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 9:32 am
  • Oh brother, a fan said it would happen, so it must be so :roll:
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8869
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:41 am
  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Oh brother, a fan said it would happen, so it must be so :roll:


    Was that to this post or some other post?

    RCATES wrote:I've been saying this forever. We went all in this year and shit the bed. This team will be doing jack shit the next 3-5 years. At least we found out late in the year that even with decent O-Line play Wilson blows without a running game.


    Trying to spare you another "misunderstanding" rebuttal post is all. ;)
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:51 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    WindCityHawk wrote:All of this presupposes we move into the draft--let alone next season--with the same team. We already have new coaches. We will likely go to work week 1 with Carson at RB. Watch for trades to collect draft capital and jettisoning contracts like Chancellor (and stop suggesting we ditch Bennett. He's still one of our most productive linemen for relatively little money. Don't pretend your concerns are financial).

    In a league where the Jaguars can go from three wins to the conference championship, and a second-year coach can lift a Lombardi with a backup QB, I say be patient.
    The game is long, and look how much we've already changed since Christmas.


    Good reminder. So should we be on year 1 of our 2nd year coach then? :twisted:

    Seriously though....those are exceptions more than rules about other ways of getting there, but at least it's some more reason for hope. :2thumbs:



    it is and isnt an exception though, right? I mean that's the point of the salary cap. Force successful teams to make difficult choices to even the playing field.

    The Jaguars and Eagles are much closer to the Seahawks you hope for then the current Seahawks are. And once they get their success, they will have the same choices the Seahawks (and other teams that reach the pinnacle) have.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:55 am
  • It was towards the whole I told you so crap. :lol:
    And he couldn't be more wrong. They won't be doing Jack Sh? Yeah right.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8869
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:59 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:There have been salary cap posts on here for over a decade. Yours isn’t new. The trend seems to be the need to manufacture hyperbolic emotion in them

    “It’s toast!!!!”

    Oh the madness of it all.

    Drafting a whole bunch of future pro bowlers and maybe Hall of famers in a 3 year span is not a formula. It’s very very fortunate and rare.


    Fair point on thread title, but to me our situation is alarming the more you look into it, so I used 1 alarming word....toast. I could have said broken, or found another way to make the point, but it is what it is I suppose.

    On 2nd point of having to find another 6 pro bowlers. That is missing the mark if you read on. I'm not saying we have to do exactly that, there are other ways to save enough $$ in drafting to fill in the holes back to championship level with FA and trades then to rely on epic level of drafting over 3 years. 1 every other year or so over the last 5 may even have done enough. Point is, we need to do better or be good with watching other teams rise above us.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:09 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    WindCityHawk wrote:All of this presupposes we move into the draft--let alone next season--with the same team. We already have new coaches. We will likely go to work week 1 with Carson at RB. Watch for trades to collect draft capital and jettisoning contracts like Chancellor (and stop suggesting we ditch Bennett. He's still one of our most productive linemen for relatively little money. Don't pretend your concerns are financial).

    In a league where the Jaguars can go from three wins to the conference championship, and a second-year coach can lift a Lombardi with a backup QB, I say be patient.
    The game is long, and look how much we've already changed since Christmas.


    Good reminder. So should we be on year 1 of our 2nd year coach then? :twisted:

    Seriously though....those are exceptions more than rules about other ways of getting there, but at least it's some more reason for hope. :2thumbs:



    it is and isnt an exception though, right? I mean that's the point of the salary cap. Force successful teams to make difficult choices to even the playing field.

    The Jaguars and Eagles are much closer to the Seahawks you hope for then the current Seahawks are. And once they get their success, they will have the same choices the Seahawks (and other teams that reach the pinnacle) have.


    I'd agree with that.
    In 2010-2012 we were in rebuild mode. In 2013-2017 we were in maintain mode, and now in 2018-??? we are back or getting very close to rebuild mode because we did not hit enough picks to maintain the roster at championship level.
    Maintain mode is where we lost our edge, and there is only one current great team we can look at to accomplish that....the beloved Patriots. :pukeface:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:10 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:There have been salary cap posts on here for over a decade. Yours isn’t new. The trend seems to be the need to manufacture hyperbolic emotion in them

    “It’s toast!!!!”

