You guys crack me up

[QuahHawk]

- Finger has contributed to accuracy issues

- work ethic still as great as always

That's where you lose me and others. Leadership? Ask former players like Bennett, Sherman and Baldwin about Russ's leadership. Not exactly ringing endorsements.

Confidence? Seems to be wavering to me. Russell isn't his usual confident self this year, especially since the injury.

Read defenses? Check out the All-22's. This year and last. Russell still is missing open receiver and relying on plays breaking down.

Problem now is he's injured, slower and appears shook. Voila, 5-10.

Yep, Yep, and Yep

We have to place some of the blame on Ciara too. I think she has enabled him to spread himself so thin with all his business ventures and put his "Legacy" and bank account as his top priorities.

 

[keasley45]

Bring in who? Maybe Pickett who knows but imagine the draft capital and free'd up cash money to spend on free agency. With Penny and Deejay balling I guarantee we will pound the $h!t out of the rock next year and succeed with another game manager at QB backed up by a great O line and a nasty ass defense. Stop hugging Wilson's balls guy he's looked awful for many games and years now. What we need is some good ole fashion Ground Chuck Knox football to cure this slump. Wilson's trade value has increased due to many teams in need of an expensive aging quarterback with a bum finger. It is what it is either get on board or hop off the 2012 wagon guy.

Oh FFS. Only way you're winning ground chuck style in today's league is if you have Derrick Henry or an Adrian Peterson in his prime. Which Dallas or Penny or Carson for that matter is nowhere near talent wise. And even those teams pass the ball a lot.

And where you gonna get those blue chip O Linemen from? The draft? So you're at least a year away with development and learning the play book, trade? who's trading away their star Lineman? So you're gonna maybe get pro bowl talent linemen (probably older like Duane Brown) if your lucky to block for second tier running backs, and that's the pur path back to the top? Not seeing it.

The Titans are the 2 seed without Henry.

The Colts entire offense revolves around their run game.

The Patriots are built around the run and defense.

And the Ravens are known for their 'pound before pass' offense.

And that's just the AFC.

So the idea that you can't win basing your offense on the run is patently false. If anything, the last few years have shown that if all you have is the pass, you're gonna fall flat sooner than later.

But yes, I'd assume trading RW will net our player of choice and if that player is an o-lineman, he will be top tier. That trade would also net us the capital to acquire whatever o-lineman we choose. And assuming we don't go the route of swinging for the DeShawn Watson fences, we'd also have the salary cap space to sign better talent at a few postions...including offensive line.

Russ has shown who he is. The idea that we can build something around his game now is foolish. He wanted a better offensive mind (which was BS and cover because Schottenheimer's gameplans worked, but weren't executed) and got a guy who helped coordinate the Rams attack... and he's squandered it.

He's not good at throwing to the middle of the field and when the Stats for the year get posted I'd wager he'll be in the bottom 3 again. That's a third of the field we can't use every week and a third that the defense doesn't have to defend. HTF do you consistently win football games that way? Oh, you don't,. And we haven't since we've had a defense to erase mistakes and a running game to keep defenses honest.

He's not good at dissecting defenses to exploit weaknesses.

And he has a penchant for leaving first downs on the field every game to pursue his long, sideline passes that of late yield nothing.

Let him go somewhere else and have their HC and OC figure out the smoke and mirrors scheme to make that work.

If we have to wade through a few years scratching and clawing until we find the right guy and mix again, so be it. Every franchise has had to do it. Not wanting to do it isn't a reason not to when you're at a dead end with the guy you've got.

 

[AgentDib]

1. I didnt disrespect hasselback I said he was not a franchise QB. Nor is he on the same level as Wilson when he's on his game. I put Hasselback 2nd on the all time Seahawk QB list, I got mad love for him.

