The 4 year plan

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:57 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:
    kf3339 wrote:
    iigakusei wrote:Do you not remember everyone saying the same thing about Whitehurst? Could it be possible that Flynn just isnt very good?


    Then how do you explain the New Englund and Detroit games performance. You don't post results like that and put him in the same class as Whitehurst! Not at all.

    31 other GMs, some in desperate quarterback straights, saw those same two games and did not chase after Mr. Flynn. How do you explain that he was such a bargain after those two games?


    By your token then, 32 GM's passed not once but twice on Wilson in the draft. Many had QB needs but chose NOT to pick him, including us. How do you explain that? In addition at least 10 GM's passed on him before we took him in the 3rd round. Many still had QB issues but still chose to pass. Why? Just because he was too short? It couldn't be anything else?

    I don't know and neither do you!
    kf3339
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1381
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:01 pm
  • kf3339 wrote:Then how do you explain the New Englund and Detroit games performance. You don't post results like that and put him in the same class as Whitehurst! Not at all.

    Big numbers over a 2 game sample can be very inflated and misleading when you have several fluky plays like a RB taking a screen from behind the LOS for an 80 yard TD, a WR getting 10 yards beyond the secondary for an easy TD bomb, and WRs taking short slants through the secondary for huge gains. Those aren't plays that are likely to be repeated and don't have much predictive value for the QB's future performance.

    SalishHawkFan wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:31 other GMs, some in desperate quarterback straights, saw those same two games and did not chase after Mr. Flynn. How do you explain that he was such a bargain after those two games?

    One knew they were drafting Luck. One was trying to grab RG3. One grabbed Tannehill. A couple were in the hunt for Mr. Manning. One in Florida didn't offer him as good a deal as we did. The rest already had QB's they were going with. Who would have grabbed Flynn besides Miami that didn't already have someone lined up? You aren't going to dump a QB with experience in your system for an untested FA. The Niners would have snatched up Manning, but dump Smith for Flynn? No way.

    Miami, Cleveland, Kansas City. Maybe Arizona. Maybe Jacksonville if they wanted someone other than Chad Henne or David Garrard to push their struggling young QB. It should tell you something that Flynn's OC in Green Bay got a head coaching job on a team with a gaping hole at QB and didn't want him. They hadn't drafted Tannehill during Flynn's free agency, and even if they knew they were going to, Tannehill was widely considered a project who had only played QB for a couple years. I have a hard time believing Philbin would have passed on Flynn if he thought he could be really good.

    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    iigakusei wrote:Could it be possible that Flynn just isnt very good?


    People keep saying this. If Carroll and Schneider thought Flynn wasn't very good, then why'd they sign him and give him 10 million?

    To me Flynn is a Hasselbeck type QB, not Hall of Fame material, but a serviceable QB that you can win with, and even go to the Superbowl with if all other parts of the team excel. He can read defenses, he's smart, and he can make enough plays during the course of a game to win.

    But we'll never find out cause he's holding a clipboard while we throw for 120 yards a game cause we're starting a rookie QB.

    Maybe they thought he could be a decent bridge QB until they could get their QBOTF. He was signed to compete with Tarvaris Jackson before Wilson was drafted. If they didn't get a potential long-term QB in the draft, they might not have been comfortable with only Jackson and Portis at the position this year. The argument of "they gave him 10 million so they need to see what they have" is the same argument as "they gave up picks for Whitehurst so they need to start him in the regular season to see what they have." Couldn't it be possible that through camp and practices, they have already seen enough to know what that don't have?

    And I'm sorry, but calling Flynn a Hasselbeck type QB is absurd to me. Hasselbeck was a very good QB in his prime who carried a good offense in 2007 with no running game, no line, and one of the worst groups of receivers in the league. It's much more likely that Flynn is a Tyler Thigpen type QB than a Matt Hasselbeck type QB.
    jewhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:39 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:04 pm
  • jewhawk wrote:
    SalishHawkFan wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:31 other GMs, some in desperate quarterback straights, saw those same two games and did not chase after Mr. Flynn. How do you explain that he was such a bargain after those two games?