    Oh the madness of it all.

    Drafting a whole bunch of future pro bowlers and maybe Hall of famers in a 3 year span is not a formula. It’s very very fortunate and rare.


    Fair point on thread title, but to me our situation is alarming the more you look into it, so I used 1 alarming word....toast. I could have said broken, or found another way to make the point, but it is what it is I suppose.

    On 2nd point of having to find another 6 pro bowlers. That is missing the mark if you read on. I'm not saying we have to do exactly that, there are other ways to save enough $$ in drafting to fill in the holes back to championship level with FA and trades then to rely on epic level of drafting over 3 years. 1 every other year or so over the last 5 may even have done enough. Point is, we need to do better or be good with watching other teams rise above us.


    This is absolutely correct and was especially important to this team in particular, especially because of the players they were paying
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:12 am
  • The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

    So that's what Pete's doing, trying to get back to the right formula.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:16 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

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



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

    That can't be the "formula"

    Seymour is hitting the right point... the team's failures in recent drafts has left them little choice in who to keep now
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:22 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

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



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

    That can't be the "formula"

    Seymour is hitting the right point... the team's failures in recent drafts has left them little choice in who to keep now


    Maybe, I think John and especially Pete know how to draft defense..........it's why most of our draft picks after those amazing early drafts have succeeded on the defensive side of the ball, and not so much offensive.

    So IMO we can get young again on defense, honestly I don't think we have a choice with Pete as coach. As I've said before, has there ever been a REALLY great old defense?

    I mean, if the plan is to get back to basics and run the ball and play great D? Then continuing to spend money on aging vets and underperforming FA's is a recipe for more of the past three years.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:22 am
  • To win he must churn the roster of age and salary, then he has to replace those players with up and comers that will eventually match their quality, hunger and aggressiveness works at first before savvy and experience.

    The problem is do we have the evaluators, Pete does not know the players in college like he did coming in, we are now back to a more traditional process rather then a intimate one. We will see how good John and his scouts are this draft, we can't afford to miss with so few picks, we don't have the luxury of hoping to make a project work, We need as much plug and play as we can get as well as last years players to make the next step up.
    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: 24235
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:27 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

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



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

    That can't be the "formula"

    Seymour is hitting the right point... the team's failures in recent drafts has left them little choice in who to keep now


    Maybe, I think John and especially Pete know how to draft defense..........it's why most of our draft picks after those amazing early drafts have succeeded on the defensive side of the ball, and not so much offensive.

    So IMO we can get young again on defense, honestly I don't think we have a choice with Pete as coach. As I've said before, has there ever been a REALLY great old defense?

    I mean, if the plan is to get back to basics and run the ball and play great D? Then continuing to spend money on aging vets and underperforming FA's is a recipe for more of the past three years.


    2001 Ravens maybe? they weren't very young. good mix really. only 1 super bowl which brings it back to the original point
    edit. found it https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/2000_roster.htm
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:29 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

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


    That is a bit of cause vs effect argument there IMO. I say the cause is the lack of good enough drafting to maintain the formula, ie toast until we resolve to better drafting (rather than "we just stopped following it") is the #1 reason, and you say the cause is "we just stopped."
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:30 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

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



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

    That can't be the "formula"

    Seymour is hitting the right point... the team's failures in recent drafts has left them little choice in who to keep now


    Maybe, I think John and especially Pete know how to draft defense..........it's why most of our draft picks after those amazing early drafts have succeeded on the defensive side of the ball, and not so much offensive.

    So IMO we can get young again on defense, honestly I don't think we have a choice with Pete as coach. As I've said before, has there ever been a REALLY great old defense?

    I mean, if the plan is to get back to basics and run the ball and play great D? Then continuing to spend money on aging vets and underperforming FA's is a recipe for more of the past three years.


    2001 Ravens maybe? they weren't very young. I think Woodson was their starting safety at like 35 years old


    I was curious about this as well - to me it seems you can have one or two aged vets, especially at safety and still build an incredible portfolio of defensive talent.