Not to pile on here but Hass was definitely a franchise QB. Maybe not a top 1/2 QB candidate, but demonstrably a QB that you could build an offense capable of winning a Super Bowl around. His efficient passing in Holmgren's scheme picking up third downs enabled us to run the ball as often and as successfully as we did. Our defense in the 2000s was the weak link and if we had anywhere near the same defense as the LOB eras then Hass would have multiple rings.

He is a pocket QB who can scramble when he needs to.... there is very rarely a pocket for him to set up in

What evidence are you basing that on? I've watched every snap Russ has taken in the NFL and the only times I can ever remember him looking comfortable stepping forward in the pocket is when the middle of the field was empty.

4. Again I disagree, this system was not built around Russ if it had been, they would have invested in a real O line.

How do you square that with Russ having a top salary cap hit? Under a fixed salary cap there is only a finite amount of money to go around, and if you spend more at one position then you are forced to spend less elsewhere.

 

[DarkVictory23]

1. I didnt disrespect hasselback I said he was not a franchise QB. Nor is he on the same level as Wilson when he's on his game. I put Hasselback 2nd on the all time Seahawk QB list, I got mad love for him.

He absolutely was a franchise QB, though. During his best couple of years, he actually was a top 3 QB (behind Brady and Manning) and for the majority of his time as starter we weren't needing or even thinking about needing a different QB to get us over the hump. That's the sign of a franchise QB.

2. I'll put Wilson's first 10 year numbers up against Roger's and Brady and anyone else for that matter. Bet they're comparable. I would guess hasselbacks are not.

Wilson's first ten year numbers are some of the best in NFL history, no doubt. He's not, however, a better QB than Brady and Rodgers.

3. I said Wilson is struggling in this offense because it's not set up for his game. He is a pocket QB who can scramble when he needs to. Problem is he's had a $h!t O line his entire career, there is very rarely a pocket for him to set up in, so his first reaction is to back pedal and flee because well what would you do if 90% of the time you drop back , you're immediately running for your life? You'd be skiddish too.

Except, he's not a pocket QB and he's consistently made his offensive line work harder than just about any QB in the league.

4. Again I disagree, this system was not built around Russ if it had been, they would have invested in a real O line. Again he is not a scrambler, he is a pocket QB that can escape and scramble, Big difference...

Except again, Russ is NOT a pocket QB. He never has been. Russ's best numbers have always been when he was outside of the pocket. I think what's confusing is that when people think of a 'scrambling' QB, they think that means runs. Russ tries to use his legs to make passing plays. He's still a pass first QB, he's just not a pocket QB. The fact that he's always thinking pass even when making plays with his legs is one of the great things about him.

But there is a reason why our team would run virtually every single play--whether it made sense or not--from shotgun and not under center. This is what makes Russ comfortable and that's why we've done it.


Anyhow, I don't 'want' Russ or Pete gone, I just think one or the other (or both) needs to go if we are going to stop being mediocre. Russ got exposed the second half of last year in terms of his becoming too one dimensional and now he is physically getting worse to go with his mental performane going down hill.

It's not that I believe he CAN'T turn it around, I just think he's going to need to reinvent a lot of the way he approaches the game and what we've kind of heard from him/his camp the past year and a half has not been promising in making believe he's willing to do it.

 

[Hawker55]

Spinning our wheels in mud. I've stated my claim, and made my case.. agree or disagree I couldn't care less.. fact is nobodys convincing the other side of a anything. So let the Chips fall where they may.

I say it again, put Wilson in a good scheme behind a real line and all you folks screaming for his trade will be crying in your cheerios at his new found success and wondering why couldn't he do that in Seattle. All the while rooting on Andy Dalton or whatever scrub QB they bring in to replace him wondering where did it all go wrong. Of course that all just speculation on my part and I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not. Cheers.

 

[Optimus25]

Hasselbeck was a franchise QB in any sense of the word.

He was surrounded by some of the worst secondary players in the history of the franchise which greatly amplified the need for him to outperform his own defense on a weekly basis.