    One knew they were drafting Luck. One was trying to grab RG3. One grabbed Tannehill. A couple were in the hunt for Mr. Manning. One in Florida didn't offer him as good a deal as we did. The rest already had QB's they were going with. Who would have grabbed Flynn besides Miami that didn't already have someone lined up? You aren't going to dump a QB with experience in your system for an untested FA. The Niners would have snatched up Manning, but dump Smith for Flynn? No way.

    Miami, Cleveland, Kansas City. Maybe Arizona. Maybe Jacksonville if they wanted someone other than Chad Henne or David Garrard to push their struggling young QB. It should tell you something that Flynn's OC in Green Bay got a head coaching job on a team with a gaping hole at QB and didn't want him. They hadn't drafted Tannehill during Flynn's free agency, and even if they knew they were going to, Tannehill was widely considered a project who had only played QB for a couple years. I have a hard time believing Philbin would have passed on Flynn if he thought he could be really good.


    Yet they all passed over Wilson several times in the draft. So by your logic, Wilson must not have seemed too impressive either.
    Last edited by SalishHawkFan on Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4681
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:05 pm
  • iigakusei wrote:
    kf3339 wrote:
    iigakusei wrote:Do you not remember everyone saying the same thing about Whitehurst? Could it be possible that Flynn just isnt very good?


    Then how do you explain the New Englund and Detroit games performance. You don't post results like that and put him in the same class as Whitehurst! Not at all.


    I guess that is why there was so much demand for him in the off-season? That Detroit game was a one-off - of that I am positive. Look, I think Flynn is a good QB, but I trust the coaches that see these guys every day in practice to make the right decision.


    Yes, and it is going to be their ass on the line if they screwed up the QB position again. I'm not so sure Allen will allow a full 5 years for PC to keep experimenting with that position. Even he can see what is holding this team back from being a major force.
    kf3339
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1381
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:07 pm
  • kf3339 wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:
    kf3339 wrote:
    Then how do you explain the New Englund and Detroit games performance. You don't post results like that and put him in the same class as Whitehurst! Not at all.

    31 other GMs, some in desperate quarterback straights, saw those same two games and did not chase after Mr. Flynn. How do you explain that he was such a bargain after those two games?


    By your token then, 32 GM's passed not once but twice on Wilson in the draft. Many had QB needs but chose NOT to pick him, including us. How do you explain that? In addition at least 10 GM's passed on him before we took him in the 3rd round. Many still had QB issues but still chose to pass. Why? Just because he was too short? It couldn't be anything else?

    I don't know and neither do you!

    I think it has been made pretty clear by very many NFL people that his height was the only reason he slipped. Who knows, it may turn out to be a very good reason. Wasn't it Kiper who said if he was taller he would be a top 10 pick? I never heard anyone disagree with that. So, yes, I do know that one.

    I want whoever starts to be awesome. Flynn/Wilson/Portis, I don't care. Difference is, I think our staff has earned some trust, and you do not. Forget who is waiting in the wings, this is at the heart of the disagreement on this board. I heard this same shit with Teel. People love the backups when they think the coach is stupid.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11077
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:13 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote: People love the backups when they think the coach is stupid.


    I don't love Flynn, I just would like to see if he's good or not before we start the Russell Wilson is the best QB ever experiment.

    Hell, could be they both suck, but I don't like paying a guy 10 million, then benching him for an unproven 3rd round draft pick just because he WOW'd us all in three meaningless pre-season games against 2nd and 3rd string scrubs.

    All I care about is who gives us the best chance to beat the Carolina Panthers, and IMO that QB's name is Matthew Clayton Flynn.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3213
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:15 pm
  • SalishHawkFan wrote:Yet they all passed over Wilson several times in the draft. So by your logic, Wilson must not have seemed too impressive either.

