Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Our SB winning formula is toast

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:52 pm
  • Lets go to the wayback machine, if instead of paying Harvin and Graham we used what we had for the most part other then maybe a pick in the draft at some point and used that money to sign proven O lineman instead of the bargain basement and projects.

    Do we win another Super Bowl and are we in better shape to challenge this coming year?

    That would follow the Pete Mantra more.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25448
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:08 pm
  • Smith is at 17 million, so you could have him and Graham for the price of Russell at $30M.
    Just saying there is at least a discussion there.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5870
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:14 pm
  • What happens when we go down big in big games? Russ has proven he can get us back in it, do you trust a Smith level QB to do that? Offenses in the playoffs are really good. Even the most elite defenses will struggle against them. Also, Smith signed for 23.5M APY.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:14 pm
  • adeltaY wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    adeltaY wrote: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.


    I don’t disagree.
    But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13941
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:36 pm
  • adeltaY wrote:What happens when we go down big in big games? Russ has proven he can get us back in it, do you trust a Smith level QB to do that? Offenses in the playoffs are really good. Even the most elite defenses will struggle against them. Also, Smith signed for 23.5M APY.


    Then you go find another Smith for 17 or Kaep for 10. Look I don't want to trade or lose Wilson, I'm simply stating the fact there is a discussion to those that claim there isn't.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5870
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:15 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    adeltaY wrote: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.


    I don’t disagree.
    But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.



    So is the salary cap.

    A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2074
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:16 pm
  • Successful drafts make it easier to replace players that are older and more expensive. Overpaying players happens if you don't pick well.
    gmor
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 180
    Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:03 pm
    Location: Oak Harbor, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:39 pm
  • XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    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.


    I don’t disagree.
    But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.



    So is the salary cap.

    A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.



    I posted a list of teams who have maintained “long term succes” outside the Patriots since the cap. 5 teams since 1994 have been to multiple Super Bowls over a 6 year period.

    Pitt went 2-1 over 6 years. Seattle 1-1 back to back. Denver 1-1 over three years. Giants 2-0. Denver and Dallas went back to back in the 90s. All these teams did have franchise QBs

    That’s it for long term success. That’s not very long term.

    Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13941
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:02 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.


    I'm sure Patriot fans laugh this off as just another excuse, but it really is an advantage.
    Fallin' in love with this new installment of the Seahawks!!!
    User avatar
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 940
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:20 am
    Location: Meadowdale


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:03 pm
  • But it's also one that is like, welp, better hope your QB also has a supermodel wife who makes more money than him so he can do that. Jesus, is that going to be a new thing for draftees - must be engaged to supermodel who makes over 40 mil a year?
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3329
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:19 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    adeltaY wrote: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.

    This..
    My 2 cents or sentences rather would be along SI's lines.
    Will Dissly
    2018 Adopt a rookie
    User avatar
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4056
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:42 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:21 am
  • Cracking thread :2thumbs:
    www.hawk-talk.com

    Image

    Richard Sherman wrote:People look forward to writing us off. Our demise was greatly overstated.
    User avatar
    original poster
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 3171
    Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:55 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:38 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    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.


    I don’t disagree.
    But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.



    So is the salary cap.

    A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.



    I posted a list of teams who have maintained “long term succes” outside the Patriots since the cap. 5 teams since 1994 have been to multiple Super Bowls over a 6 year period.

    Pitt went 2-1 over 6 years. Seattle 1-1 back to back. Denver 1-1 over three years. Giants 2-0. Denver and Dallas went back to back in the 90s. All these teams did have franchise QBs

    That’s it for long term success. That’s not very long term.

    Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.


    Those examples are longer term success than any teams without a franchise QB, besides those numbers are skewed because the AFC has to compete with the Patriots who you dismissed because they pay a little less for their franchise QB (Brady counts 22 mil against the cap, compared to 23 for Russ). Look at all the teams that are in the playoffs year in and year out, they all have franchise QBs. Teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville might make the playoffs a couple years in a row until their defense falls off like nearly every great defense does.