If Brady or Rodgers is your only precedent for franchise QB then Wilson isn’t one either and we should get 2 firsts from Washington for him which I guarantee they are the highest bidder and will pay. Even NE knew there’s a time to cut the cord so your own example works against you. They cut the cord with Brady, found the replacement, and are building for another run. Why can’t we? It’s past time and a year late in fact when last year we could have commanded 3 firsts plus picks.

He was surrounded by what?

All pro hall of fame right side O Line, hof defensive players, all pro and league MVP running backs, and top notch recievers. Those were some of the most talented teams we had until the Wilson/Carroll era. What are you talking about?

Engram
DJack
Koren Robinson
Mac strong - pro bowler
Jones - all pro, HOF, legend
Hutchinson - all pro, HOF
Lofa - pro bowler
Alexander, all pro, League MVP
Tobeck - pro bowler

Not to mention:
Hitman Hamlin
Boulware
Big play Babs
Wistrom- pro bowler
Julian Peterson- pro bowler
Kerney- all pro
Trufant- pro bowler
Mebane -pro bowler
Chad brown
Leroy Hill

To name a few... :roll:

And if you are really trying to sit here and put Hasselback in RW's category, you're credibility is demishing quickly....

Lemme ask you this,, would you take Hasselbeck over Dak, Mahomes, Hubert, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Big Ben, just to name a few? You'd be crazy to. Behind our O lines, I would take Wilson in his prime over all of them, including Roger's and Brady, and so would any other knowledgeable football fan.

So you think the ‘06-‘09 teams were so full of talent that it was only the lack of a franchise QB that led to the mediocrity?

You are the one who has lost all credibility. I highly doubt you were there age wise to see those games played or else you’d realize the problem quickly- that the onesie twosie stars were not good enough to make up for the complete lack of talent across the board, especially in the secondary as i said.

Secondly, i never said Hasselbeck was Russell Wilsons equal, i simply said he qualifies as ‘franchise quarterback’ in any sense of the term.

See you throw out the Kerneys, tatupus, and trufants but conveniently fail to mention the Jennings, Julius Jones, Brian Russell’s, and Deion branch’s who Hass had to play in spite of week to week.

Similar to Russ today, it was the lack of overall talent he could not overcome. Reminder Russ only produced under more big names. Want me to play your game and name the all stars and HoFs that made Russ a Super Bowl champion? Hint: that list would greatly outweigh yours.

 

[Hawker55]

Hasselbeck was a franchise QB in any sense of the word.

He was surrounded by some of the worst secondary players in the history of the franchise which greatly amplified the need for him to outperform his own defense on a weekly basis.

If Brady or Rodgers is your only precedent for franchise QB then Wilson isn’t one either and we should get 2 firsts from Washington for him which I guarantee they are the highest bidder and will pay. Even NE knew there’s a time to cut the cord so your own example works against you. They cut the cord with Brady, found the replacement, and are building for another run. Why can’t we? It’s past time and a year late in fact when last year we could have commanded 3 firsts plus picks.

He was surrounded by what?

All pro hall of fame right side O Line, hof defensive players, all pro and league MVP running backs, and top notch recievers. Those were some of the most talented teams we had until the Wilson/Carroll era. What are you talking about?

Engram
DJack
Koren Robinson
Mac strong - pro bowler
Jones - all pro, HOF, legend
Hutchinson - all pro, HOF
Lofa - pro bowler
Alexander, all pro, League MVP
Tobeck - pro bowler

Not to mention:
Hitman Hamlin
Boulware
Big play Babs
Wistrom- pro bowler
Julian Peterson- pro bowler
Kerney- all pro
Trufant- pro bowler
Mebane -pro bowler
Chad brown
Leroy Hill

To name a few... :roll:

And if you are really trying to sit here and put Hasselback in RW's category, you're credibility is demishing quickly....

Lemme ask you this,, would you take Hasselbeck over Dak, Mahomes, Hubert, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Big Ben, just to name a few? You'd be crazy to. Behind our O lines, I would take Wilson in his prime over all of them, including Roger's and Brady, and so would any other knowledgeable football fan.