    Not really. There's a pretty big difference between signing a reasonably priced free agent and spending an early round draft pick on someone.
    jewhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:39 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:16 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:I think it has been made pretty clear by very many NFL people that his height was the only reason he slipped. Who knows, it may turn out to be a very good reason. Wasn't it Kiper who said if he was taller he would be a top 10 pick? I never heard anyone disagree with that. So, yes, I do know that one.

    I want whoever starts to be awesome. Flynn/Wilson/Portis, I don't care. Difference is, I think our staff has earned some trust, and you do not. Forget who is waiting in the wings, this is at the heart of the disagreement on this board. I heard this same shit with Teel. People love the backups when they think the coach is stupid.

    You hit at the heart of why you and I are having a rare disagreement. I have TONS of trust in P&J to build a great defense, rushing attack, etc. But I've yet to see them make ONE move at QB that has panned out. The Whitehurst trade was terrible. TJack? Really? TJACK?!? Why let go Hass?

    And if you'd believe all the people who don't want to see Flynn start, he was a lousy pick too.

    Wilson might, MIGHT have potential - and I would love it if he acheives it - but I think it's a mistake to thrust him in there from the start. Flynn is an adequate QB and all we need is adequate to be a legitimate playoff contender.

    I've listened to the Mariners keep telling us for a decade now that we just need to be patient a couple more years. Sorry, but the Seahawks are an adequate QB away from being dominant NOW. I'm pretty sure Flynn is at least an adequate QB. I'm pretty sure Wilson won't be adequate for another year.

    I'm also seeing that my worst fears have come true: By throwing Wilson in too soon we may be wasting his potential. It happens to lots of QB's who had the misfortune of being thrust into the starting job year one. Some thrive (RG3), some don't. Wilson isn't thriving out there. He's getting worse. Even Kearly admits it. THAT, more than anything else, is why we should be starting Flynn.
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4681
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:17 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote: People love the backups when they think the coach is stupid.


    I don't love Flynn, I just would like to see if he's good or not before we start the Russell Wilson is the best QB ever experiment.

    Hell, could be they both suck, but I don't like paying a guy 10 million, then benching him for an unproven 3rd round draft pick just because he WOW'd us all in three meaningless pre-season games against 2nd and 3rd string scrubs.

    All I care about is who gives us the best chance to beat the Carolina Panthers, and IMO that QB's name is Matthew Clayton Flynn.

    That is exactly what I was referring too. Coach has already seen it, your demands are because you think he is not as smart as you in these things.

    Besides, I was not aware you were paying Matt Flynn. Unless you are Paul Allen, then you can say whatever you want.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11077
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:18 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:All I care about is who gives us the best chance to beat the Carolina Panthers, and IMO that QB's name is Matthew Clayton Flynn.


    And yet there is basically ZERO data to back that up.
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14493
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:21 pm
  • There's zero data to refute it too.
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4681
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:25 pm
  • SalishHawkFan wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:I think it has been made pretty clear by very many NFL people that his height was the only reason he slipped. Who knows, it may turn out to be a very good reason. Wasn't it Kiper who said if he was taller he would be a top 10 pick? I never heard anyone disagree with that. So, yes, I do know that one.

    I want whoever starts to be awesome. Flynn/Wilson/Portis, I don't care. Difference is, I think our staff has earned some trust, and you do not. Forget who is waiting in the wings, this is at the heart of the disagreement on this board. I heard this same shit with Teel. People love the backups when they think the coach is stupid.

    You hit at the heart of why you and I are having a rare disagreement. I have TONS of trust in P&J to build a great defense, rushing attack, etc. But I've yet to see them make ONE move at QB that has panned out. The Whitehurst trade was terrible. TJack? Really? TJACK?!? Why let go Hass?

    And if you'd believe all the people who don't want to see Flynn start, he was a lousy pick too.

    Wilson might, MIGHT have potential - and I would love it if he acheives it - but I think it's a mistake to thrust him in there from the start. Flynn is an adequate QB and all we need is adequate to be a legitimate playoff contender.

    I've listened to the Mariners keep telling us for a decade now that we just need to be patient a couple more years. Sorry, but the Seahawks are an adequate QB away from being dominant NOW. I'm pretty sure Flynn is at least an adequate QB. I'm pretty sure Wilson won't be adequate for another year.

