Is Wilson generally unhappy with the run-based offense

[HawKnPeppa]

I think it is pretty simple. Russell Wilson doesn't care about stats. He cares about winning games and winning championships.

He also wants to get paid handsomely for those wins and championships.

If the rumor about him wanting to be the highest-paid player in the league is true, he's putting the cart before the horse. He needs to prove that on the field first.

And for the OP and Roland, he's holding until they fire Bevell :mrgreen:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Tannehil just got a huge contract, what has he proven?

 

[Anthony!]

That great but that is us, we do not have the weapons to have a heavy passing attack, if we did we would. Also in our offense if we are passing more it is because we are down not by design. Also those rushing numbers are skewed by Wilson himself. The point was, that someone said a team that passes more than they run does not win the SB often and there for you do not need a great Qb, that is incorrect as I have shown.

Incorrect, and laughably ignorant post about the Hawks' offensive philosophy.

We would have a "heavy" (I assume you mean more passing than running) pass offense if we had a different coach and maybe if our RB situation wasn't strong.

PC runs the ball, and seeks for balance. He's said it many times. He will NEVER have a "heavy" passing attack, no matter which QB he has.

Dude whats laughable is you, you really think if we had Calvin Johnson, and Graham we would not throw more? Of course we would. What we would not probably have is Lynch as they would not have given him the extra money eh wanted because we would not have needed to as we would have had the weapons to pass more. PC has said what he wants but he also plays the hand he has and he is not stupid enough unlike some people to not take advantage of having superior passing weapons. Thanks for the laugh though

 

[Anthony!]

Tannehil just got a huge contract, what has he proven?

Nothing but he is not naked Wilson.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

If he got that contract, Wilson should get no less than 20 mil a year. It's also about how the TEAM sees a guy, and what he brings to that team. His fit w/Seattle is unique.

 

[LymonHawk]

Tannehil just got a huge contract, what has he proven?

Perhaps the contract is not what you think it is?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-muc ... NlYwNzcg--

If the article is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, do you still want RW to sign a similar contract?

 

[LymonHawk]

Tannehil just got a huge contract, what has he proven?

Nothing but he is not naked Wilson.

Freudian slip? 8)

 

[Northhawk]

Is Rocket generally unhappy about the run based offense and is projecting his feelings on Wilson?

Is it possible Rocket secretly longs for a pass happy offense so he can enjoy watching Russell Wilson put up gawd awful gaudy numbers and is projecting that desire onto Russell Wilson?

Is it possible to have yet another offseason thread basesd on pure empty speculation without any backing evidence...a "what if" thread...to remind us just how terribly long the off season is?

Is it possible Russell Wilson got to the center of a tootsie roll pop in only two licks?

The world may never know.

This ^^^ Bravo Salish

 

[Rocket]

Is Rocket generally unhappy about the run based offense and is projecting his feelings on Wilson?

Is it possible Rocket secretly longs for a pass happy offense so he can enjoy watching Russell Wilson put up gawd awful gaudy numbers and is projecting that desire onto Russell Wilson?

Is it possible to have yet another offseason thread basesd on pure empty speculation without any backing evidence...a "what if" thread...to remind us just how terribly long the off season is?

Is it possible Russell Wilson got to the center of a tootsie roll pop in only two licks?

The world may never know.

This ^^^ Bravo Salish

So if I ask a hypothetical it's bad, but y'all making suppositions about me that's ok?? There's some weird MamaFudge's here... but that ain't news. Me, I long for BeastQuake runs... I love the crazy bastige myself.

I was just wondering. Pondering. Sorting the reality from the bull. Drawing conclusions. It's called critical thinking. Many oughta look it up. More ought to buy the book.

 

[Ad Hawk]

That great but that is us, we do not have the weapons to have a heavy passing attack, if we did we would. Also in our offense if we are passing more it is because we are down not by design. Also those rushing numbers are skewed by Wilson himself. The point was, that someone said a team that passes more than they run does not win the SB often and there for you do not need a great Qb, that is incorrect as I have shown.

Incorrect, and laughably ignorant post about the Hawks' offensive philosophy.

We would have a "heavy" (I assume you mean more passing than running) pass offense if we had a different coach and maybe if our RB situation wasn't strong.

PC runs the ball, and seeks for balance. He's said it many times. He will NEVER have a "heavy" passing attack, no matter which QB he has.

Dude whats laughable is you, you really think if we had Calvin Johnson, and Graham we would not throw more? Of course we would. What we would not probably have is Lynch as they would not have given him the extra money eh wanted because we would not have needed to as we would have had the weapons to pass more. PC has said what he wants but he also plays the hand he has and he is not stupid enough unlike some people to not take advantage of having superior passing weapons. Thanks for the laugh though

Attack the post, not the poster. Whether I am a laughable person or not, isn't relevant to this discussion. (I don't really care, you can't offend me; just play by the rules. Others here may care.)

