Is It Time To Sit Wilson?

[SlickRick]

If you don't sit him, and you never let him get healthy you have no chance.

0%

So you have to wonder if losing a few games might be worth potentially getting a healthy or healthier Wilson back. Because this Wilson will win you nothing.

He is slower. His line does him no favors. Being injured, he cannot continually bail out his OC.

AND You Are Going To Lose Anyway if you DON'T sit him. So why not at least let him recover while you lose?

Twisted husky quoted for truth

 

[WestcoastSteve]

If you don't sit him, and you never let him get healthy you have no chance.

0%

So you have to wonder if losing a few games might be worth potentially getting a healthy or healthier Wilson back. Because this Wilson will win you nothing.

He is slower. His line does him no favors. Being injured, he cannot continually bail out his OC.

AND You Are Going To Lose Anyway if you DON'T sit him. So why not at least let him recover while you lose?

Every game he has played we had a chance to win in the fourth quarter. Your point "that you are going to lose anyways" is false. Remind me of one time we have been blown out this year i will wait.

 

[MrThortan]

Watching the Chargers vs Denver game.... would rather have an injured Wilson that either QB on the field.

 

[SlickRick]

Gg all around nfl today

 

[thegreeninyoureye]

If there was a game to do it it was today!

 

[seahawkfreak]

It's so weird to me that there is such a divide. You guys need to look at the big picture. Wilson is not 100% healthy. Who is at this point? Boykin? You remember Russell Wilsons rookie year? You remember how hard it was to watch a game with half a play book? Picture that same thing now, only with a worse line and a coordinator who doesn't call the game to win.

The defense is epic and overworked, but guess what? They could do themselves a favor and get 3 and out every once in a while. They gave up points on the last SIX possessions. That needs some work. If you think things get better with Wilson out, you're willing to ignore everything I said above. He gives us the best chance to get points. Why we are not getting them is for a number of reasons. Let's fix the others before we look at Wilson as the problem.

You sit him, you're going to lose. I can almost guarantee that. How long do you need to before he's healthy again? 2-3 games? We're out of it by then. Might as well close him down for the year then. If he's healthy enough to play, you let him play. Sitting him just seems ridiculous, unless you fix the other problems while he's out. After all, it was his current line that got him injured to begin with.

Funny how such good rational can easily go through so many ears so quickly. I'm just thankful this team doesn't pick and choose what games are throwaways or decide which games are important. It seems some here feel we shouldn't even bother going to New England with a less than a 100% RW. Brilliant

Is it coincidence that a lot of the "put Wilson on the bench" following are original RW haters?

 

[SlickRick]

It's so weird to me that there is such a divide. You guys need to look at the big picture. Wilson is not 100% healthy. Who is at this point? Boykin? You remember Russell Wilsons rookie year? You remember how hard it was to watch a game with half a play book? Picture that same thing now, only with a worse line and a coordinator who doesn't call the game to win.

The defense is epic and overworked, but guess what? They could do themselves a favor and get 3 and out every once in a while. They gave up points on the last SIX possessions. That needs some work. If you think things get better with Wilson out, you're willing to ignore everything I said above. He gives us the best chance to get points. Why we are not getting them is for a number of reasons. Let's fix the others before we look at Wilson as the problem.

You sit him, you're going to lose. I can almost guarantee that. How long do you need to before he's healthy again? 2-3 games? We're out of it by then. Might as well close him down for the year then. If he's healthy enough to play, you let him play. Sitting him just seems ridiculous, unless you fix the other problems while he's out. After all, it was his current line that got him injured to begin with.

Funny how such good rational can easily go through so many ears so quickly. I'm just thankful this team doesn't pick and choose what games are throwaways or decide which games are important. It seems some here feel we shouldn't even bother going to New England with a less than a 100% RW. Brilliant

Is it coincidence that a lot of the "put Wilson on the bench" following are original RW haters?