    I'm also seeing that my worst fears have come true: By throwing Wilson in too soon we may be wasting his potential. It happens to lots of QB's who had the misfortune of being thrust into the starting job year one. Some thrive (RG3), some don't. Wilson isn't thriving out there. He's getting worse. Even Kearly admits it. THAT, more than anything else, is why we should be starting Flynn.


    I do not disagree with you that these guys have had a tough time getting their hands on the right QB. And yet, outside of Dalton, nobody ever says who they should have taken that is so much better. And Pete said he really liked Dalton, so even if he is not on this team, he was considered, which actually reflects well on their judgement. They also tried to get Peyton Manning to talk to them, so it isn't like they ignored his possibilities. They ignored Mallett, and that is looking like a decent decision too. Other than that, who could they have taken? Or signed? Kolb? Yeah, me neither.

    I don't think they are flawess, but who the hell is when it comes to evaluating NFL talent? I think they have earned the leeway to see this through.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11077
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:38 pm
  • SalishHawkFan wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:I think it has been made pretty clear by very many NFL people that his height was the only reason he slipped. Who knows, it may turn out to be a very good reason. Wasn't it Kiper who said if he was taller he would be a top 10 pick? I never heard anyone disagree with that. So, yes, I do know that one.

    I want whoever starts to be awesome. Flynn/Wilson/Portis, I don't care. Difference is, I think our staff has earned some trust, and you do not. Forget who is waiting in the wings, this is at the heart of the disagreement on this board. I heard this same shit with Teel. People love the backups when they think the coach is stupid.

    You hit at the heart of why you and I are having a rare disagreement. I have TONS of trust in P&J to build a great defense, rushing attack, etc. But I've yet to see them make ONE move at QB that has panned out. The Whitehurst trade was terrible. TJack? Really? TJACK?!? Why let go Hass?


    The answer to this question is so ridiculously easy that it amazes me people continue to ignore it.

    23 turnovers in 2010. 23 compared to 12 TD passes. For someone demanding 2-3 years in the 7 million dollar per year range. Tarvaris Jackson gave us better stats for half the price. (Even on the Titans, Hass still turned the ball over 18 times.)
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15228
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:40 pm
  • SalishHawkFan wrote:There's zero data to refute it too.


    The onus is on the one making the claim that Flynn is the best chance we have for a W at Carolina. And since you know that's just as likely to be false as true, you're equivocating here.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15228
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:49 pm
  • SalishHawkFan wrote:You hit at the heart of why you and I are having a rare disagreement. I have TONS of trust in P&J to build a great defense, rushing attack, etc. But I've yet to see them make ONE move at QB that has panned out. The Whitehurst trade was terrible. TJack? Really? TJACK?!? Why let go Hass?


    You want reasons we let Hass go? I'll give you twenty one million reasons.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18652
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:51 pm
  • Zebulon Dak wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:All I care about is who gives us the best chance to beat the Carolina Panthers, and IMO that QB's name is Matthew Clayton Flynn.


    And yet there is basically ZERO data to back that up.


    But he used the middle name. Everyone's Mom knows using the middle name makes things more serious...

    Theretofore, I insist that Russell Carrington Wilson should remain the starter for the American football match against the Panthers of Carolina!

    And everyone knows that "Carrington" carries WAY more stroke than Clayton.
    Radish, check your PMs. Man upstairs has an invite for a tail gate up in heaven with your name on it.
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11352
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:59 pm
  • bestfightstory wrote:kearly-you are a great writer.

    Sorry, though. Unlike you, I did not want to lose for draft position in 2010. And I felt rewarded and vindicated in that approach by the BeastQuake playoff victory.

    In 2011, I was not on board with you and 50% or more of this fanbase who wanted the Seattle Seahawks to 'Suck For Luck'. I was not comfortable with losing in the moment. I was not content with concrete failures today in exchange for the fantasy of successes tomorrow.