    Just look at every teams record over the last 10 years for proof.

    https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/e ... 2-1-010417
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2074
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:58 am
  • Scorpion05 wrote:I don't agree with this point at all. The problem with our team is really because some of our players aren't playing at a high enough level. A healthy Seahawks team this year makes a Super Bowl run, period. With Carson, with Kam, with Sherman, and others


    We are not healthy because our players are now old. So expecting old players to stay healthy into the future is a bad plan. We held onto our core too long, held onto our coaching staff too long, overpaid players/mortgaged the future.
    Hasselbeck wrote:Matt Flynn should be our starter. Wilson is nothing more than a backup and will never amount to anything in this league.
    User avatar
    ImTheScientist
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3448
    Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:14 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:18 am
  • XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    I don’t disagree.
    But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.



    So is the salary cap.

    A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.



    I posted a list of teams who have maintained “long term succes” outside the Patriots since the cap. 5 teams since 1994 have been to multiple Super Bowls over a 6 year period.

    Pitt went 2-1 over 6 years. Seattle 1-1 back to back. Denver 1-1 over three years. Giants 2-0. Denver and Dallas went back to back in the 90s. All these teams did have franchise QBs

    That’s it for long term success. That’s not very long term.

    Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.


    Those examples are longer term success than any teams without a franchise QB, besides those numbers are skewed because the AFC has to compete with the Patriots who you dismissed because they pay a little less for their franchise QB (Brady counts 22 mil against the cap, compared to 23 for Russ). Look at all the teams that are in the playoffs year in and year out, they all have franchise QBs. Teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville might make the playoffs a couple years in a row until their defense falls off like nearly every great defense does.

    Just look at every teams record over the last 10 years for proof.

    https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/e ... 2-1-010417


    Sure, they are "longer" but not by as much as people are suggesting by this "formula" or "philosophy"

    Point is, the numbers indicate the choices are more difficult than just saying "pay the QB and win"

    If the Hawks had dumped Wilson at his contract year, and the new young QB (whomever) had taken them to the Super Bowl this year, would that not be considered "long term success" as well?

    This is an NFL problem, and until the QB position is independently capped, teams are going to have to determine if they want to pay franchise QBs at the expense of making the rest of the team better.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13941
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:50 am
  • The problem is that the NFL has boxed itself into a corner.

    The rules favor teams with a great QB now. You almost cannot win without a great QB.

    Minnesota and the Eagles are maybe showing some pathways teams can use instead but before the rules it was very possible to make it to the SB with a great defense and a great run game.

    The biggest rule change is that stupid 5 yard holding automatic first down rule. Holding should be 10 yards. No first down.

    I have seen 3rd and 30 plays where a ticky tack holding call gets a first down. It is ridiculous enough that the offense has all the benefit of the doubt, that play tilts the advantage ridiculously in favor of the QB.

    Frankly, there needs to be a cap on PI as well. One bad call can put a team on the goal line and I have seen it happen numerous times. Make it 25 yards if you have to but allowing a team to just chuck it up and end up at the 10 because of it is ridiculous.

    If we stop putting in rules that overweight the impact of the QB, then the NFL won't subject 80% of the other teams to having no chance because they don't have a premiere QB. That will allow some teams to decide to load up with defense instead of paying QBs 170M and it will stop the ridiculous upward pressure on QB salaries because great QBs are such a scare resource their escalating salaries are pushing up the mediocre QB salaries.

    We already have a situation where teams realize that a #1 QB is paramount for long term success and since #1 QBs really can only be gotten with the 1st pick (maybe 2nd or 3rd) - you enter a situation where teams have to compete with each other to be as terrible as possible to get a bad enough record for the 1st pick. Just to get a shot at long term success.

    What the NFL did is put rules in place that artificially added close to 30% extra production from the QBs. Remember when the Greatest Show on Turf was throwing for 300 yards and that was impressive? Now everyone throws for 300, because drives are artificially revived with these rules. But it means QBs look better than they are, cost more than they should, and teams without a QB have to keep getting on the Merry-Go-Round draft cycle hoping to get one.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3355
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:09 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:

    So is the salary cap.

    A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.



    I posted a list of teams who have maintained “long term succes” outside the Patriots since the cap. 5 teams since 1994 have been to multiple Super Bowls over a 6 year period.

    Pitt went 2-1 over 6 years. Seattle 1-1 back to back. Denver 1-1 over three years. Giants 2-0. Denver and Dallas went back to back in the 90s. All these teams did have franchise QBs

    That’s it for long term success. That’s not very long term.

    Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.