I can see how the idea may be funny to you, since you think Pete would change his overall philosophy based on his weapons. While every coach would love to have the top receivers (or any position) in the league, even if he did, it wouldn't change his fundamental approach. Because he has created his team based on a philosophy of establishing the run, then attempting a few, longer, explosive passes. He hasn't gone after top receivers because he doesn't need them, though I'm sure he'd take them if they were cheap and available. You're right, we probably wouldn't be able to afford Lynch if he had Johnson and Graham both. But he wouldn't give up his RBs in the first place. We aren't in that situation now, and he won't create such a situation.Your argument is an easily revealed red herring; changing the subject to some hypothetical situation doesn't change current reality, nor what Pete has done with play-calling, drafting, contract-awarding, etc., that have all made your premise baseless.

As a last resort for one game, might he may pass more if he has no running backs left? Sure, but he won't put himself in that position in the first place. This would be the exception, and it sounds like you're thinking it would be a general rule.

The speculation in your post concerning what Pete would actually do is actually less reliable than speculation; it's assumptions are faulty. Since neither of us will get a chance to ask him directly, press conferences and interviews he's shared, post-game analysis, drafting, etc., will have to suffice to provide the evidence. All of these things show his philosophy. You can ignore all that data, but that doesn't make your speculation right, just more ignorant.

 

[Anthony!]

That great but that is us, we do not have the weapons to have a heavy passing attack, if we did we would. Also in our offense if we are passing more it is because we are down not by design. Also those rushing numbers are skewed by Wilson himself. The point was, that someone said a team that passes more than they run does not win the SB often and there for you do not need a great Qb, that is incorrect as I have shown.

Incorrect, and laughably ignorant post about the Hawks' offensive philosophy.

We would have a "heavy" (I assume you mean more passing than running) pass offense if we had a different coach and maybe if our RB situation wasn't strong.

PC runs the ball, and seeks for balance. He's said it many times. He will NEVER have a "heavy" passing attack, no matter which QB he has.

Dude whats laughable is you, you really think if we had Calvin Johnson, and Graham we would not throw more? Of course we would. What we would not probably have is Lynch as they would not have given him the extra money eh wanted because we would not have needed to as we would have had the weapons to pass more. PC has said what he wants but he also plays the hand he has and he is not stupid enough unlike some people to not take advantage of having superior passing weapons. Thanks for the laugh though

Attack the post, not the poster. Whether I am a laughable person or not, isn't relevant to this discussion. (I don't really care, you can't offend me; just play by the rules. Others here may care.)

I can see how the idea may be funny to you, since you think Pete would change his overall philosophy based on his weapons. While every coach would love to have the top receivers (or any position) in the league, even if he did, it wouldn't change his fundamental approach. Because he has created his team based on a philosophy of establishing the run, then attempting a few, longer, explosive passes. He hasn't gone after top receivers because he doesn't need them, though I'm sure he'd take them if they were cheap and available. You're right, we probably wouldn't be able to afford Lynch if he had Johnson and Graham both. But he wouldn't give up his RBs in the first place. We aren't in that situation now, and he won't create such a situation.Your argument is an easily revealed red herring; changing the subject to some hypothetical situation doesn't change current reality, nor what Pete has done with play-calling, drafting, contract-awarding, etc., that have all made your premise baseless.

As a last resort for one game, might he may pass more if he has no running backs left? Sure, but he won't put himself in that position in the first place. This would be the exception, and it sounds like you're thinking it would be a general rule.

The speculation in your post concerning what Pete would actually do is actually less reliable than speculation; it's assumptions are faulty. Since neither of us will get a chance to ask him directly, press conferences and interviews he's shared, post-game analysis, drafting, etc., will have to suffice to provide the evidence. All of these things show his philosophy. You can ignore all that data, but that doesn't make your speculation right, just more ignorant.

Yes because attacking the post of someone does not mean you are not attacking them. Dude get a clue you call my post laughable your calling me laughable. As to the rest of your post you said nothing, so there is nothing to respond to.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Yes because attacking the post of someone does not mean you are not attacking them. Dude get a clue you call my post laughable your calling me laughable. As to the rest of your post you said nothing, so there is nothing to respond to.

And...

Checkmate.

:th2thumbs:

 

[kearly]

I think it is pretty simple. Russell Wilson doesn't care about stats. He cares about winning games and winning championships.

He also wants to get paid handsomely for those wins and championships.

If the rumor about him wanting to be the highest-paid player in the league is true, he's putting the cart before the horse. He needs to prove that on the field first.

He would only be the highest paid player until the next QB signs a deal, and then the next, and then the next, and so on.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

I think it is pretty simple. Russell Wilson doesn't care about stats. He cares about winning games and winning championships.

He also wants to get paid handsomely for those wins and championships.