    In the same fashion. I am NOT comfortable with these unnecessary losses in 2012. In the preseason while others were picking sides i decided that whichever quarterback steps behind center would become saddled with my expectation that he do enough to lead this team to victories. I echo the words of Seahawk2K, above. This team is built to win and right now RW is holding it back.

    Already, after week 4, Seahawks fans are starting to talk about next year in glowing terms like some default coping mechanism against broken dreams.


    Not just 2013.. but FOUR years from now.

    I'm with you completely.. this team should be winning TODAY. Maybe we're ahead of schedule on this plan, but that's the nature of the beast.
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 4904
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:12 pm
  • SalishHawkFan wrote:There's zero data to refute it too.


    That's not even an argument.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11270
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:30 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:31 other GMs, some in desperate quarterback straights, saw those same two games and did not chase after Mr. Flynn. How do you explain that he was such a bargain after those two games?


    Are those the same 31 that passed on Wilson for 2 1/2 rounds at a far, far cheaper price?

    There...used your logic against you. 8)
    "Improvement" can come from who you play-
    User avatar
    Verndog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1590
    Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:54 pm
    Location: Auburn, Wa


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:41 pm
  • Verndog wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:31 other GMs, some in desperate quarterback straights, saw those same two games and did not chase after Mr. Flynn. How do you explain that he was such a bargain after those two games?


    Are those the same 31 that passed on Wilson for 2 1/2 rounds at a far, far cheaper price?

    There...used your logic against you. 8)

    Not really. It is a pretty well established media factoid that Wilson would have been a first round pick if he was 3 inches taller. They may be right, maybe height will be his undoing as a QB.

    Why do you think nobody but us wanted Flynn, and then at a greatly reduced price? Certainly Manning was a hot commodity, and he could barely throw at the time. There were plenty of teams in the market for that upgrade, even teams that could not fit Manning under the cap without lots of restructuring/and or cuts. And Manning has never thrown for 480 yards and 6 touchdowns in just one game.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11077
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:59 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:
    Why do you think nobody but us wanted Flynn, and then at a greatly reduced price?


    #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. :mrgreen:
    Last edited by Verndog on Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    "Improvement" can come from who you play-
    User avatar
    Verndog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1590
    Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:54 pm
    Location: Auburn, Wa


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:02 pm
  • Verndog wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:
    Why do you think nobody but us wanted Flynn, and then at a greatly reduced price?


    #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 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 idiots. :mrgreen:

    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
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11077
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:07 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote: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!


    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-
    User avatar
    Verndog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1590
    Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:54 pm
    Location: Auburn, Wa


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:22 pm
  • Verndog wrote: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.

    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?
    jewhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:39 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:46 pm
  • Love the discussion in here.

    SalishHawkFan wrote:sorry Kearly, but pointing out what a great job they've done building this team isn't addressing the valid concerns people are having right now. No one is unhappy with their ability to build a team. We all Trust Pete and John when it comes to building this team. There are valid concerns, however, when it comes to playcalling (onsides kick anyone? 3rd and 2?). You can go back two years and see WTF? moments in Pete's playcalling which he later - admirably I might add - took the blame for.

    But the biggest concern is the choice of starting Wilson now.


    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.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11039
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:00 pm
  • Zebulon Dak wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:All I care about is who gives us the best chance to beat the Carolina Panthers, and IMO that QB's name is Matthew Clayton Flynn.


    And yet there is basically ZERO data to back that up.


    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.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3213
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:20 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:

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

    well, that's YOUR opinion 8)
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4681
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:24 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Zebulon Dak wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:All I care about is who gives us the best chance to beat the Carolina Panthers, and IMO that QB's name is Matthew Clayton Flynn.


    And yet there is basically ZERO data to back that up.


    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.


    Five years experience and he couldn't beat out a rookie. Sounds an awful lot like Whitehurst 2.0 to me.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18652
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:31 pm
  • 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.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9475
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:37 pm
  • Sure, because 1-year plans are all the rage. I mean, Harbaugh did it...

    Almost.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18652
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:45 pm
  • Seahawk Sailor wrote:Sure, because 1-year plans are all the rage. I mean, Harbaugh did it...

