Our SB winning formula is toast

[NJlargent]

The graham trade was a head scratcher but even more so was picking up joeckel, webb and sowell when you want to be a run first dominant offense. It doesn’t take a football genius to know you can’t run behind those three bums.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

Our best offensive players? Passing game

Arguably best offensive player? QB

Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE

So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.

I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?

Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?

 

[MontanaHawk05]

The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

The formula was nasty young hungry cheap defense, physical ball control run game and dynamic QB that could run around and make plays when needed.

Now it's old expensive defense that isn't very hungry anymore, no run game and expensive QB that can still run around and make plays but now HAS to make plays or we lose.

So that's what Pete's doing, trying to get back to the right formula.

I agree with all except the "young and cheap" part. They were young and cheap because the team got really lucky in a few drafts.

That can't be the "formula"

Agreed. Waiting for another dirt-cheap-but-all-Pro-Bowler back seven is going to leave every team waiting until the end of time. It isn't happening again. Give Wilson a decent, opportunistic defense, a kicker, and an actual run game (in other words, a complete team) and we can challenge for the big game.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Agreed. Waiting for another dirt-cheap-but-all-Pro-Bowler back seven is going to leave every team waiting until the end of time. It isn't happening again. Give Wilson a decent, opportunistic defense, a kicker, and an actual run game (in other words, a complete team) and we can challenge for the big game.

Which unfortunately is what everyone outside of Seattle told us when we were rolling 4-5 years ago. "Just wait until you have to pay Russell!!"

It was true, all of it.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Not really. Losing everything but Russell TO INJURY AND BAD FREE AGENCY MOVES and then watching Russell struggle doesn't exactly lead to the conclusion that Russell's contract was the problem.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Not really. Losing everything but Russell TO INJURY AND BAD FREE AGENCY MOVES and then watching Russell struggle doesn't exactly lead to the conclusion that Russell's contract was the problem.

What paying Russell did was erase the margin of error for swinging and missing on FA's.

We could absorb bad deals like the Harvin trade, because there was still plenty of cap space due to Russell only making 750k.

Not it's gone, all gone.

 

[mrt144]

Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

Our best offensive players? Passing game

Arguably best offensive player? QB

Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE

So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.

I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?

Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?

This raises an interesting speculative investigation - absent extending RW, what would this team look like even?

We'd have started a rookie QB this past year, correct?
Would our drafts have been at all similar? If so, in what ways, do you imagine?
What defensive or offensive players would we have been able to retain that we didn't?

So on and so forth...throw in a few of your own.

My sense is that even if we hadn't extended our defensive roster would mostly be identical to the one in 2017 and our offensive roster would be sufficiently different with no insight into better or worse.

 

[Uncle Si]

Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

Our best offensive players? Passing game

Arguably best offensive player? QB

Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE

So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.

I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?

Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?

You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years

 

[mrt144]

Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

Our best offensive players? Passing game

Arguably best offensive player? QB

Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE

So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.

I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?

Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?

You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years

This is what I thought about in the Garappalo thread - what if salary isn't the full picture and a team alters their makeup to suit a specific integral player.

To wit, in what world is giving RW increasingly bad OL part of supporting RW?

 

[Uncle Si]

Which is fine.. if you do it right. I’d say the Hawks did not help RW with their line up choices on offense

 

[Sgt. Largent]

You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years

They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.

But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.

Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.

I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.

 

[Seymour]

Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

Our best offensive players? Passing game

Arguably best offensive player? QB

Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE

So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.

I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?

Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?

You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years

This is what I thought about in the Garappalo thread - what if salary isn't the full picture and a team alters their makeup to suit a specific integral player.

To wit, in what world is giving RW increasingly bad OL part of supporting RW?

In no world. I'm writing that off as Pete's lack of expertise on offense and OL in particular and trust in Cable Bevell myself. Look at all the resource Cable has been given over the years, it's sickeningly incompetent. The attempts have been made, just unsuccessfully. That could change with Solari, but now we still may have throwing draft picks at more RB's to drag us down like I posted on page 1.