    Case in point John Lynch was 31 as SS for the 2002 Bucs and the oldest player on defense. I'm sure if we go down the list of great defenses, there are probably 2-3 vet starters over the age of 30 MAX.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:32 am
  • i was shocked when i looked that up and saw Reed wasnt even on the team until two years later. one of the Greatest safeties of all time (imo) missed the greatest defense of all time by 2 years
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:34 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

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


    That is a bit of cause vs effect argument there IMO. I say the cause is the lack of good enough drafting to maintain the formula, ie toast until we resolve to better drafting (rather than "we just stopped following it") is the #1 reason, and you say the cause is "we just stopped."



    I'm just correcting your Subject Line.

    The formula isn't broken, or "toast." Our FO just decided to stop following the formula, and the reasons are the things you're talking about.

    Again, why Pete's going back to his formula. Will it work? Idk, it's pretty broken right now, not sure he and John can fix it, at least not in the two years they both have left on their contracts. Turning a roster over and getting back to the SB would take another 2-3 drafts like we had when they got here.....................WITH less picks.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:39 am
  • chris98251 wrote:To win he must churn the roster of age and salary, then he has to replace those players with up and comers that will eventually match their quality, hunger and aggressiveness works at first before savvy and experience.

    The problem is do we have the evaluators, Pete does not know the players in college like he did coming in, we are now back to a more traditional process rather then a intimate one.
    We will see how good John and his scouts are this draft, we can't afford to miss with so few picks, we don't have the luxury of hoping to make a project work, We need as much plug and play as we can get as well as last years players to make the next step up.


    Bingo. Right where I've been heading too.

    I also agree Pete's strength being D that that is the place to cut and build, and pay the offense to fill the holes to get run game back. This is the exact opposite of what we've done the last 3 years in paying the D far more $$. Pete relied on Cable (and Prob. Bevell to some degree) to build the offense. That could also improve with new hires so I'm not saying our total outlook is toast at all either.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:42 am
  • The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

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

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

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

    In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/29451/seven-reasons-why-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

    Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

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

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

    Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:48 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

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


    That is a bit of cause vs effect argument there IMO. I say the cause is the lack of good enough drafting to maintain the formula, ie toast until we resolve to better drafting (rather than "we just stopped following it") is the #1 reason, and you say the cause is "we just stopped."



    I'm just correcting your Subject Line.

    The formula isn't broken, or "toast." Our FO just decided to stop following the formula, and the reasons are the things you're talking about.

    Again, why Pete's going back to his formula. Will it work? Idk, it's pretty broken right now, not sure he and John can fix it, at least not in the two years they both have left on their contracts. Turning a roster over and getting back to the SB would take another 2-3 drafts like we had when they got here.....................WITH less picks.


    I won't argue your "correction" other than that is an opinion not a fact.

    Other than that, I agree on the rest including not thinking Pete has time to fix. If he does, he will double his legendary status IMO.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:49 am
  • TwistedHusky wrote:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

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

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

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

    In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/29451/seven-reasons-why-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

    Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

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

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

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


    I don't think "run the ball and play great defense" is anyone's secret.

    It's the oldest plan in football, it's what everyone tries to do well. Because that's how you win consistently, you control the clock, wear down the other team by running................and play great defense.

    It's not rocket science what Pete's trying to do, but that IS a formula. And it's one he's been VERY successful at for his entire career.

    So I do think we can get that formula back, just don't know if Pete and John can do it in the two years they have left. Or heck, even want to do it here.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:54 am
  • TwistedHusky wrote:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

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


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

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

    In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/29451/seven-reasons-why-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

    Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

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

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

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


    Disagree. I don't believe "the formula" was a pre conceived plan at all. It just shook out that way through great drafting and now we look back and see how we built that team we can look at where we deviated and use that as at least 1 solution to get back.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:55 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

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

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

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

    In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/29451/seven-reasons-why-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

    Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

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

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

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


    I don't think "run the ball and play great defense" is anyone's secret.

    It's the oldest plan in football, it's what everyone tries to do well. Because that's how you win consistently, you control the clock, wear down the other team by running................and play great defense.

    It's not rocket science what Pete's trying to do, but that IS a formula. And it's one he's been VERY successful at for his entire career.