    Those examples are longer term success than any teams without a franchise QB, besides those numbers are skewed because the AFC has to compete with the Patriots who you dismissed because they pay a little less for their franchise QB (Brady counts 22 mil against the cap, compared to 23 for Russ). Look at all the teams that are in the playoffs year in and year out, they all have franchise QBs. Teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville might make the playoffs a couple years in a row until their defense falls off like nearly every great defense does.

    Just look at every teams record over the last 10 years for proof.

    https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/e ... 2-1-010417


    Sure, they are "longer" but not by as much as people are suggesting by this "formula" or "philosophy"

    Point is, the numbers indicate the choices are more difficult than just saying "pay the QB and win"

    If the Hawks had dumped Wilson at his contract year, and the new young QB (whomever) had taken them to the Super Bowl this year, would that not be considered "long term success" as well?

    This is an NFL problem, and until the QB position is independently capped, teams are going to have to determine if they want to pay franchise QBs at the expense of making the rest of the team better.


    The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2074
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:20 am
  • XxXdragonXxX wrote:The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.


    I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5870
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:26 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.


    I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.


    The Packers and Colts would tend to disagree with that. Those teams are terrible without their QBs.
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2074
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:49 am
  • XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.


    I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.


    The Packers and Colts would tend to disagree with that. Those teams are terrible without their QBs.



    But what if they weren't paying their QB 15-20% of the cap? That's the point that's trying to be made.

    What if the Seahawk model was to replicate the successes of their 2012-2015 years every 4-5 years through draft? just draft teams and pay young players minimal salaries, mix in vets... restart the process once the young players require big contracts?

    Because right now there is no such thing as long term success in the NFL (again, excluding the Patriots who pay their best player half of what he's worth)
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13941
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:59 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.


    I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.


    The Packers and Colts would tend to disagree with that. Those teams are terrible without their QBs.



    But what if they weren't paying their QB 15-20% of the cap? That's the point that's trying to be made.

    What if the Seahawk model was to replicate the successes of their 2012-2015 years every 4-5 years through draft? just draft teams and pay young players minimal salaries, mix in vets... restart the process once the young players require big contracts?

    Because right now there is no such thing as long term success in the NFL (again, excluding the Patriots who pay their best player half of what he's worth)


    I do think we could if we drafted a Baker Mayfield type of player. Another dynamic young QB that could run around and make plays.

    Not saying I don't want Russell anymore, because this plan could backfire HORRIBLY. But for the sake of the conversation? Sure, if we drafted another dynamic young mobile QB, I could see Pete and John doing well with that extra cap space.

    And it's significant, 25M is 3-4 REALLY good players.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:04 am
  • Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

    The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13941
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:07 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

    The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary


    With position specific caps in an overall capped league it'd be interesting to see where that excess money would wind up - probably where a lot of the money is heading now - Defensive Line. Also, it's plausible that we might see slightly longer tenures with vets on the edge of opting for retirement staying for a season or two more because the money is too good.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3329
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:19 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

    The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary


    I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

    Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:26 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

    The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary


    I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

    Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.


    But the cap isn't rising as fast as the QB salaries.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13941
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:39 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

    The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary


    I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

    Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.


    But the cap isn't rising as fast as the QB salaries.


    QB salaries are increasing far less than the annual cap increase.

    Last year Stafford was the highest paid QB at 27M, and now Garoppolo is going to average 27.5M, 30M the first year.

    The cap's been going up on average 10M a year, 12M last year alone.

    So if each new insane QB contract gets a 1-2M at most bump over the previous QB, then we're good with that not taking away from the rest of the roster with the cap increases.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:52 am
  • NJlargent wrote: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.

    The Graham trade SHOULD shave worked out but you had a boneheaded OC that didnt know how to use him even though he had the Saints blueprint right in front of him.

    They went away from the player’s enormous strength and tried to make him do something he wasn’t good at.
    That’s moronic anyway you spin it.

    An OC’s stubbornness and EGO botched that whole situation up.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24133
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:54 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

    The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary


    I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

    Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.


    But the cap isn't rising as fast as the QB salaries.


    QB salaries are increasing far less than the annual cap increase.

    Last year Stafford was the highest paid QB at 27M, and now Garoppolo is going to average 27.5M, 30M the first year.