So you think the ‘06-‘09 teams were so full of talent that it was only the lack of a franchise QB that led to the mediocrity?

You are the one who has lost all credibility. I highly doubt you were there age wise to see those games played or else you’d realize the problem quickly- that the onesie twosie stars were not good enough to make up for the complete lack of talent across the board, especially in the secondary as i said.

Secondly, i never said Hasselbeck was Russell Wilsons equal, i simply said he qualifies as ‘franchise quarterback’ in any sense of the term.

See you throw out the Kerneys, tatupus, and trufants but conveniently fail to mention the Jennings, Julius Jones, Brian Russell’s, and Deion branch’s who Hass had to play in spite of week to week.

Similar to Russ today, it was the lack of overall talent he could not overcome. Reminder Russ only produced under more big names. Want me to play your game and name the all stars and HoFs that made Russ a Super Bowl champion? Hint: that list would greatly outweigh yours.

Lol, Jesus that's not what i said about the hasselback teams at all. I was simply showing he had plenty of talent around him. Read into my take what you want to, after reading the first few paragraphs you wrote I didn't even bother finishing that drivel.. so my response to the part I did read is, whatever, I don't agree, nor do I think you know what you're talking about. Other than that, it's just my opinion, feel free to disagree, trust me I'll be just fine. As far as losing credibility with you. Yawn.

Oh and FYI, my family had season tickets when they were still playing in the kingdome. Ill never forget watching Bo Jackson run over Boz or watch him run into the tunnel.. fastest man I've ever seen live.... I would have been around 11, or 12 back then. My favorite seahawk player of all time is Michael Jackson.. ya I know, who? Google him.. So ya, I was around for the hasselback days.

Not a pocket QB huh. Let's ask the man himself what kind of QB he is. Oh that's right he has been asked, in dozens of interviews over the years, he considers himself a pocket QB that can scramble when needed. Your argument is his numbers? I wonder why his numbers outside the pocket would bea better? (Which I'm not sure they even are) but for argument sake,, lets say they are,, could that maybe be because he's never had a consistent pocket to operate from?

This place is something else these days. I swear...

 

[TwistedHusky]

Last year, most non-Seahawk fans considered the Seahawks to be one of the better teams in the league. So did most analysts.

Last year the defense was also worse. So was the special teams.

This year, most non-Seahawk fans consider the Seahawks to be one of the worst teams in the league. Again, so do most analysts. With a better defense, one of the best special teams, and much of the same roster.


What is the material difference between the 2 teams?*

A: An effective Russell Wilson.


It is interesting that the solution for so many, in 'how we get better' involves getting rid of the one player that made the most difference between us being good or terrible.

Whether Wilson is fake or a good person shouldn't matter. I don't even care if his teammates like him. What DOES matter is that he is our difference maker and without him the Seahawks are nothing.


Some of us just want to go back to when the Seahawks played in Egypt. No idea why.


*
(Sure, you could argue the OC changing, but many who want to remove Russ feel that keeping Pete - the guy that made the decision to fire our OC to bring in a worse one, is somehow part of the move forward? But the clearest significant difference is still the effectiveness of Wilson)

 

[Hawker55]

Last year, most non-Seahawk fans considered the Seahawks to be one of the better teams in the league. So did most analysts.

Last year the defense was also worse. So was the special teams.

This year, most non-Seahawk fans consider the Seahawks to be one of the worst teams in the league. Again, so do most analysts. With a better defense, one of the best special teams, and much of the same roster.


What is the material difference between the 2 teams?*

A: An effective Russell Wilson.


It is interesting that the solution for so many, in 'how we get better' involves getting rid of the one player that made the most difference between us being good or terrible.

Whether Wilson is fake or a good person shouldn't matter. I don't even care if his teammates like him. What DOES matter is that he is our difference maker and without him the Seahawks are nothing.


Some of us just want to go back to when the Seahawks played in Egypt. No idea why.


