#1 the Peyton Manning distraction. Many of those same teams (including us were after him).
#2 the Kolb effect. Paranoia of a high priced mistake on a relatively uncertain choice.
#3 Strong QB draft this year (min. 3 projected starters in this years draft) and next year at a much lower cost.
#4 Lack of actual playing experience (played behind #1 college QB then #1 pro QB)
#5 He came much cheaper then most expected.

Last but not least...they are all idiots.

_________________
"Improvement" can come from who you play-

Are you kidding? 2 and 5 are contradictory.
I imagine that conversation, just before the owner fires the former GM. Owner: so tell me again why you don't want this certain free agent?
Former GM: He doesn't cost enough. Signing him will leave us well under the cap.
Owner: GTFO!

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need

No they are not. Compare the cost of Luck or RG3 to Flynn (or most any FA) and the cost vs risk is a no brainer to look toward the draft.

That does not mean Flynn is not very capable either!

Also the GM's didn't know the ending price until it was too late...he was signed by us!

_________________
"Improvement" can come from who you play-

No, not even close. Teams don't have to give up anything but money for reasonably priced free agents. For teams with plenty of space under the cap, you're giving up basically nothing to bring in a free agent on a short deal with not too much guaranteed money. To draft someone like Luck or RG3, the money might not be quite as much, but you're using the draft pick that could otherwise be used on another potential impact player. Look at the Whitehurst deal, for example. We gave up both picks and money for him. Which was a greater cost? The $10 million over two years or the draft position we lost?

Love the discussion in here.



FWIW, I really liked the onside kick. I thought it was well timed and it put the odds in our favor, but the Rams got a lucky bounce. I do agree with you that some of the 3rd down playcalling has left me scratching my head, namely the two 3rd and 2 QB draws in the past two games. At the same time, there are many great plays that Bevell has drawn up (McCoy TD, 1st Tate TD vs. GB) that aren't being talked about nearly as much and had much bigger impacts on the outcomes of the games.

As far as Wilson, If he isn't given the starting job, then the "always compete" mantra would have been made to look like a sham. He clearly outplayed Flynn in the preseason. But that doesn't even matter anyway, because Flynn's elbow injury would have kept him from starting anyway. Wilson would have been the starter by default in either scenario. Carroll had no choice, therefore it doesn't make much sense to criticize him for it.

For the record, I am okay with giving Flynn some starts to see what he can do, once he's healthy. Carroll even said that the QB competition didn't end with Wilson being named the starter. I'm also okay with Wilson starting all 16 games. I can see the wisdom of both arguments on this issue. I'm about as committed to the current QB situation as Mitt Romney is to health care or immigration. On this issue, I'm pretty much a human pretzel.

_________________

"I believe there’s merit to the idea that once something in life becomes conventional, it’s no longer the safest path to success." -Matt Waldman
"If everyone's thinking alike, no one's thinking." -Bill Walsh

You don't have to be Vince Lomardi to know that a QB with five years of professional experience in one of the best QB systems of all time is more equipped to run an offense than a rookie QB.

Btw IMO = In My Opinion.....as in this is my opinion, just like everything everyone types on this forum is our opinions.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.

well, that's YOUR opinion

_________________
Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

Five years experience and he couldn't beat out a rookie. Sounds an awful lot like Whitehurst 2.0 to me.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

What if Carroll would have said it would take 6 years to win.?

Sounds like a built in excuse to fail if you ask me.

_________________

Sure, because 1-year plans are all the rage. I mean, Harbaugh did it...

Almost.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

I am kinda liking Harbaughs plan. The man knows how to coach in the NFL.

Not so sure about Pete right now.

_________________

Sooo... bring in a coach to a ready-made Super Bowl team and get them within a few plays of winning the divisional playoff round. Brilliant!

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

We knew they were talented but nobody thought they were a ready made super bowl team. I am sure you did though. Right.?

Sucks to give someone credit, I know.

_________________

I really love this front office and I hope their plan, be it 3, 4 or even 5 years comes fully to fruition and this team is able to compete for and possibly win multiple championships!! Wouldn't that be great?!

_________________
Tanzania¹²

FWIW, I think PC/JS has worked miracles on a messianic level to bring back this roster to the level it is at now.......I shudder to think what kind of IED like aftermath we would have been left with if we would have 'stayed the course' with Ruskell and Mora. As pointed out, we have a very good defense, great running game and solid special teams. I don't think we should lose sight of that.....yes PC/JS failed on the CBJ experiment, they signed Flynn to be an expensive backup and Wilson may fail. The law of averages tells us eventually, as long as they keep looking at the QB position, will "hit" on one. I say let him finish his contract.

Holy crap you were a RW supporter Kearly ? I never knew !

Seriously, I agree with ya, I just jumped off the bandwagon about the time we announced a rookie starting at QB. Historically, it's not worked out more than it has.

So, in your opinion Kearly, are Wilson's shortcomings something that he needs to work through by physically playing, or would he have been better served sitting behind Flynn and watching for a year ?

I've always been a big proponent of sitting your rookies, but there are times (like the Panthers last year) where you have nothing to lose and you might as well.

I did, actually. And, PM'd a few hear saying that.

_________________
@ryanadamdavis

I think he would develop faster playing. He's already proved he can play in practice and in the preseason. Most baseball analysts would tell you that if you had a hitter who hit .330 in the minors but hit .230 in the majors, you wouldn't send him down to the minors because he's already shown he's mastered that level and wouldn't gain much by playing against crappy competition again. He'd be better served staying in the majors and working things out because the types of competition he must learn to conquer won't exist very often at the lower levels.

That's Wilson's situation. What he needs to learn is pretty much exclusively from real game situations. If he were benched, he'd still learn a few minor things- he'd still be able to increase his mastery of the playbook and such- but that's a very, very small part of Wilson's problem right now.

That said, what if (a healthy) Matt Flynn is a good fit for this conservative offense? Look at the success Matt Ryan is having right now, and Flynn is a very similar QB. That's why I'm not bashing the Flynn chanters. I think both sides have good points to make.

_________________

"I believe there’s merit to the idea that once something in life becomes conventional, it’s no longer the safest path to success." -Matt Waldman
"If everyone's thinking alike, no one's thinking." -Bill Walsh

Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?

Apparently he's short.

_________________
Papaki douchebag love turtle long time

When the Thunder play the Grizzlies, I'll be cheering for a tornado.