    The cap's been going up on average 10M a year, 12M last year alone.

    So if each new insane QB contract gets a 1-2M at most bump over the previous QB, then we're good with that not taking away from the rest of the roster with the cap increases.



    10-12 millions divided over 52 players.. with an additional (let's call it 1-1.5 mill after Cousins signs) to one position.

    Im not going to do the math, but its obvious. within 3 weeks, the 2 highest paid players in the league will be Garrapolo and Cousins. Think of how that will dynamically impact Rodgers, Wilson, etc when its time re-up
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13941
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:01 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

    Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.


    But the cap isn't rising as fast as the QB salaries.


    QB salaries are increasing far less than the annual cap increase.

    Last year Stafford was the highest paid QB at 27M, and now Garoppolo is going to average 27.5M, 30M the first year.

    The cap's been going up on average 10M a year, 12M last year alone.

    So if each new insane QB contract gets a 1-2M at most bump over the previous QB, then we're good with that not taking away from the rest of the roster with the cap increases.



    10-12 millions divided over 52 players.. with an additional (let's call it 1-1.5 mill after Cousins signs) to one position.

    Im not going to do the math, but its obvious. within 3 weeks, the 2 highest paid players in the league will be Garrapolo and Cousins. Think of how that will dynamically impact Rodgers, Wilson, etc when its time re-up



    You have to keep in mind that some percentage of contracts are going to be rookie ones and some percentage are contracts that aren't up for negotiation.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3329
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:05 am
  • I strongly disagree that a team with a good QB and 21 okay players goes 0-16. First of all, even if you're paying your QB a ton, the rest of your 21 wouldn't be "okay," you would have some great players, some good players, many meh players, and some bad ones. Look at the Niners this year. Couldn't win a game with Hoyer or Beathard except against the hapless Giants, but go 5-0 with Jimmy G, including wins over the playoff bound Jags and Titans. Most around here don't even think Jimmy G is good, but you can't deny how obvious a change that was.

    Also, in the salary cap era it's insanely hard to win multiple SBs in a short period of time (Pats exception). Making the playoffs with consistency is a better marker of how good a team is IMO. Who are the teams consistently making the playoffs? Steelers with Big Ben, Pats with Brady, Seahawks with Russ, Packers with Rodgers, Colts when Luck was healthy, the NFC South teams all have franchise QBs, Denver with Manning when he was playing. Shoot, people may see the Chiefs as an exception, but I think Smith should count as a franchise guy.

    You have the Vikings, but what people might be missing is that they had their starting 11 on defense healthy almost all year! That's really good injury luck that is doubtful to repeat in the coming years. Last year, their OL was much worse, but they also had guys in and out of the lineup and their D really suffered and the team went 8-8. The Jags were pretty much healthy this year as well on defense aside from Telvin Smith missing some games. These elite defenses need to keep almost all their pieces together to play at a level necessary to win SBs. We've seen that with our own team.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:06 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:10-12 millions divided over 52 players.. with an additional (let's call it 1-1.5 mill after Cousins signs) to one position.

    Im not going to do the math, but its obvious. within 3 weeks, the 2 highest paid players in the league will be Garrapolo and Cousins. Think of how that will dynamically impact Rodgers, Wilson, etc when its time re-up


    I guess we were using different equations.

    I was talking about the QB contracts specifically jumping each year at the same rate as the cap increase. That's when we'll know the train's jumped the tracks.

    But it's all convoluted anyway, because the guaranteed money is really all that manners. Rodgers can get 35M or even 40M a year, but if his guaranteed portion is a moderate increase over Cousins and Garoppolo, then that's fine.

    Then there's bonus, etc.

    Bottom line, it ain't gonna change. The league wants offense, scoring and it loves it some overpaid QB's. So if I had to bet, we're gonna do the same thing and overpay Russell next year.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:14 am
  • adeltaY wrote:I strongly disagree that a team with a good QB and 21 okay players goes 0-16. First of all, even if you're paying your QB a ton, the rest of your 21 wouldn't be "okay," you would have some great players, some good players, many meh players, and some bad ones. Look at the Niners this year. Couldn't win a game with Hoyer or Beathard except against the hapless Giants, but go 5-0 with Jimmy G, including wins over the playoff bound Jags and Titans. Most around here don't even think Jimmy G is good, but you can't deny how obvious a change that was.