*
(Sure, you could argue the OC changing, but many who want to remove Russ feel that keeping Pete - the guy that made the decision to fire our OC to bring in a worse one, is somehow part of the move forward? But the clearest significant difference is still the effectiveness of Wilson)

100%^^^^

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Last year, most non-Seahawk fans considered the Seahawks to be one of the better teams in the league. So did most analysts.

Last year the defense was also worse. So was the special teams.

This year, most non-Seahawk fans consider the Seahawks to be one of the worst teams in the league. Again, so do most analysts. With a better defense, one of the best special teams, and much of the same roster.


What is the material difference between the 2 teams?*

A: An effective Russell Wilson.


It is interesting that the solution for so many, in 'how we get better' involves getting rid of the one player that made the most difference between us being good or terrible.

Whether Wilson is fake or a good person shouldn't matter. I don't even care if his teammates like him. What DOES matter is that he is our difference maker and without him the Seahawks are nothing.


Some of us just want to go back to when the Seahawks played in Egypt. No idea why.


*
(Sure, you could argue the OC changing, but many who want to remove Russ feel that keeping Pete - the guy that made the decision to fire our OC to bring in a worse one, is somehow part of the move forward? But the clearest significant difference is still the effectiveness of Wilson)

You may be right, but IMO all this year showed is what a LOT of us have been saying for years, when Russell doesn't play lights out? We lose.

This year exposed all of the bad front office moves, drafts and most of Pete's shortcomings with scheme, playcalling and in game adjustments management.

Elite Russell was no longer their to compensate for all of this, thus 5-10.

So that's really the million dollar question. Do you think with this roster and this coaching staff Russell can regain that almost perfect elite form so the team can once again win consistently.

I for one do not. I think Russell has peaked as a QB, and will have more years like this year going forward. He's slower and therefore will sustain more injuries, more inconsistent games where he looks lost and shook, and thus....again, more losing seasons than winning because Pete isn't going to change all of the deficiencies Russell's been covering up for the past 7-8 years.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Largent,

Let's assume you are right, to beat the better (better than .500) teams we need Wilson to play elite.

That means only above average QB play (actually exceptional to elite QB play) generally results in wins for us against above-average teams.

And further, without Wilson, this is essentially a .500 or below team. Since all teams have to have a QB, we assume without Wilson, with an average QB, we are .500 or below?

If that is the case, what is Wilson making up for?


Is it the roster?
(The FO)

or

The coaching?
(Coaches, Staff, HC, tactics, strategy, gameplanning, etc.)


(...or both?)


Let's also assume that you are correct that he is on the other side of his prime now, either having peaked or just past the peak.

Does that mean he can not be worthwhile?


Because according to even cursory analysis, IF it is the roster OR the coaching, those BOTH have the SAME ROOT ISSUE, the SAME PERSON being ultimately RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH.

So how does removing Wilson fix this when Wilson was the only thing keeping the full impact of that root issue from manifesting as losses? (until this year?)


And wouldn't it be possible, that a less effective (but still very good) Wilson might be effective on a team without the same root issue causing the problems needed to overcome in the past so often in the first place?

 

[Maelstrom787]

Largent,

Let's assume you are right, to beat the better (better than .500) teams we need Wilson to play elite.

That means only above average QB play (actually exceptional to elite QB play) generally results in wins for us against above-average teams.

And further, without Wilson, this is essentially a .500 or below team. Since all teams have to have a QB, we assume without Wilson, with an average QB, we are .500 or below?

If that is the case, what is Wilson making up for?


Is it the roster?
(The FO)

or

The coaching?
(Coaches, Staff, HC, tactics, strategy, gameplanning, etc.)


(...or both?)


Let's also assume that you are correct that he is on the other side of his prime now, either having peaked or just past the peak.

Does that mean he can not be worthwhile?


Because according to even cursory analysis, IF it is the roster OR the coaching, those BOTH have the SAME ROOT ISSUE, the SAME PERSON being ultimately RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH.