Last statement you made is an opinion, never ever been a russell wilson hater, I think hes one hell of a Qb. 0 Td in last couple of games is a fact no hating, just wish he could get some rest in

 

[seahawkfreak]

It's so weird to me that there is such a divide. You guys need to look at the big picture. Wilson is not 100% healthy. Who is at this point? Boykin? You remember Russell Wilsons rookie year? You remember how hard it was to watch a game with half a play book? Picture that same thing now, only with a worse line and a coordinator who doesn't call the game to win.

The defense is epic and overworked, but guess what? They could do themselves a favor and get 3 and out every once in a while. They gave up points on the last SIX possessions. That needs some work. If you think things get better with Wilson out, you're willing to ignore everything I said above. He gives us the best chance to get points. Why we are not getting them is for a number of reasons. Let's fix the others before we look at Wilson as the problem.

You sit him, you're going to lose. I can almost guarantee that. How long do you need to before he's healthy again? 2-3 games? We're out of it by then. Might as well close him down for the year then. If he's healthy enough to play, you let him play. Sitting him just seems ridiculous, unless you fix the other problems while he's out. After all, it was his current line that got him injured to begin with.

Funny how such good rational can easily go through so many ears so quickly. I'm just thankful this team doesn't pick and choose what games are throwaways or decide which games are important. It seems some here feel we shouldn't even bother going to New England with a less than a 100% RW. Brilliant

Is it coincidence that a lot of the "put Wilson on the bench" following are original RW haters?

Last statement you made is an opinion, never ever been a russell wilson hater, I think hes one hell of a Qb. 0 Td in last couple of games is a fact no hating, just wish he could get some rest in

I didn't want to point out one individual.

 

[erik2690]

Dude,

0 TDs is sucking *ss.

250 yds is journeyman #s. Most rookies throw for over 200 their first games, even on "bad" games.

0 TDs and 1 INT is gutter #s.

Not sure what you consider sucking, but since the purpose of the offense is to march up the field and score and the real intent is to score TDs - the inability to score TDs is a big problem when either the QB is broken or has some weird Ciara Curse on him.

Ciara curse? Jesus Christ you sound dumb.

 

[TwistedHusky]

I think he is referring to me. But I was never a Wilson 'hater'.

I was a "Lynch is more important to this team than Wilson so quit trying to give the keys to Wilson" guy.

And I was right.

Trying to pass the team off to Wilson cost us one SB win and ever since Lynch left Wilson hasn't done near as well. We were great because of Lynch and the defense. That ended up being something I was dead right on.

That said, we gutted our OL and we won't fire our OC, which is probably why Lynch left. So we have Wilson as the most important player on the team. But an injured Wilson not scoring touchdowns is a worthless Wilson.

So either you sit him and let him heal, because we are losing these games anyway, or you keep him on the field getting beat up by a substandard OL and he never gets to be 100%. Of course without Russ at 100% we stand 0% chance of winning anything of note in the playoffs but whatever.

It was never an argument that Boykin could be as good as Wilson, but I think he could easily match or exceed the amazing total of 0 TDs that Russ has racked up in the past few games.

 

[Jville]

:177692: I don't buy into any theory that Lynch left because someone ran him off.

It's my understanding that he retired because his body was breaking down and his energy delivery was in decline.

 

[TwistedHusky]

You are right.

He loved it here.

That is why he is famous for flipping off his OC, right?

And why the line from a bunch of people in his camp right after the SB was that they tried to make Wilson the hero instead of giving the ball to Marshawn so he could win it. I believe even Mama Lynch was making allusions this theory right after the SB.

It wasn't until Lynch started quashing it and even joking about it that the rumors died down.

And if you are Lynch and you watch them rip a giant hole in the line you depend on blocking for you, then what? Then you spend one more year trying to make it work but getting hit behind the line on damn near every carry, taking way more hits than normal...of course you leave right after.

But the reality is, if this team knew what it had and quit trying to make the Wilson the highlight piece, we would have one more if not TWO more SB wins. Lynch brought us to 2 SBs. Wilson having his best year ever without Lynch? Got us to wildcard game we lucked into winning.

We have Wilson not Lynch, so no control there. But I was not in any obvious rush to make Wilson the centerpiece instead of Lynch because I knew damn well that both our defense AND our offense won because of Lynch complemented by Wilson.