    Also, in the salary cap era it's insanely hard to win multiple SBs in a short period of time (Pats exception). Making the playoffs with consistency is a better marker of how good a team is IMO. Who are the teams consistently making the playoffs? Steelers with Big Ben, Pats with Brady, Seahawks with Russ, Packers with Rodgers, Colts when Luck was healthy, the NFC South teams all have franchise QBs, Denver with Manning when he was playing. Shoot, people may see the Chiefs as an exception, but I think Smith should count as a franchise guy.

    You have the Vikings, but what people might be missing is that they had their starting 11 on defense healthy almost all year! That's really good injury luck that is doubtful to repeat in the coming years. Last year, their OL was much worse, but they also had guys in and out of the lineup and their D really suffered and the team went 8-8. The Jags were pretty much healthy this year as well on defense aside from Telvin Smith missing some games. These elite defenses need to keep almost all their pieces together to play at a level necessary to win SBs. We've seen that with our own team.


    Exactly my point. But the comment said 21 OK players and that means NO, naada, zilch, great players...period.

    You cannot win without a few playmakers on each side on the ball is my point there.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5870
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:23 am
  • You will not get a QB cap ever, the Union would have to agree to it, they would state every position would need one then and you also have the little capitalism aspect of a player should be able to make what the market will dictate, how is a guy going to take care of his family if he has his salary capped. :)
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25448
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:21 am
  • chris98251 wrote:You will not get a QB cap ever, the Union would have to agree to it, they would state every position would need one then and you also have the little capitalism aspect of a player should be able to make what the market will dictate, how is a guy going to take care of his family if he has his salary capped. :)


    There are also cautionary tales from the NBA about what happens when you put a hard cap on salaries - essentially you split the league even further into those who have some semblance of a clue as to how to navigate the meta and those that don't and you wind up with a team like the Warriors where they simply pounced earlier and came out way ahead.

    In fact every change you make to structure and rules creates an inflection point for those who understand and adapt and those who lag in that regard.

    One thing that might be kind of inventive is splitting unused cap space down the middle and padding all player salaries under contract with their half of that split and rolling over the other half going forward. The idea being that if everyone takes a little bit less total, everyone enjoys a small bump overall. It would take more than a few seasons for this to stabalize but it might defray some of the headline numbers while raising salaries all around. Lower paid players would see the most marginal increases under this scheme.

    Another potential benefit of this scheme is that it disjoints the value approximation on individuals versus overall team to some extent.

    It's a bit more socialist than the current scheme BUT pro sports have to walk the line between capitalist/socialist structures to function. From public goodwill to secure stadium financing to salary caps at all, to the owner/player revenue split, to the collective bargaining agreement. The alternative of a purely free market would sort out winners and losers faster which seems like a good idea in the abstract but would probably neccesitate periodic resets once the winners and losers of the market were entrenched.

    Relevant:

    https://www.theringer.com/2018/1/9/1686 ... s-patriots
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3329
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:42 am
  • chris98251 wrote:Lets go to the wayback machine, if instead of paying Harvin and Graham we used what we had for the most part other then maybe a pick in the draft at some point and used that money to sign proven O lineman instead of the bargain basement and projects.

    Do we win another Super Bowl and are we in better shape to challenge this coming year?

    That would follow the Pete Mantra more.


    I wanted to revisit this - detractors of RW can go on and on and on until they're blue in the face complaining about salary/value and yet...yet...the resources in both salary and draft picks to take flyers on two offensive players who provided far below those considerations gets a pass? Not even a pass, but a purposeful avoidance in evaluating the salary structure of the Seahawks as a whole?

    Come on.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3329
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:02 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.


    I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.


    The Packers and Colts would tend to disagree with that. Those teams are terrible without their QBs.



    But what if they weren't paying their QB 15-20% of the cap? That's the point that's trying to be made.

    What if the Seahawk model was to replicate the successes of their 2012-2015 years every 4-5 years through draft? just draft teams and pay young players minimal salaries, mix in vets... restart the process once the young players require big contracts?

    Because right now there is no such thing as long term success in the NFL (again, excluding the Patriots who pay their best player half of what he's worth)


    The draft is a crapshoot. Thats why. Its extremely difficult to continually find star players like Seattle did for 2 drafts. So you either have to be extremeley lucky in several draft, or pay a bunch of star players big money. It just doesnt work for more than 1 or 2 years max.

