Steve2222
New member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
- Messages
- 1,993
- Reaction score
- 1
For some reason Russell Wilson continues to be under appreciated. He alone is good enough for 7-9 wins.
Seymour":3maskhvi said:24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.
THE TABS":3kazxw7g said:Seymour":3kazxw7g said:24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.
Agree completely.
The powers-that-be REFUSE to address the major issues this team has had over the past two seasons (poor line play on both sides, lack of playmakers on both sides, and stale, predictable schemes). Quality organizations do NOT allow their teams to deteriorate to that point.
I’m seeing 7-9 this season, and that’s only if Russ stays healthy. If he sustains a major injury, then we’ll be in the running for the #1 pick next year, like Indianapolis without Andrew Luck. Unfortunately, that’s what it might take for the front office to finally rethink its philosophical approach.
Steve2222":21tq8zzl said:Russ has never missed a game in his career and playing behind his best OL in a few years. What makes you think his health is a concern? And again, no matter how terrible his team is (last year they were probably more terrible), he still led them to 9 wins.
Trrrroy":nn7n9t9m said:Sgt. Largent":nn7n9t9m said:TwistedHusky":nn7n9t9m said:Vegas is a better indicator.
They say #15-#18 which is very likely where we fall.
Would be ridiculous to have a QB of Wilson's caliber and then expect #27 ranking..
The Saints went 7-9 three straight years with Brees, and there are other examples of great QB's on bad teams.
- Cam went 2-14
- Ryan went 4-12
So while not unlikely with Russell because we have some talent around him, but it is possible. Personally I think like most fringe playoff teams, we're in the 7-9 to 10-6 range depending on major injuries and if Russell can pull 3-4 games out late (or not).
The worst Cam Newton's Panther's have finished is 6-10, not 2-14. And that 6-10 came his rookie season after he was chosen with the 1st overall pick.
Bree's 7-9 teams had historically bad defenses. This Seahawks team may have a bad defense, but it won't be historically bad.
Matt Ryan's 4-12 team is really an outlier and the exception that proves the rule. If you have a pro-bowl QB it's hard to finish worse than 7-9.
Hell, Pete got a 7-9 record out of that talentless over the hill led Hasselbeck team.
Sgt. Largent":1dcvlkky said:Let's be honest, this is a hard team to get a read on right now..........so yeah there's a reason there's such a big variance in power ranking polls.
If the defense can find some new stars and not have the depth and talent issues many think we'll have? We should be a top 15 team and vying for a playoff spot.
If the defensive depth is exposed due to that talent deficiency and/or injury, then hell man this could be a looooong season.
Yeah Russell will keep us in most games, but that doesn't mean 11-5, that means 7-9 to 9-7 territory.
Steve2222":2mujahgw said:Ryan and Cam are a tier below Wilson. They’re not QBs who can transcend their poor supporting cast. Could you imagine Ryan going from a Dome and having a plethora of weapons at his disposal to whatever you want to call what Russell had to play with last year?
lol at that thought
17 teams went 9-7 or better last year, and exactly one team was 8-8, with the rest being 7-9 or worse; so if you think we're an 8-8 team, that would place us 18th or 19th; kind of a far cry from 24th-27th.Seymour":1nath3ze said:24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.
RolandDeschain":1zafoirj said:17 teams went 9-7 or better last year, and exactly one team was 8-8, with the rest being 7-9 or worse; so if you think we're an 8-8 team, that would place us 18th or 19th; kind of a far cry from 24th-27th.Seymour":1zafoirj said:24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.
Just sayin'.
Seymour":3dt3oc62 said:RolandDeschain":3dt3oc62 said:17 teams went 9-7 or better last year, and exactly one team was 8-8, with the rest being 7-9 or worse; so if you think we're an 8-8 team, that would place us 18th or 19th; kind of a far cry from 24th-27th.Seymour":3dt3oc62 said:24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.
Just sayin'.
Well my main point that +/- 2 games from 8-8 taking us to 6-10 would likely fall in that range. So I do believe we should be a bit above that yes, but this is nothing to get excited about and it's within reasonable range for a team that least coasters want to see fail and will gladly predict it. Pretty much saying I expect (and actually welcome) the disrespect, and we haven't done enough to dispel it IMO.
DomeHawk":3svkhfh9 said:This team is a complete mystery to me.
pmedic920":3qgh7heh said:Seymour":3qgh7heh said:RolandDeschain":3qgh7heh said:17 teams went 9-7 or better last year, and exactly one team was 8-8, with the rest being 7-9 or worse; so if you think we're an 8-8 team, that would place us 18th or 19th; kind of a far cry from 24th-27th.Seymour":3qgh7heh said:24-27 is about right. They have shown next to nothing, have little depth (to the untrained eye at least), so I have no problem with that. Personally I think we are an 8-8 team that could go plus or minus 2 either way but that remains to be seen obviously.
Just sayin'.
Well my main point that +/- 2 games from 8-8 taking us to 6-10 would likely fall in that range. So I do believe we should be a bit above that yes, but this is nothing to get excited about and it's within reasonable range for a team that least coasters want to see fail and will gladly predict it. Pretty much saying I expect (and actually welcome) the disrespect, and we haven't done enough to dispel it IMO.
All a matter of perspective, and manipulation of #s.
I look at 27 as only 5 teams being worse that the Seahawks.
That my friend is utter BS, I don’t care who you are , or where you went to School:{)
Seymour":18peqy21 said:Is it though? I don't expect outsiders to believe that. Look at what they have to look at. 0-4 in pre-season with issues on both sides of the ball still and many unproven starters, and 42-7 loss at home to the Rams late last year. Not exactly ground breaking data to dispute their ranking.
Sgt. Largent":3hrgzkwk said:Seymour":3hrgzkwk said:Is it though? I don't expect outsiders to believe that. Look at what they have to look at. 0-4 in pre-season with issues on both sides of the ball still and many unproven starters, and 42-7 loss at home to the Rams late last year. Not exactly ground breaking data to dispute their ranking.
Our preseason record is laughable if you're putting any merit into that as an indicator to our success this season.
Other than the Chargers starting offense when our defense was just playing base and Rivers carved us up?.........both sides of the ball hung with other starting groups, and in fact looked better than the Vikings, Colts and Raiders 75% of the time when it was starters vs. starters. After that when our depth was exposed? Err, not so much.
Which IMO is our problem this year, depth. It's downright scary on the defensive side of the ball. But certainly not 4-12 or 5-13 27th ranked team in the league range.
That's just ignorance from someone who only looked at rosters to compile his list, and not actual game tape of this young group of players.