    Almost.


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

    Not so sure about Pete right now.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9475
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:46 pm
  • 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!
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18652
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


Re: The 4 year plan
Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:50 pm
  • Seahawk Sailor wrote: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!


    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.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9475
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


Re: The 4 year plan
Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:55 pm
  • 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?!
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14493
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


Re: The 4 year plan
Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:25 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    DeathbyTalons
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 6
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:55 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:28 pm
  • Holy crap you were a RW supporter Kearly ? I never knew ! :sarcasm_off:

    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.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3637
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:33 pm
  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    Seahawk Sailor wrote: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!


    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 did, actually. And, PM'd a few hear saying that.
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 9930
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:57 pm
  • Hawks46 wrote: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 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.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11039
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:13 pm
  • Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 801
    Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:10 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:39 pm
  • knownone wrote:Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?

    Apparently he's short.
    Radish, check your PMs. Man upstairs has an invite for a tail gate up in heaven with your name on it.
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11352
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:17 am
  • I'll give Kearly some props for this writeup. I've been critical of his (in my opinion) view of the Hawks, and not looking at reality of this team during some of his posts.
    "A superstar can win any game; however, a team can win every game".
    Renohawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:53 pm
    Location: Reno, Nevada


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:20 am
  • knownone wrote:Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?


    I think it is because many feel that starting the rookie is the reason the offense is so conservative. They think the reason the WRs are not performing is because Wilson is failing to identify or hesitant in throwing to the correct WR. The defense and special teams performance has ignited the idea that this team is ready now to contend for a deep run if the QB position was manned by a player who has more understanding of defensive looks.

    The big push by local/national and team fans to give Wilson a chance in the unorthodox QB competition and the red hot response to his play left his detractors ready to pounce when the inevitable rookie ramp-up proceeded. Russellmania promoted the kid to a fever pitch declaration of finding a QBOTF and resulted in a fan divide, as those who backed Flynn found themselves having to defend Flynn from denigration.

    You find a 3-way split on the QBs now, with those in the middle just wanting the best and most ready QB to be playing now. Each side has some valid points and concerns. The move late in the pre-season after it seemed that Pete had gone with Flynn was accepted as fair though surprising. The impact of Flynn's elbow flare-up has not been vetted well by our press.

    This is an interesting quote, though from PFW with Arkush who claimed there was a JS and PC divide, so I take it with a grain of salt:

    That's a difficult question to answer, according to team sources, considering that the tendinitis in Flynn’s right elbow that played a major part in him losing the job to Wilson in the preseason is an injury that Flynn has never had to deal with before.


    http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/10/05/seahawks-remain-concerned-about-flynns-elbow

    A different circumstance, personal talent and team personnel but A Rodgers, after sitting behind Favre on the bench had a rough 1st year starting so it is no guarantee that Flynn would be gangbusters his first year starting. Cannot offer much analysis on this since I am not very familiar with all that went into the Packers make-up at that time. Just an idle thought.
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9232
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:00 am
  • Hawks46 wrote: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.


    Let's not kid ourselves: if Flynn takes us deep into the playoffs this year, nobody will want him benched in 2013 just because Wilson's waiting. Flynn isn't old; this isn't a GB situation with a young understudy waiting to replace an over-the-hill veteran. If Flynn can win as the starter, people will want every drop squeezed out of him. He'll remain there for years until he sucks, and Wilson won't see a lick of meaningful playing time until then (short of injury) and will probably be gone by the time his chance comes.

    And perhaps that's not so bad for us. I'm merely saying that the whole "let Flynn win now and maybe RW will be the guy later" argument strikes me as pretty hollow. It's one QB or the other, IMO.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11270
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:03 am
  • CANHawk wrote:
    knownone wrote:Did I miss something? why are people so down of Russell Wilson?

    Apparently he's short.



    Yeah, that's what this is,some people dislliking "short people". Way to go!