So how does removing Wilson fix this when Wilson was the only thing keeping the full impact of that root issue from manifesting as losses? (until this year?)


And wouldn't it be possible, that a less effective (but still very good) Wilson might be effective on a team without the same root issue causing the problems needed to overcome in the past so often in the first place?

Y'know, here's the deal.

When you're paying a quarterback 20% of the cap, you kind of need him to perform like he's earning 20% of the cap.

A team built around a quarterback doesn't succeed without that quarterback playing at least near his expected performance level. That's dead-ass simple.

Remove any teams star quarterback and replace him with replacement-level performance, and they all suck.

Above average quarterback play is pretty much a pre-requisite for NFL success. There's absolutely no other accurate way to assess that.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Maelstrom,

Struggling to understand the relevance of the '20% of the cap point"?

The issue is whether getting rid of Wilson improves the team, when Wilson was the primary factor making us look like an above-average team.

But I will bite, what % of the cap does a typical NFL team with a veteran starting caliber QB?

It looks like most teams have a large % of their cap tied up in the QB unless they have a starting QB on a rookie deal.

If we have an elite QB with a 20% cap hit, an average QB is still going to chew up a fair amount of the cap unless we get some 2nd string/journeyman type. Look at what top 10 and top 15 QBs are getting.

You cannot use the 'QB cap hit' to explain a 5-6 game difference in wins/losses if every other team in the NFL with starting caliber QB has endure a similar hit. What would matter is the % difference between our hit and the average team.

But let's assume we remove the cap hit then.



Are you arguing that by giving us more of the cap to spend on other players would somehow radically improve us?

Because if the root cause of our problem is either rosters (FO makes these decisions) or coaching (HC makes these decisions) or staff (HC or FO makes these decisions) - all of those bad decisions still originate with Pete.

If the root problem is poor decisions by Pete, removing Wilson does what? (other than getting rid of your only effective QB)

How is giving Pete more money to make more bad decisions a better choice while struggling to replace a starting QB better than.... just getting your starting QB (who admittedly may no longer be elite) help with more effective coaches and better roster moves?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Largent,

Let's assume you are right, to beat the better (better than .500) teams we need Wilson to play elite.

That means only above average QB play (actually exceptional to elite QB play) generally results in wins for us against above-average teams.

And further, without Wilson, this is essentially a .500 or below team. Since all teams have to have a QB, we assume without Wilson, with an average QB, we are .500 or below?

If that is the case, what is Wilson making up for?


Is it the roster?
(The FO)

or

The coaching?
(Coaches, Staff, HC, tactics, strategy, gameplanning, etc.)


(...or both?)


Let's also assume that you are correct that he is on the other side of his prime now, either having peaked or just past the peak.

Does that mean he can not be worthwhile?


Because according to even cursory analysis, IF it is the roster OR the coaching, those BOTH have the SAME ROOT ISSUE, the SAME PERSON being ultimately RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH.

So how does removing Wilson fix this when Wilson was the only thing keeping the full impact of that root issue from manifesting as losses? (until this year?)


And wouldn't it be possible, that a less effective (but still very good) Wilson might be effective on a team without the same root issue causing the problems needed to overcome in the past so often in the first place?

All valid questions, and questions I don't have the answers to. This is the NFL, any major changes come with risk.

All I know is I don't want another 3-5 years of the Pete and Russ show.

I've said many times now that if I had my way Pete would he fired and Let's see if a new coaching staff with new energy and ideas can come in and here and squeeze more elite years out of Russell.

But if Pete's staying? Then trade Russell, go get a Tannehill or Fitzpatrick type (or another young savvy QB that you don’t have to rely on to carry the offense), save the 5-15M on QB salary and try to build another elite defense and run game.

 

[Palmegranite]

You lost me with the Tannehill and Fitzpatrick type examples.
Tannehill had one winning year with the Dolphins. Fitzpatrick 1 winning year in his career, turnstiling through umpteen teams.
Neither player even sniffed a single playoff game in the above years.