    So I do think we can get that formula back, just don't know if Pete and John can do it in the two years they have left. Or heck, even want to do it here.


    I'd argue that since Peyton Manning, many teams have not tried to - several teams have tried to take shortcuts to offensive stability and efficiency like the Colts with Luck without understanding the underpinnings - as good as Peyton was, those teams in general were also just plain better without even regarding coaching. And it hasn't been successful in aggregate, only in spot situations where the defense rose to the occasion almost as an anomaly. See the DVOA of Superbowl champs versus the DVOA of playoff participants.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:58 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

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


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

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

    In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/29451/seven-reasons-why-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

    Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

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

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

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


    Disagree. I don't believe "the formula" was a pre conceived plan at all. It just shook out that way through great drafting and now we look back and see how we built that team we can look at where we deviated and use that as at least 1 solution to get back.


    Also, that article lists the same 2 top reasons I do...Drafting, and #2...the play.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:01 am
  • mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

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

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

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

    In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/29451/seven-reasons-why-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

    Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

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

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

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


    I don't think "run the ball and play great defense" is anyone's secret.

    It's the oldest plan in football, it's what everyone tries to do well. Because that's how you win consistently, you control the clock, wear down the other team by running................and play great defense.

    It's not rocket science what Pete's trying to do, but that IS a formula. And it's one he's been VERY successful at for his entire career.

    So I do think we can get that formula back, just don't know if Pete and John can do it in the two years they have left. Or heck, even want to do it here.


    I'd argue that since Peyton Manning, many teams have not tried to - several teams have tried to take shortcuts to offensive stability and efficiency like the Colts with Luck without understanding the underpinnings - as good as Peyton was, those teams in general were also just plain better without even regarding coaching. And it hasn't been successful in aggregate, only in spot situations where the defense rose to the occasion almost as an anomaly. See the DVOA of Superbowl champs versus the DVOA of playoff participants.


    Yes, if you have Peyton Manning or Tom Brady as your QB, you can veer away from this formula. But even those two QB's had good to great run games behind them..........which made them even more lethal.

    Very few times throughout NFL history has a QB completely carried his team to a Lombardi. It's about balance, on both sides of the ball.

    That's my point, it's not a secret, and it's something EVERY team strives for.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:08 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

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

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

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

    In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/29451/seven-reasons-why-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

    Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

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

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

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


    I don't think "run the ball and play great defense" is anyone's secret.

    It's the oldest plan in football, it's what everyone tries to do well. Because that's how you win consistently, you control the clock, wear down the other team by running................and play great defense.

    It's not rocket science what Pete's trying to do, but that IS a formula. And it's one he's been VERY successful at for his entire career.

    So I do think we can get that formula back, just don't know if Pete and John can do it in the two years they have left. Or heck, even want to do it here.


    I'd argue that since Peyton Manning, many teams have not tried to - several teams have tried to take shortcuts to offensive stability and efficiency like the Colts with Luck without understanding the underpinnings - as good as Peyton was, those teams in general were also just plain better without even regarding coaching. And it hasn't been successful in aggregate, only in spot situations where the defense rose to the occasion almost as an anomaly. See the DVOA of Superbowl champs versus the DVOA of playoff participants.


    Yes, if you have Peyton Manning or Tom Brady as your QB, you can veer away from this formula. But even those two QB's had good to great run games behind them..........which made them even more lethal.

    Very few times throughout NFL history has a QB completely carried his team to a Lombardi. It's about balance, on both sides of the ball.

    That's my point, it's not a secret, and it's something EVERY team strives for.


    And we could go around in circles vis a vis Peyton helping his RBs output, sure, but if we look at a team as a holistic entity - those teams were simply plain better and even though not fully balanced, certainly more so than other iterations that seemingly try to fling a QB at the wall and see if he sticks and is the entire focal point of the team, like Matt Stafford.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:12 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:Is our Super bowl winning formula to draft a bunch of great players and pay them nothing? Why haven’t other teams tried this?


    Lol!

    Ascerbic, succinct, and funny.

    Our team's formula for success has involved running the ball and playing tough D. Not being able to run the ball or stop other teams on 3rd down really takes away from the formula. The team has talent on the roster but has been hamstrung with key injuries and a woefully weak OLine.

