, and I'd argue he'd put up similar numbers to Mahomes.
2. If he refuses to adjust and bring in some better coordinators on both sides of the ball, then yes. If he can get some good Xs and Os types of coaches to be his coordinators, then things would improve. Actual game planning and in-game adjustments is what's lacking now.
2. If he refuses to adjust and bring in some better coordinators on both sides of the ball, then yes. If he can get some good Xs and Os types of coaches to be his coordinators, then things would improve. Actual game planning and in-game adjustments is what's lacking now.
Seymour
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 7,459
- Reaction score
- 22
RCATES":gnnejq8m said:
Took quite a while for the Russ haters to show their face with some weapons to support their claim...that is the good news. Since when does elite mean you can have no bad games? :roll: Pete called out Russ on the turnovers and now Russ is frozen in place with no oven left to cook on. Funny thing is, many were calling Rogers washed up just last year and now here he is again proving the haters wrong. Same thing will happen with Russ.
Having to pay an elite QB seems to be the way to stay competitive but a death knell for Super Bowl chances.
The Seahawks have made two Super Bowls in the Wilson era.
Packers in the Rodgers era - one.
Saints in the Brees era - one.
Colts in the Manning era - two.
Broncos in the Manning era - two (second one shouldn't count).
There is enough data to show, IMO, that the best strategy is to load up on talent around the QB and then not pay the QB, cycling through. Teams are terrified of this because of past bad QB play (every organization has suffered through it) - but, since I'm a Rams fan, I'll use the Rams - my argument was that A. Jeff Fisher was the coach and B. the talent we have on the roster would have allowed most QBs to excel.
Because what happens is that you pay a QB, and then slowly overtime their cast gets worse, and then everyone says "well of course the QB isn't playing well, look at his supporting cast" - it's a catch 22 that very few QBs can overcome.
But what do owners truly care about? Money - it's a business. What do great QBs bring? Playoff games, merchandise sales, and primetime exposure.
To me this summarizes it all:
To fans and owners - which would you rather have? A team that cycles through QBs and is a true Super Bowl contender once every four years, with a cycle that goes: high draft pick, 8-8, 10-6, 13-3 OR 10-6, 10-6, 11-5, 10-6
The fans would pick the first option (or at least I would), while the owners would pick the second, every time. The other issue is that neither is guaranteed, but the owner's choice is more likely, as Seattle has shown.
This could be worse - before the Saints had a historic draft class (which is what it took to break out of it for them), they went 7-9 four out of five years.
The Seahawks have made two Super Bowls in the Wilson era.
Packers in the Rodgers era - one.
Saints in the Brees era - one.
Colts in the Manning era - two.
Broncos in the Manning era - two (second one shouldn't count).
There is enough data to show, IMO, that the best strategy is to load up on talent around the QB and then not pay the QB, cycling through. Teams are terrified of this because of past bad QB play (every organization has suffered through it) - but, since I'm a Rams fan, I'll use the Rams - my argument was that A. Jeff Fisher was the coach and B. the talent we have on the roster would have allowed most QBs to excel.
Because what happens is that you pay a QB, and then slowly overtime their cast gets worse, and then everyone says "well of course the QB isn't playing well, look at his supporting cast" - it's a catch 22 that very few QBs can overcome.
But what do owners truly care about? Money - it's a business. What do great QBs bring? Playoff games, merchandise sales, and primetime exposure.
To me this summarizes it all:
To fans and owners - which would you rather have? A team that cycles through QBs and is a true Super Bowl contender once every four years, with a cycle that goes: high draft pick, 8-8, 10-6, 13-3 OR 10-6, 10-6, 11-5, 10-6
The fans would pick the first option (or at least I would), while the owners would pick the second, every time. The other issue is that neither is guaranteed, but the owner's choice is more likely, as Seattle has shown.
This could be worse - before the Saints had a historic draft class (which is what it took to break out of it for them), they went 7-9 four out of five years.
ducks41468
New member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 0
Literally every statistical measure since Russ has entered the league has placed him at or right near elite category. So yes, I would trust, I dunno, 9 years or so of extensive data over some off the cuff message board analysis.
Is he on the level of Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Mahomes, who all already are (or in Mahomes' case, soon will be) considered among the all-time greats? No. Welp I guess not being a top 10 all time QB now makes you a game manager. Guess 26 teams every year should start looking for a new QB then.
Carroll is also not at the level of Reid/Tomlin/Payton/Belichick, and comfortably and repeatedly admits to not preparing for games or making adjustments.
It's a function of both the coach and QB. Good QB's develop into great ones with elite coaching. Russ operates just below that threshold; he's flawed QB playing under a flawed coach and thus the combination of the two never reached their full potential. 98% of QB's never even get this far.
Is he on the level of Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Mahomes, who all already are (or in Mahomes' case, soon will be) considered among the all-time greats? No. Welp I guess not being a top 10 all time QB now makes you a game manager. Guess 26 teams every year should start looking for a new QB then.
Carroll is also not at the level of Reid/Tomlin/Payton/Belichick, and comfortably and repeatedly admits to not preparing for games or making adjustments.
It's a function of both the coach and QB. Good QB's develop into great ones with elite coaching. Russ operates just below that threshold; he's flawed QB playing under a flawed coach and thus the combination of the two never reached their full potential. 98% of QB's never even get this far.
RCATES":239kaojk said:
I do not see a problem with Russ I think pass protection has always been an issue during this era. Also teams are playing the Seahawks to pass and pass. Why are they not employing the running game. Mahomes and Rodgers have far better pass protection the only other QB playing as well as Russ statistically with poor pass protection is Deshaun Watson.
RCATES":1eyirwbn said:
1. RW is elite, he is easily top 3-4 QB at all times in the NFL. That is elite, BUT he is inconsistent. He has high highs, and low lows. The other QBs seem to be not as high highs as RW, but they certainly don't get shut down as hard as he does either. They also tend to play at a more consistent level throughout a single game itself vs RW we've seen time and time again be nothing for a few quarters and then light up for the last quarter.
2. My definition of contender is a top 4 team, top 2 teams in the AFC or top 2 teams in the NFC. I don't think since 2015 the Seahawks have been in the top 2 of the NFC. They were to start this year, but they certainly have dropped off hard and the EYE TEST is saying PC is going back to Pete-ball which usually results in a second round playoff exit. Last I checked a CONTENDER is in the NFCCG/AFFCG. "Never" is a strong word, but it's feel like Pete is consistent at creating a playoff team but not a contender.
I want to remind everyone who just likes to point at end win-losses as your justification for why we can't criticize things, just remember there was a time....when people were using the win-loss records and SB win to defend Bevell and Tom Cable while others noticed there was an issue there DESPITE the record and SB win. So yes...people are noticing there is an ISSUE with RW, he is inconsistent and Pete-Ball has it's limitations how far this team can go (without an elite defense and RB that can stay on the field).