So no, I do not want to follow this team for the next 23 years with not one playoff appearance.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

You lost me with the Tannehill and Fitzpatrick type examples.
Tannehill had one winning year with the Dolphins. Fitzpatrick 1 winning year in his career, turnstiling through umpteen teams.
Neither player even sniffed a single playoff game in the above years.

So no, I do not want to follow this team for the next 23 years with not one playoff appearance.

Tannehill's the QB of a very good team that's vying for the #1 seed in the AFC....and a team IMO we should be modeling. Physical run game, QB that can make some plays, doesn't turn the ball over but you don't need to depend on to bail out a bad run game or bad defense.

That's a Pete Carroll team. So do that, or fire Pete. Because living in this middle of mediocrity with no identity on either side of the ball, or as a team collectively isn't working.

 

[hawkfan68]

You lost me with the Tannehill and Fitzpatrick type examples.
Tannehill had one winning year with the Dolphins. Fitzpatrick 1 winning year in his career, turnstiling through umpteen teams.
Neither player even sniffed a single playoff game in the above years.

So no, I do not want to follow this team for the next 23 years with not one playoff appearance.

Tannehill's the QB of a very good team that's vying for the #1 seed in the AFC....and a team IMO we should be modeling. Physical run game, QB that can make some plays, doesn't turn the ball over but you don't need to depend on to bail out a bad run game or bad defense.

That's a Pete Carroll team. So do that, or fire Pete. Because living in this middle of mediocrity with no identity on either side of the ball, or as a team collectively isn't working.

Agreed on Tannehill and Tennessee Titans being the model. The Titans were in the AFC CG in 2019 and Tannehill was their QB. So he's definitely won in the playoffs. If they get Derrick Henry back, watch out for the Titans in the playoffs. They will be the team no one wants to face.

 

[chris98251]

You lost me with the Tannehill and Fitzpatrick type examples.
Tannehill had one winning year with the Dolphins. Fitzpatrick 1 winning year in his career, turnstiling through umpteen teams.
Neither player even sniffed a single playoff game in the above years.

So no, I do not want to follow this team for the next 23 years with not one playoff appearance.

Tannehill's the QB of a very good team that's vying for the #1 seed in the AFC....and a team IMO we should be modeling. Physical run game, QB that can make some plays, doesn't turn the ball over but you don't need to depend on to bail out a bad run game or bad defense.

That's a Pete Carroll team. So do that, or fire Pete. Because living in this middle of mediocrity with no identity on either side of the ball, or as a team collectively isn't working.

Agreed on Tannehill and Tennessee Titans being the model. The Titans were in the AFC CG in 2019 and Tannehill was their QB. So he's definitely won in the playoffs. If they get Derrick Henry back, watch out for the Titans in the playoffs. They will be the team no one wants to face.

Ahh I remember when they use to say that about us................

 

[TwistedHusky]

I am going to disagree.

The style of ball the Titans want to play and their roster should get them 1 win in the playoffs.

But that is it.

The rules are canted to favor QBs and throwing the ball. The Titans do not have a great secondary. They are going to be at a massive disadvantage in the playoffs.

The Titans run a style of football Pete loves, and it fits their roster. But it isn't going to get you a deep run in the playoffs.

Still
- the Titans are an example of a roster that fits a PeteBall type of approach.
- the Titans are an example of a team that uses gameplans that fit the roster

Neither are true of us. We cannot run a Titan's type of gameplan because we don't have the roster for it.

 

[HawkOG70’]

Maelstrom,

Struggling to understand the relevance of the '20% of the cap point"?

The issue is whether getting rid of Wilson improves the team, when Wilson was the primary factor making us look like an above-average team.

But I will bite, what % of the cap does a typical NFL team with a veteran starting caliber QB?

On average 8%.
Wilson wants better this and that well he needs to take a pay cut. Frodo is too short for 20%