    Pete and John bought the BS from Cable that he could fix the running game and the OLine. Pete even let Sherman Smith go so Cable could be free to screw things up worse than they were. The team brought in 11 RBs for last season to try and find the guys to suit Cable and the the running game was reduced to almost the worst ever in league history. The team axed a good RB who had immediate success in Baltimore and the OLine looked worse than ever run blocking and pass protection depsite the addition of Pro Bowl Quality LT. It was crappy coaching and uncertain lines of authority combine with a frequently clueless OC who's authority was diminshed b/c of Cable's meddling. Pete needs to wear this so does John but changes have been made and there is some raw talent here that Solari can hopefully coach up on the OLine. The deadwood at RB will be jettisoned and the D will get younger and hungier. It won't be an impossible fix to return the team to defensive dominance, fixing the running game will be the challenge.

    The formula is not toast despite the cap issues but it is clear the trades for other team's sometime stars ( Harvin and Graham) haven't worked and should not happen again.
    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: 5006
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:13 am
  • mrt144 wrote:
    And we could go around in circles vis a vis Peyton helping his RBs output, sure, but if we look at a team as a holistic entity - those teams were simply plain better and even though not fully balanced, certainly more so than other iterations that seemingly try to fling a QB at the wall and see if he sticks and is the entire focal point of the team, like Matt Stafford.


    You just made my point for me, balance............and remember for all the success Peyton had in Indy, he only won one championship. Wasn't until he again had a great defense and good run game that he won another.

    You can get as creative and throw happy as you want, but in the end the only true constants in the game of football are balance on offense and great defense.

    We just saw it in the SB, Brady threw for almost 600 yards, and lost. Jenkins took away the Patriot running backs by spying them, and made the Pats one dimensional.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:15 am
  • TwistedHusky wrote:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.


    I need to clarify this because there are a couple of things at work in verbiage here and I hate misunderstandings.

    When I say "the formula" I'm refering to the method we used to get the resources to build the championship roster. I am not talking about "the plan", or "the blueprint" to the actual team. Ie....run first and young, hungry, fast defense. There is no reason to bring that in IMO as that will stay the same as long as Pete is here.

    And to that, I say we did not plan "the formula", it shook out that way through great drafting and it worked. Starting with what worked, and using what didn't to learn from, is a great way to return to power. But not the only way either.
    Last edited by Seymour on Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:16 am
  • jammerhawk wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:Is our Super bowl winning formula to draft a bunch of great players and pay them nothing? Why haven’t other teams tried this?


    Lol!

    Ascerbic, succinct, and funny.

    Our team's formula for success has involved running the ball and playing tough D. Not being able to run the ball or stop other teams on 3rd down really takes away from the formula. The team has talent on the roster but has been hamstrung with key injuries and a woefully weak OLine.

    Pete and John bought the BS from Cable that he could fix the running game and the OLine. Pete even let Sherman Smith go so Cable could be free to screw things up worse than they were. The team brought in 11 RBs for last season to try and find the guys to suit Cable and the the running game was reduced to almost the worst ever in league history. The team axed a good RB who had immediate success in Baltimore and the OLine looked worse than ever run blocking and pass protection depsite the addition of Pro Bowl Quality LT. It was crappy coaching and uncertain lines of authority combine with a frequently clueless OC who's authority was diminshed b/c of Cable's meddling. Pete needs to wear this so does John but changes have been made and there is some raw talent here that Solari can hopefully coach up on the OLine. The deadwood at RB will be jettisoned and the D will get younger and hungier. It won't be an impossible fix to return the team to defensive dominance, fixing the running game will be the challenge.

    The formula is not toast despite the cap issues but it is clear the trades for other team's sometime stars ( Harvin and Graham) haven't worked and should not happen again.



    agreed on all points. The Harvin and Graham trades were so confusing because they did not exemplify the team strengths. you could make an argument that if used correctly both COULD have.. but thats not quite happened either
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:17 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    And we could go around in circles vis a vis Peyton helping his RBs output, sure, but if we look at a team as a holistic entity - those teams were simply plain better and even though not fully balanced, certainly more so than other iterations that seemingly try to fling a QB at the wall and see if he sticks and is the entire focal point of the team, like Matt Stafford.


