Never thought I'd say this, but...

[flv2]

Of all the arguments we could make, this is probably the most underrated. We aren't wasting another year, scratching our heads, with no clear answer about whether it is Russ or Pete holding us back on offense.

We have the answer and the cash and the picks to move forward. Without the trade we have none of the three.

There was a difference in how the offense performed in 2021 with and without Penny at RB. We'll see how that works out in 2022.

 

[Hollandhawk]

Lol. Ok they are 2-3. So are the Broncos. Does that make your thin skin feel better?

Very much so. I was obviously extremely upset about it.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Very much so. I was obviously extremely upset about it.

Glad I could ease your pain

 

[Vesuve]

Well, that an easy one… they asked John63. Seems pretty obvious.

John has not seemed to do well at this.

 

[bigskydoc]

The argument that Wilson had some aort of leverage to clean the coaching house is pretty ludicrous. Wilson was under contract and, while he could refuse to be traded to an undesired team, couldn't technically even force a trade.

The only leverage he had was informing the team that he wouldn't sign any further contracts with the Seahawks. That could push the team into trading him before his contract was up, to get some sort of return.

They could easily have forced him to play out his contract under the current coaches and front office, even franchising him, if they wished. His options were play the best he could, purposely play poorly, sit out. Options 2 and 3 would have killed his opportunity at landing that next, big contract.

I really don't see what leverage he had to force organizational changes.

 

[keasley45]

The Hawks should be 1-4. I'm sure Wilson could manage that.

The could be 4-1. Can do this all day.

 

[keasley45]

The offense is better. The team isn't.

The defense looks almost historically bad. By just the math, replacing Pete with a random NFL coach bringing a random NFL nets us a better result. It would be tremendously difficult to be worse than the worst defenses ever. Though Pete has had a funny trend of being the architect of some of the worst defenses ever. So there is that.

(Also, some of you act as if this roster was foisted upon Pete. That he is doing the best he can with what he has. This roster is his fault. Some of the problems are due to decisions that Pete made with the roster before the season. But much is the staff. This defense is literally his fault)

So yes, replacing Pete would have almost assured us a better defense. Would it be a good defense? With all the holes likely not. Would we be better as a team? Probably be at least 2 wins by this point.

I honestly think it is funny that people are fawning over the offense being better but not realizing that the defense being this bad means we are in such a worse position than we ever expected at the start of the year. This doesn't fix in 1 year almost assuredly, no matter who your QB is.

For all the laughing and jeering about Wilson, Pete is just as terrible so far - in terms of actual results. Both teams are probably going to end up at .500 and that will be the amusing thing.


BTW
Team 3 would never have stayed on with Pete. The perception was that Pete was holding Wilson back. Wilson wanted an offensive coach to help him put up better #s. So no, there was no chance that Pete stayed and Wilson stayed....the only way to keep Wilson would have been to either jettison Pete or MAYBE kick him upstairs Tom Coughlin style.

So the argument over Wilson is lost and now there's a pivot to say Pete should be gone?... ok...

And replaced with what brilliant mind that's proven to be an upgrade? To say just flatly that we'd be better off cutting the coach that has now proven to have been handcuffed by a diva, as someone said- 'stuck on snadlot mode' qb for the last 6 years... sour grapes.

One of the winningest franchises in the last 12 years. Team of the decade. 2 superbowl appearances... and now OBVIOUSLY potential squandered in the playoffs in 18, 19, and 20 because we didn't have a qb who could run a legit offense. He never deserved the crap he took for 'holding Wilson back' . And his refusal to let Wilson have things his way kept us from looking like the Donks look now. For that, I'm eternally grateful because you could see it coming if Pete let it.

The defense is out of sync, but they won't be forever. It's been proven that despite the label of control freak, Pete has given considerable leeway to his coordinators to call games. He gave too long a leash to Norton. He's giving his new coordinators on D time to figure things out. How they'll do it this year with a shortage of players to run what they want to run, I don't know. But it doesn't make sense to start from scratch, scheme wise, 6 games in unless there's no chance to make the transition they're looking to make.

This team will be a force again very soon. But go-ahead and advocate getting rid of the guy who's built it all. He hasn't been perfect, but there's no way you get rid of a HOF coach on the cusp of a 2nd era of greatness.

It's the same logic that wanted Wilson here with a 'brilliant offensive minded coach' that could better utilize his talents and was ok letting PC walk. How's that logic working out?

 

[FrodosFinger]

The early returns look great so far.

The trade won't mean much if the Hawks fail to capitalize and squander the picks in this upcoming draft, which is possible.

Denver is in trouble this year as the most injured team in the NFL, but I can see them bouncing back next year. And if Pete is still here the defense will be terrible again.

It will be measured by who had the most success (W-Ls) Pete or Russ. They both could end up being failures or even successes, it's not binary.