 

[Seymour]

You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years

They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.

But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.

Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.

I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.

.

No it's not IMO, but he does help the run game. Pete is smart enough to know that our chances are better to overpay and not jump back into the bad QB gauntlet then to cut him lose and spend his $$ more wisely IMO.
But I agree with your point, and brought that into question also.

 

[IndyHawk]

You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years

They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.

But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.

Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.

I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.

This focal point question would be a great topic
I'd love to put my 2 cents in that.

 

[mrt144]

You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years

They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.

But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.

Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.

I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.

This focal point question would be a great topic
I'd love to put my 2 cents in that.

What, two sentences basically?

"RW is not a franchise QB. We needed to draft a new one between 2015 and 2017"

 

[Seymour]

You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years

They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.

But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.

Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.

I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.

This focal point question would be a great topic
I'd love to put my 2 cents in that.

It is part of this topic on what to do to get back to the SB so I have no issues with that discussion here personally. :2thumbs:

 

[adeltaY]

I'm not sure how you can place any blame on the Russell Wilson contract and even the one he hopefully signs for 30M+ next year. If paying a great QB top dollar is so harmful to realizing Pete's vision, then what was the plan? Keep Wilson for four years, let him walk, and what? Draft a QB every year until we found someone who could replace him? How likely was that to happen? I don't get what the alternative is to paying a franchise QB. The hit rate on QBs of Wilson's caliber is super low, even for high first round picks. Trotting out a mediocre signal caller will lose games, especially in the playoffs. That's not a winning formula.

 

[Uncle Si]

I'm not sure how you can place any blame on the Russell Wilson contract and even the one he hopefully signs for 30M+ next year. If paying a great QB top dollar is so harmful to realizing Pete's vision, then what was the plan? Keep Wilson for four years, let him walk, and what? Draft a QB every year until we found someone who could replace him? How likely was that to happen? I don't get what the alternative is to paying a franchise QB. The hit rate on QBs of Wilson's caliber is super low, even for high first round picks. Trotting out a mediocre signal caller will lose games, especially in the playoffs. That's not a winning formula.

I dont disagree..

But.. Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Nick Foles were three of the four starting qbs in the conference championship. It begs the question that regardless of how important the QB position is, at what point do you cash in on the investment and try the build team a different way

I think this is a league problem, and they will have to figure out a way to cap the QB position.

 

[semiahmoo]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.

The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.

You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.

In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)

You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?

Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.

That ESPN article was darn good - and I hate ESPN.

Helping to Make the Seahawks Great Again...

 

[adeltaY]

I'm not sure how you can place any blame on the Russell Wilson contract and even the one he hopefully signs for 30M+ next year. If paying a great QB top dollar is so harmful to realizing Pete's vision, then what was the plan? Keep Wilson for four years, let him walk, and what? Draft a QB every year until we found someone who could replace him? How likely was that to happen? I don't get what the alternative is to paying a franchise QB. The hit rate on QBs of Wilson's caliber is super low, even for high first round picks. Trotting out a mediocre signal caller will lose games, especially in the playoffs. That's not a winning formula.

I dont disagree..

But.. Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Nick Foles were three of the four starting qbs in the conference championship. It begs the question that regardless of how important the QB position is, at what point do you cash in on the investment and try the build team a different way

I think this is a league problem, and they will have to figure out a way to cap the QB position.

Yes, but this was just one year. The franchise QBs in the playoffs were Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Mariota, Goff, Brees, and Newton. Smith arguably was for KC for a while too. Then we had Tyrod, Bortles, Keenum, and Foles. Playoff games are fluke. Brees was a miracle play away from facing Philly. Philly was a Julio drop (or some play like that) away from one and done.

I think if you look back the past decade plus you see that in the AFC the QBs have been Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, and Flacco one year. The past few years for the NFC have been Newton and Ryan, who were MVPs, Wilson twice, as well as Foles and Kaep. I think it was Rodgers and Eli before that. Good QBs are more likely to lead to SB appearances and wins IMO.