    You just made my point for me, balance............and remember for all the success Peyton had in Indy, he only won one championship. Wasn't until he again had a great defense and good run game that he won another.

    You can get as creative and throw happy as you want, but in the end the only true constants in the game of football are balance on offense and great defense.

    We just saw it in the SB, Brady threw for almost 600 yards, and lost. Jenkins took away the Patriot running backs by spying them, and made the Pats one dimensional.


    I am agreeing with you, and have been, yes.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:06 pm
  • 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.
    NJlargent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1336
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:02 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:16 pm
  • Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

    Our best offensive players? Passing game

    Arguably best offensive player? QB

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

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

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

    Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:41 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

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

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

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



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

    That can't be the "formula"


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

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16918
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:56 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Agreed. Waiting for another dirt-cheap-but-all-Pro-Bowler back seven is going to leave every team waiting until the end of time. It isn't happening again. Give Wilson a decent, opportunistic defense, a kicker, and an actual run game (in other words, a complete team) and we can challenge for the big game.


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

    It was true, all of it.

    Image
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:58 pm
  • Not really. Losing everything but Russell TO INJURY AND BAD FREE AGENCY MOVES and then watching Russell struggle doesn't exactly lead to the conclusion that Russell's contract was the problem.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16918
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:09 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Not really. Losing everything but Russell TO INJURY AND BAD FREE AGENCY MOVES and then watching Russell struggle doesn't exactly lead to the conclusion that Russell's contract was the problem.


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

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

    Not it's gone, all gone.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:10 pm
  • TwistedHusky wrote:Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

    Our best offensive players? Passing game

    Arguably best offensive player? QB

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    My sense is that even if we hadn't extended our defensive roster would mostly be identical to the one in 2017 and our offensive roster would be sufficiently different with no insight into better or worse.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:21 pm
  • TwistedHusky wrote:Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

    Our best offensive players? Passing game

    Arguably best offensive player? QB

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

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

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

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


    You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:22 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

    Our best offensive players? Passing game

    Arguably best offensive player? QB

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

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

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

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


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


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

    To wit, in what world is giving RW increasingly bad OL part of supporting RW?
    Last edited by mrt144 on Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:26 pm
  • Which is fine.. if you do it right. I’d say the Hawks did not help RW with their line up choices on offense
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:38 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years


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

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

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

    I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13745
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:06 pm
  • mrt144 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.

    Our best offensive players? Passing game

    Arguably best offensive player? QB

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


    In no world. I'm writing that off as Pete's lack of expertise on offense and OL in particular and trust in Cable Bevell myself. Look at all the resource Cable has been given over the years, it's sickeningly incompetent. The attempts have been made, just unsuccessfully. That could change with Solari, but now we still may have throwing draft picks at more RB's to drag us down like I posted on page 1.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:27 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years


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

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

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

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

    No it's not IMO, but he does help the run game. Pete is smart enough to know that our chances are better to overpay and not jump back into the bad QB gauntlet then to cut him lose and spend his $$ more wisely IMO.
    But I agree with your point, and brought that into question also.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:58 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years


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

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

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

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

    This focal point question would be a great topic
    I'd love to put my 2 cents in that.
    Will Dissly
    2018 Adopt a rookie
    User avatar
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3883
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:42 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:00 pm
  • IndyHawk wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years


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

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

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

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

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


    What, two sentences basically?

    "RW is not a franchise QB. We needed to draft a new one between 2015 and 2017"
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3704
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:06 pm
  • IndyHawk wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years


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

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

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

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

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


    It is part of this topic on what to do to get back to the SB so I have no issues with that discussion here personally. :2thumbs:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4567
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:14 pm
  • 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.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2121
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:37 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13486
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:05 pm
  • TwistedHusky wrote:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

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

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

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

    In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/29451/seven-reasons-why-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

    Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

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

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

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



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

    Helping to Make the Seahawks Great Again...
    semiahmoo
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:10 pm


Re: Our SB winning formula is toast
Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:44 pm
  • 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.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2121
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


PreviousNext


It is currently Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:42 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online