    Also I have already provided several examples of teams that have been in the playoffs for most of the last decade simply by having a great QB. Pittsburgh, GB, Indy, New Orleans...and again you keep saying how underpaid Brady is (he is) but you are severely overstating it. He counted 22 mil against the cap this year, 1 mil less than Wilson.

    Now find a team that has had consistent success with no QB. There isnt one.
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2074
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:12 pm
  • To correct a slightly flawed line of reasoning in this thread...we don't need to become run HEAVY. We need to run the ball better to become more BALANCED.

    In our SB win, we didn't run worth a crap against the Broncos, but they couldn't stop us through the air.

    The Patriots also did pretty well against the run against us, and we also passed pretty well against them. Balance. It's what we need.

    I think last year was an outlier for injuries. We've typically been fairly healthy. Last year, Washington was the only team that lost more players to IR than we did. I don't see that repeating.

    We also have Graham coming off the books. It's doubtful Avril can play again, and I think Kam is just trying to play to get his contract guaranteed this year then he'll bow out. We'll be ok for the time being if we can draft well, and with Griffith, Reed, Clark and others coming in, we're doing ok. Not record setting great like the draft of '12 but we're still hitting.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7489
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:47 pm
  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    NJlargent wrote: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.

    The Graham trade SHOULD shave worked out but you had a boneheaded OC that didnt know how to use him even though he had the Saints blueprint right in front of him.

    They went away from the player’s enormous strength and tried to make him do something he wasn’t good at.
    That’s moronic anyway you spin it.

    An OC’s stubbornness and EGO botched that whole situation up.


    Added to that was an OLine that couldn’t protect the QB long enough to let Graham be used as a big slot receiver.

    Cable and Bevell together made using Graham as he should have been used mostly impossible except in the red zone this last season. Graham too was able to be taken out of games by hitting him often enough that he got short arms other than in the red zone. He disappeared frequently even when he was healthy.

    He never was a fit for the team as used. His style doesn’t match what types team wants to do. That something is play strong D and have a grinding possession style O. With zero running game JG is an expensive misused offensive piece and is never maxed-out.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5479
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:10 pm
  • Seymour wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.


    I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.


    Which is why GB went from a super bowl contender to on level with the Browns after rodgers went down ;)

    The number of people who want to downplay QB importance on this board is astounding at times.
    randomation
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1235
    Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:35 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:44 pm
  • randomation wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    XxXdragonXxX wrote:The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.


    I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.


    Which is why GB went from a super bowl contender to on level with the Browns after rodgers went down ;)

    The number of people who want to downplay QB importance on this board is astounding at times.


    The argument goes that if they had never retained Rodgers after their SB win, they could or would have built a team that could more robustly handle not having Rodgers. And while valid in premise, its so speculative and has very little basis with other teams that have settled for less talent for less money at QB over that period. Over a dozen teams have tried to build a team without Rodgers or even close to equivelant in talent and enjoyed much less success in aggregate over the same period of time.

    Also, if you factor in the strategic objective of McCarthy to simply make the playoffs and then see what happens, he's been absolutely money on that objective up until a year sans Rodgers.

    The more narrow the parameters for success, the more apparent it becomes to me at least, that the answer to sustained football success is having the GOAT coach and GOAT QB on your roster for almost 2 decades while you plug n play around that. Oh and that GOAT QB is so flush with cash through his nuptuals that he can play below market rates for the value he provides, not only explicitly in his own salary but also providing a modicum of cap relief to the team to build a better supporting cast. That surely is unique.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3329
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:08 pm
  • DomeHawk wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.


    I'm sure Patriot fans laugh this off as just another excuse, but it really is an advantage.



    He was paid top dollar after 2003 and his team stopped winning Superbowls as the defense aged. Once he got older he started to take less money. This last run was made with young drafted D talent and cheap offensive talent that only work in their system. The James White, Chris Hogan, Amandola types along with drafted players like Chandler Jones, Malcom Brown, Hightower and Collins. So yes they have a system that in many ways the Seahawks copied. When Russ is in his mid to late 30’s he will take team friendly deals.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2213
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:24 pm
  • Hawks46 wrote:To correct a slightly flawed line of reasoning in this thread...we don't need to become run HEAVY. We need to run the ball better to become more BALANCED.