So when there was the Lynch vs Wilson where do we put our eggs debate I ALWAYS sided with the former instead of latter, because that is right call. Wilson is a great QB, transcendent. But our engine required Lynch and anything that moved resources/emphasis from him to favor Wilson? Big Big Mistake.

 

[erik2690]

Trying to pass the team off to Wilson cost us one SB win and ever since Lynch left Wilson hasn't done near as well. We were great because of Lynch and the defense. That ended up being something I was dead right on.

What does this even mean? Last year without Lynch the offense and Wilson particularly was historic. So are you limiting this assessment to 7 games where Wilson has been hurt? Otherwise what are you talking about?

And if you are Lynch and you watch them rip a giant hole in the line you depend on blocking for you, then what? Then you spend one more year trying to make it work but getting hit behind the line on damn near every carry, taking way more hits than normal...of course you leave right after.

But the reality is, if this team knew what it had and quit trying to make the Wilson the highlight piece, we would have one more if not TWO more SB wins. Lynch brought us to 2 SBs. Wilson having his best year ever without Lynch? Got us to wildcard game we lucked into winning.

We have Wilson not Lynch, so no control there. But I was not in any obvious rush to make Wilson the centerpiece instead of Lynch because I knew damn well that both our defense AND our offense won because of Lynch complemented by Wilson.

So when there was the Lynch vs Wilson where do we put our eggs debate I ALWAYS sided with the former instead of latter, because that is right call. Wilson is a great QB, transcendent. But our engine required Lynch and anything that moved resources/emphasis from him to favor Wilson? Big Big Mistake.

Your absolute arrogance in these conversations is amazing honestly. 'I had an opinion and it was right'.........yeah. It's almost like you ignore RB lifespan vs. QB lifespan too which is very odd. And what is this second SB that we missed out on b/c of Wilson? Last year? 2012? I don't man a lot of your posts are super dramatic in a way I can't understand.

 

[TwistedHusky]

And that historic offense got us what?

A lucky win in the wildcard and almost embarrassed in the next game.

So the question to ask is, so what? We scored a lot but we also gassed our defense so we gave up lots of scores. Net result? We lost too many games, but no worries, people with Wilson on their fantasy team got big points.

Look, if you could not recognize the team trying to rush a HOF quality RB off the stage so that it could highlight the QB, then you are not observant enough to merit having your opinion being considered.

Lynch DID get hurt before we let him go. But the question is whether ripping out a key OL asset to focus more on the passing attack hastened that. I believe it did. You believe it did not? Fair enough.

But the result is, without Lynch Wilson was better, but the team was worse. Now we lost other guys (notably Kam) so it isn't a perfectly fair comparison but clearly both Lynch and Wilson masked issues with the offense and those issues ended up draining our defense to the point they fell apart at the end of games.

But with a RB battering down the opposing defense and keeping our defense rested, those issues were hardly as large were they?

Trading our center for a freaking TE was a sign we were going to focus more on the passing game, and we did. But that was tremendously detrimental to team success and that should have been evident before the trade.

All the signs pointed to a team that was moving away from the RB to trying to put all bets on the QB, before the QB was ready.

You know and I know that if they give that ball to Marshawn in the SB to bulldoze his way into the EZ, we win that SB. Maybe not 100% certainty but certainly at least 80% certainty. Now was that because they wanted Wilson to score the TD and get the credit or just Bevel being an idiot?

But apparently, instead of focusing on what lost them the game (abandoning the RB) we focused on doubling down on the QB. Even though we knew we already lost one SB by trying to bet everything on our QB.

The question is whether Lynch, if given an OC that was somewhat more competent, would have gutted it out? I think considering how weak the SB competition was last year? We would have romped over those teams with a decent OL and Lynch + Rawls. That would have been SB win #3. But hindsight is 20/20.

What isn't 20/20 is that Wilson doing the best he ever has, with the most weapons he ever had - got us one lousy wildcard game that we got lucky to win - not even because he was not great, but because we gutted his line to get him a damn TE.

 

[erik2690]

And that historic offense got us what?