If the rumor about him wanting to be the highest-paid player in the league is true, he's putting the cart before the horse. He needs to prove that on the field first.

And for the OP and Roland, he's holding until they fire Bevell :mrgreen:

How much more proof does he need when he's had the best 3 year start in NFL history and is atop the passer rating for his early career. Yes he is supported by a good run game but this run game isn't the same without him as an option going for 7 yards a clip or scrambling to pass. He has a great defense to lean on but this great defense has had to lean on Wilson to close games too.

Say what you will, NO cart was ever BIGGER that was put before this little horse and NO horse has worked harder for cheaper!

 

[Blitzer88]

I'm sure he would like to air it out more, but I think he also realizes what the team philosophy is and that is to run the ball, control the clock and play defense.

 

[Anthony!]

I'm sure he would like to air it out more, but I think he also realizes what the team philosophy is and that is to run the ball, control the clock and play defense.

And rely on him to make big plays and pull our Arse out of the fire when we mess up

 

[drdiags]

Yes because attacking the post of someone does not mean you are not attacking them. Dude get a clue you call my post laughable your calling me laughable. As to the rest of your post you said nothing, so there is nothing to respond to.

Wanted to raise this point, because the history of this forum is that one can attack the post and not be seen as attacking the poster. When the post is called ignorant, the accepted way it was viewed by the mods was it didn't violate the attacking the poster no-no. It used to be in the Forum FAQ. If Pithy was still living he would point out this fact to you for clarity.

You may feel it is an attack on your view, and it probably is, but does not violate the rules laid out for forum behavior.

On topic, I think any QB would love to throw more. No one wants to be seen as a place-holder but rather a difference maker. I don't doubt that Wilson wouldn't mind having a little more freedom and volume in this offense. Beast will not be with him forever, he eventually will be expected to post volume like the others and it may not be here. I could see Pete stepping down in a few years and Wilson most likely is going to be playing much longer than that.

 

[Anthony!]

Yes because attacking the post of someone does not mean you are not attacking them. Dude get a clue you call my post laughable your calling me laughable. As to the rest of your post you said nothing, so there is nothing to respond to.

Wanted to raise this point, because the history of this forum is that one can attack the post and not be seen as attacking the poster. When the post is called ignorant, the accepted way it was viewed by the mods was it didn't violate the attacking the poster no-no. It used to be in the Forum FAQ. If Pithy was still living he would point out this fact to you for clarity.

You may feel it is an attack on your view, and it probably is, but does not violate the rules laid out for forum behavior.

On topic, I think any QB would love to throw more. No one wants to be seen as a place-holder but rather a difference maker. I don't doubt that Wilson wouldn't mind having a little more freedom and volume in this offense. Beast will not be with him forever, he eventually will be expected to post volume like the others and it may not be here. I could see Pete stepping down in a few years and Wilson most likely is going to be playing much longer than that.

except as the law reads, it is not about how you meant it but how it is taken, Example you tell a woman they look nice, they take it as sexual harassment, guess what it is. Same goes for liable, slander, and verbal attacks. If that was the "policy" than it was a bad policy, as all it did was allow some to hide behind it while still attacking the person.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Yes because attacking the post of someone does not mean you are not attacking them. Dude get a clue you call my post laughable your calling me laughable. As to the rest of your post you said nothing, so there is nothing to respond to.

Wanted to raise this point, because the history of this forum is that one can attack the post and not be seen as attacking the poster. When the post is called ignorant, the accepted way it was viewed by the mods was it didn't violate the attacking the poster no-no. It used to be in the Forum FAQ. If Pithy was still living he would point out this fact to you for clarity.

You may feel it is an attack on your view, and it probably is, but does not violate the rules laid out for forum behavior.

On topic, I think any QB would love to throw more. No one wants to be seen as a place-holder but rather a difference maker. I don't doubt that Wilson wouldn't mind having a little more freedom and volume in this offense. Beast will not be with him forever, he eventually will be expected to post volume like the others and it may not be here. I could see Pete stepping down in a few years and Wilson most likely is going to be playing much longer than that.

This was exactly my point earlier, Doc. Thanks for restating it maybe more clearly, and for reminding us of Radish's legacy here about the "post, not the poster" emphasis.

 

[LymonHawk]

...except as the law reads, it is not about how you meant it but how it is taken, Example you tell a woman they look nice, they take it as sexual harassment, guess what it is. Same goes for liable, slander, and verbal attacks. If that was the "policy" than it was a bad policy, as all it did was allow some to hide behind it while still attacking the person.

I disagree, Anthony: (surprise!) You've never said to a friend, "...now that's the stupidest thing I ever heard...,"?

Everyone, sometime or another, says something stupid. Does that make that person stupid? Of course not.

Do you think Einstein never said something stupid? Or Steven Hawking, Or Sheldon Cooper? Of course they have.

I won't even get into your take on The Law.