    Im not sure if we need to be more balanced without Bevell. It seems to me that our offense was built around the run game. Run first, pass as a compliment...run, run, run, run, chuck it deep when the defense starts to creep up. I dont think Bevell adjusted the way he called the passing game with no run game to set it up.

    I firmly believe that Wilson will be great as the focua of the offense. We obviously need to run the ball BETTER but I dont think we need to run it MORE.
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2074
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:54 pm
  • And I thought our Superbowl winning formula was pancakes.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1040
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:06 pm
  • BirdsCommaAngry wrote:And I thought our Superbowl winning formula was pancakes.


    Nope it was waffles.
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2074
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:19 pm
  • We have a franchise QB who is being paid fairly. What we don’t have is an OLine who can do the job and a RB who is tougher than nails and who runs tough. Our O can’t impose it’s will on anyone. Our D is overworked and our ST are under performing.

    I agree with Largent hat the FO went away from the “formula” by trading for Harvin and Graham losing their first round picks and more to have two expensive players who Bevell had zero clue on how to properly use. Now they are both gone and the team had to trade away early picks to replace those lost picks with player the FO overpaid as they thought they might have a shot at the rings.

    After the trades the team lost their franchise RB and they haven’t yet replaced him. That said they are good at finding RB talent but need to find ‘that guy’ yet although we all remain hopeful about Carson. The loss of Lynch however combined with a totally terrible OLine has the team totally taken away from ‘the formula’ and struggling to maintain their identity. This last season their O in almost winning 11 games and actually only winning just a lowly 9 was nothing short of freaking terrible. They couldn’t run, their O was toothless, and their D was busted and under achieved.

    If the blame game has to be played as some will, it’s on Pn’J for not staying true to their formula for trading away critical early picks and not replacing the key components for their success. The fix is not that far away the D has many of the pieces but needs to add speed and toughness.changes need to happen and big changes are afoot.

    They will return to playing tough D and possession football while punching other teams in the mouth doing just that.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5479
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:20 pm
  • XxXdragonXxX wrote:
    BirdsCommaAngry wrote:And I thought our Superbowl winning formula was pancakes.


    Nope it was waffles.


    Same diff.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3329
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:56 am
  • jammerhawk wrote:We have a franchise QB who is being paid fairly. What we don’t have is an OLine who can do the job and a RB who is tougher than nails and who runs tough. Our O can’t impose it’s will on anyone. Our D is overworked and our ST are under performing.

    I agree with Largent hat the FO went away from the “formula” by trading for Harvin and Graham losing their first round picks and more to have two expensive players who Bevell had zero clue on how to properly use. Now they are both gone and the team had to trade away early picks to replace those lost picks with player the FO overpaid as they thought they might have a shot at the rings.

    After the trades the team lost their franchise RB and they haven’t yet replaced him. That said they are good at finding RB talent but need to find ‘that guy’ yet although we all remain hopeful about Carson. The loss of Lynch however combined with a totally terrible OLine has the team totally taken away from ‘the formula’ and struggling to maintain their identity. This last season their O in almost winning 11 games and actually only winning just a lowly 9 was nothing short of freaking terrible. They couldn’t run, their O was toothless, and their D was busted and under achieved.

    If the blame game has to be played as some will, it’s on Pn’J for not staying true to their formula for trading away critical early picks and not replacing the key components for their success. The fix is not that far away the D has many of the pieces but needs to add speed and toughness.changes need to happen and big changes are afoot.

    They will return to playing tough D and possession football while punching other teams in the mouth doing just that.


    Not only are they not good at finding running back talent, they are actually terrible at it. It is the 2nd most wasted draft pick spot behind oline and it really needs to get much better. Here are 13 reasons over 6 years and 5 total backs in 2016 alone that dispute your opinion on finding RB's.

    Image
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5870
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:52 am
  • TwistedHusky wrote:The problem is that the NFL has boxed itself into a corner.

    The rules favor teams with a great QB now. You almost cannot win without a great QB.

    Minnesota and the Eagles are maybe showing some pathways teams can use instead but before the rules it was very possible to make it to the SB with a great defense and a great run game.