A lucky win in the wildcard and almost embarrassed in the next game.

Ok you seem to be under this weird assumption that non-SB win is a failure that's insane. It's a 1 game elimination sport. Which is awesome, but that doesn't make losing in the playoffs some sort of horrific failure of a season. "Wilson hasn't done near as well" was your exact quote and you are now spinning that to mean didn't win enough playoff games. That isn't reasonable. The offense was objectively good last season. It doesn't guarantee you wins, which seems obvious.

So the question to ask is, so what? We scored a lot but we also gassed our defense so we gave up lots of scores. Net result? We lost too many games, but no worries, people with Wilson on their fantasy team got big points.

Are you purposefully misrepresenting the season or just not remembering? We didn't lose b/c our offense was good. We lost our games early when the offense wasn't working that great (like a lot of games Lynch actually played in....oops). Why are you talking about Fantasy points? When Wilson was clicking best we won games, it wasn't an either or situation at all. I don't know why you are re-writing what occurred just a year ago. We went 2-4 to start the year and the biggest TOP discrepancy was 10 min and we won the TOP by 9 min in our first loss. The only game we lost late in the season once the offense was hot was STL and we won TOP by 5 min. I honestly don't know what your logic was here. The whole scoring more equals worse defense just doesn't hold water at least for the 2015 Hawks season.

Look, if you could not recognize the team trying to rush a HOF quality RB off the stage so that it could highlight the QB, then you are not observant enough to merit having your opinion being considered.

Lynch DID get hurt before we let him go. But the question is whether ripping out a key OL asset to focus more on the passing attack hastened that. I believe it did. You believe it did not? Fair enough.

Are PCJS lying when they say they weren't keeping Unger either way? He was banged up frequently, and how would a bad center also not negatively impact the QB? You are acting like the front office were saying 'Yeah, but it will only be bad for Marshawn' behind the scenes. I doubt that was the thinking at all. They saw a trade they liked and took it.

But the result is, without Lynch Wilson was better, but the team was worse. Now we lost other guys (notably Kam) so it isn't a perfectly fair comparison but clearly both Lynch and Wilson masked issues with the offense and those issues ended up draining our defense to the point they fell apart at the end of games.

But with a RB battering down the opposing defense and keeping our defense rested, those issues were hardly as large were they?

Wait but Wilson wasn't that great at the start, so what are you talking about. Wilson caught fire later in the season and in fact much of it with Graham out so this logic falls a part a bit. Both the team and Wilson were average early. Both the team and Wilson were very good in the back half. You seem to be mixing up parts of the season. Lynch was there several of the first few games, including when Kam was out. Again you seem to be jumbling up parts of the season. Wilson didn't like come out on fire b/c he had Graham.

Trading our center for a freaking TE was a sign we were going to focus more on the passing game, and we did. But that was tremendously detrimental to team success and that should have been evident before the trade.

All the signs pointed to a team that was moving away from the RB to trying to put all bets on the QB, before the QB was ready.

This portion is fully just BS opinion and little facts. "Not ready" is completely an opinion and not agreed upon at all. Also I don't feel like you are objectively right. First 4 games with Graham we went 127 pass, 117 run. More than 25 rush attempts every game. There wasn't some huge disparity. And I believe Lynch was hurting by the 2nd or 3rd game too so that affects philosophy a bit. I think the fact that they were still running 25 times at worst with a UDFA back shows they weren't trying to go pass heavy at least to the extent you make it seem.

You know and I know that if they give that ball to Marshawn in the SB to bulldoze his way into the EZ, we win that SB. Maybe not 100% certainty but certainly at least 80% certainty. Now was that because they wanted Wilson to score the TD and get the credit or just Bevel being an idiot?

But apparently, instead of focusing on what lost them the game (abandoning the RB) we focused on doubling down on the QB. Even though we knew we already lost one SB by trying to bet everything on our QB.