    It's not about the fact we have yet to win a game via our qb putting up points. It's not about the games being won so far in spite of our current rookie qb. It's not about sketchy, risky, late, ball delivery to receivers who most blindly label "awful" every 3rd thread to cover for the current qb heart throb on the forum. It's not about losing two of the most winnable division games where had even sub-par qb play been in effect we could be seeing W's there. It's not about the fact a shorter, rookie qb should be holding a clipboard in his first 2yrs while getting his game together and being ready for the talent out there.

    No, its about disliking short people.

    Oh and knowone, yes personally I'd say you're missing something.
    Last edited by hawkfan1975 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
    hawkfan1975
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 658
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:14 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:03 am
  • Guess PFW loves talking about our QB position. More from them on what they claim to be hearing from inside the building

    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9232
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:16 am
  • Tech Worlds wrote: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.


    What if he'd said 10? Talk about job security!
    Image Image Tanzania¹² Image "ALERT THE LEGION!!!"
    User avatar
    Zebulon Dak
    * The Producer *
    * The Producer *
     
    Posts: 14493
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
    Location: King In The North


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:24 pm
  • Good point Montana. I guess I was kind of thinking that they thought Wilson was good enough to win now, and could be the QBOTF, so if Flynn played well enough, you could trade him for a good pick at the end of the year, draft another decent QB, and start Wilson, while continuing the QB progression at backup that JC likes.

    Thing is, I hear a lot of people throwing our WRs under the bus. Saying they get no separation, etc. I see a lot of people like Rodgers and Romo throwing to WRs and TEs that aren't wide open, making throws into tight windows. I also remember a lot of people throwing Jackson under the bus for the same thing; waiting for a guy to be wide open and not seeing much else.

    One of Flynn's strengths was that he knows how to throw guys open. I thought at the beginning of the year this would be his strength that would help us now. Yes, Wilson's mobility would be better suited behind our OL. Yes, Flynn would probably take more sacks (although that's looking debatable). But for guys that don't get separation, but are in the right place, you throw to the open spot in the zone, and let the WR go get it. Flynn also has much better deep accurace at this point in his career than Wilson does, and I'd say he's just as good if not better in play action. PC even admitted he was farther ahead in the playbook and reading defenses, and also making presnap adjustments.

    I also had suspicions they were making up the tendinitis with Flynn. If he's hurt, there's a reason he's benched, and when you have to replace Wilson, it would be because Flynn is now healthy. I'm not so sure if it's true now, but in looking at Flynn's body language on the sidelines, he looks more unhappy than hurt. Another thing that seems weird....Flynn is healthy enough to throw for the scout team, but not enough to take 1st team reps ?? That seems weird to me.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3637
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:20 pm
  • Hawks46 wrote:One of Flynn's strengths was that he knows how to throw guys open. I thought at the beginning of the year this would be his strength that would help us now. Yes, Wilson's mobility would be better suited behind our OL. Yes, Flynn would probably take more sacks (although that's looking debatable). But for guys that don't get separation, but are in the right place, you throw to the open spot in the zone, and let the WR go get it. Flynn also has much better deep accurace at this point in his career than Wilson does, and I'd say he's just as good if not better in play action. PC even admitted he was farther ahead in the playbook and reading defenses, and also making presnap adjustments.


    PC has also said that he would be limiting the playbook as much with Flynn as he is with Wilson. Ergo, Flynn would not be allowed to be throwing into tight coverages, because that's what Wilson is being barred from.

    As far as the rest, Flynn's strengths would win him some plays that Wilson is not winning, but the O-line situation would be leaving him in a lot of 3rd-down-and-long situations that Wilson is salvaging. It's a deadly tradeoff. Sacks are a danger because they're a fumble risk, and the pressure that creates them also becomes an interception risk. Flynn has shown a high turnover rate in his limited play.