    The biggest rule change is that stupid 5 yard holding automatic first down rule. Holding should be 10 yards. No first down.

    I have seen 3rd and 30 plays where a ticky tack holding call gets a first down. It is ridiculous enough that the offense has all the benefit of the doubt, that play tilts the advantage ridiculously in favor of the QB.

    Frankly, there needs to be a cap on PI as well. One bad call can put a team on the goal line and I have seen it happen numerous times. Make it 25 yards if you have to but allowing a team to just chuck it up and end up at the 10 because of it is ridiculous.

    If we stop putting in rules that overweight the impact of the QB, then the NFL won't subject 80% of the other teams to having no chance because they don't have a premiere QB. That will allow some teams to decide to load up with defense instead of paying QBs 170M and it will stop the ridiculous upward pressure on QB salaries because great QBs are such a scare resource their escalating salaries are pushing up the mediocre QB salaries.

    We already have a situation where teams realize that a #1 QB is paramount for long term success and since #1 QBs really can only be gotten with the 1st pick (maybe 2nd or 3rd) - you enter a situation where teams have to compete with each other to be as terrible as possible to get a bad enough record for the 1st pick. Just to get a shot at long term success.

    What the NFL did is put rules in place that artificially added close to 30% extra production from the QBs. Remember when the Greatest Show on Turf was throwing for 300 yards and that was impressive? Now everyone throws for 300, because drives are artificially revived with these rules. But it means QBs look better than they are, cost more than they should, and teams without a QB have to keep getting on the Merry-Go-Round draft cycle hoping to get one.


    This statement is absolutely correct. The NFL has in fact slanted the game far too much in favor of the offense and especially the QB position. You almost never saw 300 years passing games and certainly not 5000 yard passing seasons in the NFL. That is an exact result of a fundamental change in the rules heavily favoring the offense. It has now become somewhat of a joke when you watch games today.

    I would personally like to see the rules reversed back 20 years and then see what these QB's could accomplish. That would change their value back to where it should be, but it won't happen. The NFL doesn't know how to correct the problem and is slowly killing itself.
    kf3339
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2687
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:58 am
  • Yes, let's go back to smash mouth run game offenses where these even more elite, faster, stronger defenders can tee off on the players even more...

    I do not think that is what the game is looking for.. less scoring and more injuries.

    The QB should be the primary position in the NFL, and the rules should be slanted to his advantage (heavily, really). The problem is their salaries have skipped because their numbers are way up and it's getting tougher to pay more than a handful of elite players on a team where the QB is making a huge salary.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13941
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:59 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    jammerhawk wrote:We have a franchise QB who is being paid fairly. What we don’t have is an OLine who can do the job and a RB who is tougher than nails and who runs tough. Our O can’t impose it’s will on anyone. Our D is overworked and our ST are under performing.

    I agree with Largent hat the FO went away from the “formula” by trading for Harvin and Graham losing their first round picks and more to have two expensive players who Bevell had zero clue on how to properly use. Now they are both gone and the team had to trade away early picks to replace those lost picks with player the FO overpaid as they thought they might have a shot at the rings.

    After the trades the team lost their franchise RB and they haven’t yet replaced him. That said they are good at finding RB talent but need to find ‘that guy’ yet although we all remain hopeful about Carson. The loss of Lynch however combined with a totally terrible OLine has the team totally taken away from ‘the formula’ and struggling to maintain their identity. This last season their O in almost winning 11 games and actually only winning just a lowly 9 was nothing short of freaking terrible. They couldn’t run, their O was toothless, and their D was busted and under achieved.

    If the blame game has to be played as some will, it’s on Pn’J for not staying true to their formula for trading away critical early picks and not replacing the key components for their success. The fix is not that far away the D has many of the pieces but needs to add speed and toughness.changes need to happen and big changes are afoot.

    They will return to playing tough D and possession football while punching other teams in the mouth doing just that.


    Not only are they not good at finding running back talent, they are actually terrible at it. It is the 2nd most wasted draft pick spot behind oline and it really needs to get much better. Here are 13 reasons over 6 years and 5 total backs in 2016 alone that dispute your opinion on finding RB's.

    Image


    It is not the talent at RB, it was the line and how the scheme was used. You can't run through Brick walls unless your a D9 which Lynch was close to.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25448
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


PreviousNext


It is currently Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:48 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online