MontanaHawk05":ffprf8ss said:Aros":ffprf8ss said:Russell Wilson is a ONCE IN A GENERATION QB.
In the fourth quarter.
When he is allowed to play, and not be a ball warmer for the running backs.
MontanaHawk05":ffprf8ss said:Aros":ffprf8ss said:Russell Wilson is a ONCE IN A GENERATION QB.
In the fourth quarter.
MontanaHawk05":32rj9kpa said:Aros":32rj9kpa said:Russell Wilson is a ONCE IN A GENERATION QB.
In the fourth quarter.
I see it slightly differently. One the one hand spending that much (and soon to be more if he's extended) money and then be the least pass-happy team in the league isn't good asset management. On the other hand, the only reason Pete's run first offense ever worked was because Wilson could bail the team out when he was unleashed. Lose that bail-out ability, and no big investment in the run game or defense will matter - we'll be back to the 7 win teams of Pete's first 2 seasons (solid line, great RB, no Wilson). That's even if you ignore what pedestrian QBs cost nowadays (see Keenum and Cousins).Spin Doctor":2ri3neb2 said:This is a valid question going forward. No team passed the football less than the Seahawks this season. If Carroll wants to continue this style of offense, then paying Wilson 30 million dollars per year doesn't make any sense.
The problem becomes is who do we have to sacrifice in order to keep that contract? Other areas of the team are going to be affected in order to accommodate that 30 million per year base line. After we signed Wilson the first time the Seahawks compensated by skimping out on the offensive line. We went from having the most expensive line in the league, to lowest paid line. Even when we developed players we let them go.SeahawksCanuck":1s9z9ns6 said:I see it slightly differently. One the one hand spending that much (and soon to be more if he's extended) money and then be the least pass-happy team in the league isn't good asset management. On the other hand, the only reason Pete's run first offense ever worked was because Wilson could bail the team out when he was unleashed. Lose that bail-out ability, and no big investment in the run game or defense will matter - we'll be back to the 7 win teams of Pete's first 2 seasons (solid line, great RB, no Wilson). That's even if you ignore what pedestrian QBs cost nowadays (see Keenum and Cousins).Spin Doctor":1s9z9ns6 said:This is a valid question going forward. No team passed the football less than the Seahawks this season. If Carroll wants to continue this style of offense, then paying Wilson 30 million dollars per year doesn't make any sense.
TheLegendOfBoom":186zujrc said:Logic says, if you continue to have Carroll incorporate his football strategy and philosophy, you should NOT pay the QB top dollar.
Petes philosophy at its best works only if he has a top tier elite defense and elite run game.
As long as the resources (salary) goes to these necessary pieces, you will not be able to also pay the QB top dollar.
It just does not work.
That is why the offensive line is relatively cheap with a lone piece here.
Something has to give.
You can think of it as a seesaw effect, the defense needs to be stacked and that means there is no equilibrium balancing the other side.
Petes philosophy at its best is also essentially it's own worst enemy. Unsustainable.
It'll work as long as it's defense is cheap and elite.
And it only works with an elite run game.
So the question becomes: Do you want a temporary elite defense with Carrolls philosophy or would you rather have Wilson without sustainable elite talent.
Wenhawk":2y3i1i5f said:I pay him, unless it is like the most obvious QB draft class and we are virtually guaranteed to get a good QB.
I still think he would be a great fit for the LA Chargers. Like they should pay him the moon or trade whatever once Rivers retires. They would be the AFC Super Bowl team with Wilson.
I saw someone mentioned would KC be better with Wilson and I say no, but the charger? Yes.
semiahmoo":2ux6586i said:WestcoastSteve":2ux6586i said:I hate to say it so soon after the game but I think there is a lot of overreaction to the game about his role on the team.
He is still our best offensive player, there were several games he won us this year.
The huge problem here is the coaches forgot that he won us the Carolina game when the running game was doing crap and the defense couldn't stop them.
The idea we should let him walk so some other team will let him throw more is silly.
We've seen Russell pass a lot (2016 and 2017) and while he is productive he is often running for his life and taking unnecessary hits.
Running the ball makes him better (opens playaction) and protects him (less hits)
I hope the takeaway from the Cowboys game isn't that we need to stop running, I hope the takeaway is we need to trust our passing game when the run isn't there.
Well said. That issue of trust is being repeated over and over.
If true why wouldn't PC trust Wilson at this point? That seems crazy.