You are seemingly embracing very silly conspiracy and also kinda just pulling BS 'stats' again. I certainly think run is a fine option but why 80%? Marshawn was 1 for 5 from the 1 that year and they had their goal line heavy defense in. I'm not putting a % on it, but I don't know how you came up with 80%. They didn't abandon the RB, holy shit how are you conflating the idea that on a specific play they should have gone run over pass with "abandoning the RB"? That's a giant leap and silly. 'Trying to bet everything on the QB'? Where do you come up with these dumb phrases. I feel like you want these statements to read like facts despite them having no factual elements. We ran more than we passed that game, Marshawn had 24 carries. We made a play call you didn't like. To string that out into this huge philosophy/conspiracy narrative is very weird. The stats don't support any of it.

This should be a very simple question to answer and I think it would help me get a grasp of how the hell your mind works on this subject. 3 weeks before the SB we put on a very good performance against CAR and Lynch only got 14 carries that game. Were the coaches "abandoning the RB" that game?

 

[TwistedHusky]

Remember the quote about someone using statistics to lean on instead of illumination? Well you are entering that territory. It isn't about #s it is about what the defense is focused on. In the SB win, Lynch was not very good at all. They were stopping him regularly, but it opened things up for Wilson to slice them apart.

Same thing with Carolina, because they had to keep most of their assets near the line to stop Lynch and they spent the entire week practicing to stop him. But it didn't matter because the Carolina secondary sucked, which is why we passed all over them. Not sure what you are getting at, other than your ability to Google statistics.

Are you seriously trying to imply that because we passed more against a team with a suspect secondary that must mean our HOF runner did not have an impact?

But lets ignore this, the salient #s are THIS: 6 - that is the # of passing TDs we have this year. Which is terrible, only worse than one team in the entire NFL. So clearly gutting our line to give Wilson all the bells & whistles didn't work.

What is hilarious is you are trying to argue opinion for a subjective assessment. I believe that keeping Unger would have kept Lynch, at least for a little longer. You don't. I tried to concede that other factors contributed to the slide. You seemed to use it as an indicator that I was conflating facts but then you go on some weird tangent trying to argue an almost inarguable point that we shouldn't have known better?

And then, start to argue that Wilson over Lynch wasn't a terrible decision? Arguing that not going to Lynch did not cost us that SB?

That even though Marshawn has always been tremendous on the GL and even though NE had a pretty suspect run defense and even conceded that the move probably screwed us afterwards, that it was reasonable? Go back through the history of this site and you can see threads tens of pages long outlining why it was stupid. Or you can Google it.

Now if you want to argue we wouldn't have made it last year? Sure. I believe we would but neither of us can prove anything.

What I can prove is that Wilson having great numbers didn't mean sh*t to the outcome because he put up the best #s ever and we still flopped. Unless you want to count a lucky miss from inside the 30 anything but luck?

The bottomline you cannot argue because it is rooted in fact, ever since we let Lynch go this team has never again accomplished what it did while it had Lynch. We made 2 SBs with him. With our best Wilson ever, we made a wildcard.
But we have Wilson and not Lynch, was that something that could have been changed to keep both longer? I believe so but who knows how the politics impacted the roster and decisions.

 

[knownone]

So let me get this straight... You wanna bench Wilson because of some weird grudge you've been holding onto since 2014?

So it isn't about Boykin, or Wilsons health, it's about Lynch? The guy who is currently retired... wait what? I can understand wishing the Hawks handled the Lynch situation differently, but to use it to justify your rapidly changing position to bench Wilson is eerily close to diving off the deep end.

 

[Steve2222]

EVERYTHING about Wilson's play says to sit him.

You honestly don't think Boykin could have scored more against the Cards?

How many TDs did Wilson get us today?

Wilson is playing worse than whoever is playing for the Browns.

You sit him not because the other guy is better, but because sitting him gets him healthy and a healthy Wilson is one of the better QBs in the league. But an injured Wilson is one of the worst QBs in the league.

This is a pretty bad post

 

[TwistedHusky]

Grudge?

Wilson won us a SB.

But an injured Wilson sucks. SUCKS. And at least with Boykin playing we have a chance to get Wilson to rest and healthy (prefer TJack but we made that bed).