"We won the trade"!

-Okay, what did we win?

"A losing team with a historically bad defense that only seems to get worse."

-Any signs whatsoever it can improve?

"No, but we have extra draft picks."

-What's their recent history on high draft picks on defense?

"Malik McDowell, LJ Collier, Jordyn Brooks, Darrell Taylor, Marquise Blair, etc."

-Exactly. If they don't make changes at the top, it could lead to squandering the haul you got. Making the initial trade moot based on the previous 5 seasons of draft history.

Dumbest post in the history of net. This is year 1 of a bottom to top rebuild and already have the league’s most efficient offenses. The defense is brand new guy. Give it a rest. Go look at how bad the 49ers defense was before Bosa and Warner then get back to me in 3 years to see how Seattle’s defense stacks up butthole

 

[SmokinHawk]

I had this same conversation with Aros over a couple pounders of wine at Temple. I felt that while it would be a painful separation, it was time for Wilson to go. This was towards the end of the season last year, after he came back from injury.

Looks like we were right.

 

[scutterhawk]

The offense is better. The team isn't.

The defense looks almost historically bad. By just the math, replacing Pete with a random NFL coach bringing a random NFL nets us a better result. It would be tremendously difficult to be worse than the worst defenses ever. Though Pete has had a funny trend of being the architect of some of the worst defenses ever. So there is that.

(Also, some of you act as if this roster was foisted upon Pete. That he is doing the best he can with what he has. This roster is his fault. Some of the problems are due to decisions that Pete made with the roster before the season. But much is the staff. This defense is literally his fault)

So yes, replacing Pete would have almost assured us a better defense. Would it be a good defense? With all the holes likely not. Would we be better as a team? Probably be at least 2 wins by this point.

I honestly think it is funny that people are fawning over the offense being better but not realizing that the defense being this bad means we are in such a worse position than we ever expected at the start of the year. This doesn't fix in 1 year almost assuredly, no matter who your QB is.

For all the laughing and jeering about Wilson, Pete is just as terrible so far - in terms of actual results. Both teams are probably going to end up at .500 and that will be the amusing thing.


BTW
Team 3 would never have stayed on with Pete. The perception was that Pete was holding Wilson back. Wilson wanted an offensive coach to help him put up better #s. So no, there was no chance that Pete stayed and Wilson stayed....the only way to keep Wilson would have been to either jettison Pete or MAYBE kick him upstairs Tom Coughlin style.

So NOW you're changing horses in the middle of the stream, bc You be trying to save face.......again.
Look, it would NOT have mattered if we'd have kept Wilson (Denver'$ problem now) and brought in a brand-spanking-new HC to coach him up, Wilson will never again have that nuance, or be as athletically good as he was in the first few years in the League.
So, moving on from Wilson was the RIGHT CALL.
Everyone here 'Get's it' you hate Pete....Speaking for myself....Don't Care.
Defense is experiencing a big setback, because when Adams went down, their base scheme hit a big snag, BUT once Hurtt and his crew regroup (and I suspect that they will) we will see a vast overall improvement, may take a while, but I have the faith in Pete Carroll to get it back on the rails.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Scutter,

The OP makes it clear that he feels we lucked out getting rid of Wilson when we did. I pointed out that keeping Wilson likely would have given us a better opportunity than keeping Pete.

Denver right now has a better future than the Seahawks. Even with a 240M contract. Even with a HC that is likely to be fired. Just watch.
Both teams are almost certainly going to end at .500 this year.
But next year the Broncos will be better. Almost assuredly. My expectation for us next year is nearly the same as this year.

As to your other point?
Wilson wanted out. He was going to push his way out if Pete was still there. Keeping Wilson likely only really happens by removing Pete then. And Pete is our problem because he has no upside. I've been very clear on that point.
I never 'picked a horse' whether it was his defense or offense. His control of personnel and his unwillingness to adapt to the opponent loom larger. His stubbornness and commitment to do what worked before even when it does not work now.
I am surprised that Carroll embraced a pass-heavy offense. Credit for that change. But his predilections are not limited to that.

If we had kept Wilson and let his FA contract run out? Then yes, maybe we would be at an impasse. But I don't think that would have happened.
But at the start of this year, everyone (Though I pointed out he would likely struggle for most of this season) expected Wilson would be a top-tier, MVP-caliber QB. He would've been able to attract a good coach. For the same reason, Rodgers did and Rodgers pulls more crap than Wilson.





BTW
It seems weird to point at the other team - and make a big thing of how their roof is on fire when our walls are in flames.
And by the way, this isn't about 'hate'. By all accounts, Pete is a good guy. A great guy. Go back to those USC stories.
I don't hate Pete.
While everything I have heard about Wilson is that he is a self-absorbed jerk. My friend was(is?) his neighbor. Hates the guy. Pretty sure the whole neighborhood hated him. That was back when he was the toast of this town.
But if we had a chance to keep Wilson vs keep Pete? You have to roll the dice with Wilson and another coach (if you can get one) because Pete will likely tread water season after season until his time ends here.