    I actually think of Wilson like Marshawn Lynch in his first game in Seattle, against the Bears. He had terrible stats, but he fought hard for yardage and turned what would have been damaging stops for losses with Julius Jones, into no-gains or small chunks. Didn't seem like a big deal until you realized that Matt Hasselbeck was enjoying a lot more manageable 3rd-and-5/6/7 situations as a result, instead of constant 3rd-and-10+'s. That played a big role in the offense's ability to string drives together. You think Wilson's bad on 3rd down and 6? Try Flynn behind a porous weak-side O-line on 3rd-and-10.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11270
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:01 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Hawks46 wrote:One of Flynn's strengths was that he knows how to throw guys open. I thought at the beginning of the year this would be his strength that would help us now. Yes, Wilson's mobility would be better suited behind our OL. Yes, Flynn would probably take more sacks (although that's looking debatable). But for guys that don't get separation, but are in the right place, you throw to the open spot in the zone, and let the WR go get it. Flynn also has much better deep accurace at this point in his career than Wilson does, and I'd say he's just as good if not better in play action. PC even admitted he was farther ahead in the playbook and reading defenses, and also making presnap adjustments.


    PC has also said that he would be limiting the playbook as much with Flynn as he is with Wilson. Ergo, Flynn would not be allowed to be throwing into tight coverages, because that's what Wilson is being barred from.
    There is a huge difference between throwing receivers open and throwing into tight windows, in fact they are nearly the opposite. Throwing receivers open is what leads to YAC which is another area we are strugling in.

    As far as the rest, Flynn's strengths would win him some plays that Wilson is not winning, but the O-line situation would be leaving him in a lot of 3rd-down-and-long situations that Wilson is salvaging. It's a deadly tradeoff. Sacks are a danger because they're a fumble risk, and the pressure that creates them also becomes an interception risk. Flynn has shown a high turnover rate in his limited play.

    The o-line play is not nearly as bad as you think either. Wilson is not taking three step drops and hitting receivers in stride, he is having to drop deep into the pocket to aide his vision and giving DC's absolutely no reason not to send the house after him. Those three step drops Flynn was using in the Detroit game were responsible for YAC and backing the opponents defense off the LOS. That is how you burn defenses for cheating the box, add in a nice deep ball every now and then and you keep defenses on their heals. Another team with a less than stellar O-line is the Packers. Rogers has been a pinata behind that line.

    I actually think of Wilson like Marshawn Lynch in his first game in Seattle, against the Bears. He had terrible stats, but he fought hard for yardage and turned what would have been damaging stops for losses with Julius Jones, into no-gains or small chunks. Didn't seem like a big deal until you realized that Matt Hasselbeck was enjoying a lot more manageable 3rd-and-5/6/7 situations as a result, instead of constant 3rd-and-10+'s. That played a big role in the offense's ability to string drives together. You think Wilson's bad on 3rd down and 6? Try Flynn behind a porous weak-side O-line on 3rd-and-10.


    Other notes, people need to stop with the Whitehurst comparison, it just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.

    Anyone on here that wants to put more importance on a preseason game than the real games is a complete moron.

    And anyone who is justifying to give up wins now because they are afraid Wilson might not get another chance are no better than the suck for Luck crowd. If Wilson is anywhere near what we hope he is then he will get his shot. His work ethic and leadership will force it. Yes I interpret not giving Flynn a chance when Wilson is ranked as the worst QB in the NFL right now as willing to give up wins. You aren't willing to even look because your afraid that he may prevent Wilson from becoming our hero but the fact is the only way that happens ifs if Flynn is winning. How is this a problem?
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3024
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


Re: The 4 year plan
Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:09 pm
  • RichNhansom wrote:And anyone who is justifying to give up wins now because they are afraid Wilson might not get another chance are no better than the suck for Luck crowd. If Wilson is anywhere near what we hope he is then he will get his shot. His work ethic and leadership will force it. Yes I interpret not giving Flynn a chance when Wilson is ranked as the worst QB in the NFL right now as willing to give up wins. You aren't willing to even look because your afraid that he may prevent Wilson from becoming our hero but the fact is the only way that happens ifs if Flynn is winning. How is this a problem?


    He isn't costing us any games, so how is anyone giving up wins?

    We're a few misfortunate plays away from 4-0, Wilson is not the issue here.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19153
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


PreviousNext


It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:47 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online