Because if Wilson does not heal? We have zero chance. He isn't good enough to win in spite of injury and our shoddy line isn't helping. The only shot we have (if we have one still) is to rest Wilson, get him 100% and hope he can somehow Superman us up to winning some games in the playoffs.

But how do you heal if you are constantly getting slammed around, having people fall on you and having to run for your life on injured legs constantly?

 

[erik2690]

Are you seriously trying to imply that because we passed more against a team with a suspect secondary that must mean our HOF runner did not have an impact?

No. I'm trying to get you to say what you just did. We won 3 weeks prior to the SB and there was no "abandoning the RB" it was just the game dictating plays. But suddenly 3 weeks later we "abandoned the RB". I was making the point that saying that was silly. And this game you are playing of Marshawn made Wilsons life easier, but never really saying the other way around is a fairly transparent bias. It was a reciprocal relationship.

But lets ignore this, the salient #s are THIS: 6 - that is the # of passing TDs we have this year. Which is terrible, only worse than one team in the entire NFL. So clearly gutting our line to give Wilson all the bells & whistles didn't work.

Why are you trying to make 7 Wilson injured games some sort of referendum on philosophy? Sample size matters. We only had 8 TD's passing at this time last year and 3 more INT's. You are making a small sample size with an injured QB sound like something much more drastic than it is.

What is hilarious is you are trying to argue opinion for a subjective assessment. I believe that keeping Unger would have kept Lynch, at least for a little longer. You don't. I tried to concede that other factors contributed to the slide. You seemed to use it as an indicator that I was conflating facts but then you go on some weird tangent trying to argue an almost inarguable point that we shouldn't have known better?

What slide are you talking about? We lost in the same round as in 2012. Again this idea that you go to the SB every year is something you should probably try to get around. 10-6 without Marshawn is not much of a slide. Are you implying that not having Unger injured Marshawn? You haven't made that very explicit. If so it's a weird notion considering how often Unger was injured during Marshawn's tenure.

And then, start to argue that Wilson over Lynch wasn't a terrible decision? Arguing that not going to Lynch did not cost us that SB?

That even though Marshawn has always been tremendous on the GL and even though NE had a pretty suspect run defense and even conceded that the move probably screwed us afterwards, that it was reasonable? Go back through the history of this site and you can see threads tens of pages long outlining why it was stupid. Or you can Google it.

You sure are condescending. I don't need to Google it. I have heard plenty on both sides of the argument. Just FYI citing threads on this site doesn't make anything I said less true. 1 for 5 is a fact and them having their heavy goal line is a fact. I said nothing else. You are the one that tried to pull a percentage out for some reason. That's all I was suspect of was how the heck you get to a specific % of likelihood on that.

What I can prove is that Wilson having great numbers didn't mean sh*t to the outcome because he put up the best #s ever and we still flopped. Unless you want to count a lucky miss from inside the 30 anything but luck?

The bottomline you cannot argue because it is rooted in fact, ever since we let Lynch go this team has never again accomplished what it did while it had Lynch. We made 2 SBs with him. With our best Wilson ever, we made a wildcard.
But we have Wilson and not Lynch, was that something that could have been changed to keep both longer? I believe so but who knows how the politics impacted the roster and decisions.

Again what are you talking about? You can't compare 1 season to 3 seasons and then act like it's equal. Lynch as a centerpiece in 2012 and we got to the same place in the playoffs so I don't understand your logic here. Again it is a single elimination sport. Not making a SB is likely. The fact that you are making that a referendum on Lynch vs. Wilson is frustratingly dense. That's just not how things work in a team sport. When we don't make a SB 1 year (Lynch was still on the team in fact) it's Wilson's fault or at the least a lack of Marshawn. If we make a SB it's credited to Marshawn. And again I have no clue why 2012 is never mentioned by you. Seems weird to leave it out since it was Lynch's most prolific rushing year w/ Wilson and we lost in the same round as 2015. Hmm, I guess our best Lynch only gets us to the Divisional playoff game. Lynch then slacked off in 2013 and 2014 as Wilson increased his productivity and got us those #1 seeds (lol). We can all paint the bias narratives we want, I learned from the best.