 

[BASF]

But at the start of this year, everyone (Though I pointed out he would likely struggle for most of this season) expected Wilson would be a top-tier, MVP-caliber QB. He would've been able to attract a good coach. For the same reason, Rodgers did and Rodgers pulls more crap than Wilson.

Only mediots and Russell Wilson marks expected that. Several of us here knew that Wilson's effectiveness was waning and quickly. The players voted him at sixty-first player this year in the the top 100, so they knew that his effectiveness was waning. You, yourself advocated dealing Wilson instead of paying him because he is not worth a third contract at his price tag, so you knew that his effectiveness was waning. Saying everyone seems weird.

 

[Donn2390]

The offense is better. The team isn't.

The defense looks almost historically bad. By just the math, replacing Pete with a random NFL coach bringing a random NFL nets us a better result. It would be tremendously difficult to be worse than the worst defenses ever. Though Pete has had a funny trend of being the architect of some of the worst defenses ever. So there is that.

(Also, some of you act as if this roster was foisted upon Pete. That he is doing the best he can with what he has. This roster is his fault. Some of the problems are due to decisions that Pete made with the roster before the season. But much is the staff. This defense is literally his fault)

So yes, replacing Pete would have almost assured us a better defense. Would it be a good defense? With all the holes likely not. Would we be better as a team? Probably be at least 2 wins by this point.

I honestly think it is funny that people are fawning over the offense being better but not realizing that the defense being this bad means we are in such a worse position than we ever expected at the start of the year. This doesn't fix in 1 year almost assuredly, no matter who your QB is.

For all the laughing and jeering about Wilson, Pete is just as terrible so far - in terms of actual results. Both teams are probably going to end up at .500 and that will be the amusing thing.


BTW
Team 3 would never have stayed on with Pete. The perception was that Pete was holding Wilson back. Wilson wanted an offensive coach to help him put up better #s. So no, there was no chance that Pete stayed and Wilson stayed....the only way to keep Wilson would have been to either jettison Pete or MAYBE kick him upstairs Tom Coughlin style.

What amazes me is that there are still people in this room who haven't yet put twisted on "Ignore"...?

 

[TwistedHusky]

You are correct BASF.

I didn't want to re-sign Wilson last time and wouldn't this time either.
But

Wilson was one of the few levers left that could have allowed us to move on from Pete.

My goal is not to keep Wilson, it is to move on from Pete.
Now whether that would be good is subjective.

Would years of being at or near .500 be worse than being below .500 for a few years in exchange for the opportunity to be much better? Knowing that is no guarantee?

Is the risk of being good worth the chance of being terrible? Each fan has their own answer there. Some are fine with treading water as long the excuses are good. To each their own.

I suspect Wilson is much better next year, and this entire argument makes no sense. We have a year and half to find out. I don't hate Pete. Just dislike the results past few years.

Keeping Wilson would have been one of the few ways to reset things. Probably would have been worth the try.

 

[BlueTalon]

If we had kept Wilson and let his FA contract run out? Then yes, maybe we would be at an impasse. But I don't think that would have happened.
But at the start of this year, everyone (Though I pointed out he would likely struggle for most of this season) expected Wilson would be a top-tier, MVP-caliber QB. He would've been able to attract a good coach. For the same reason, Rodgers did and Rodgers pulls more crap than Wilson.

Not everyone expected that "Wilson would be a top-tier, MVP-caliber QB." There have been people here making the point throughout the process that Wilson has significant holes in his game. That's why "Let Russ cook!" didn't have unanimous support. Well, now he's been exposed. I don't think Rodgers pulls more crap than Wilson, but I suppose it depends on how you define "crap." On the field, Wilson pulls a lot more crap than Rodgers.

And the thing is, any new coach is going to see that. Hackett is probably one and done, and may not last the season. To have any chance of success with Wilson, the new coach has to be Sean Payton or someone like him -- someone with a Super Bowl win with a lot of experience and a long history of winning. Anything less, and Wilson will try trumping the coaches experience with his own. The new coach has to be able to not only have Wilson's respect, but also lay down the law with Wilson, and force Wilson to bend to his will, not the other way around.

If Denver had done their due diligence, they probably wouldn't have done the deal with us they did. But they were desperate, or starry eyed, or both, and we scored because of it. I seriously doubt that the caliber of coach they need would be willing to deal with the headache of working with Wilson, assuming the coach does his own due diligence.

 

[bigskydoc]

I'll stick with my preseason prediction. Denver isn't making the playoffs this year. In fact, the Seahawks will make the playoffs before Denver does.