hawkfan1975 wrote:

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

Verndog wrote:you and the Wilson fan club

Can someone remind me when backing the teams starting QB became such a negative thing?

Who's saying YOU can't be excited with our QB? This isn't a negativity thing - period. It's Hawk football talk at most.

I'm just relaying "I'm" not excited about our QB (along with listing reasons why, where so far nobody has had an acceptable response other than "hey man, just be patient"). So telling those who feel the same in demanding RW respect...it's a bit much. I had a great time seeing them win, nothing changes there. And so goes the QB problem - nothing changes there.

Our defense play, now that's something to shout from the mountain. RW? no...just no (imo). PC gets a raised brow from me on that topic.

Well thanks for that, but I was searching for the answer as to why 'the Wilson fan club' was being used to describe a negative clique rather than a group of Seahawks fans.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

Verndog wrote:you and the Wilson fan club

Can someone remind me when backing the teams starting QB became such a negative thing?

OK...lets try last year -- TJack for starters. Wasn't the whole idea to improve the position? On paper that is NOT happening.

Verndog wrote:

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

Verndog wrote:you and the Wilson fan club

Can someone remind me when backing the teams starting QB became such a negative thing?

OK...lets try last year -- TJack for starters. Wasn't the whole idea to improve the position? On paper that is NOT happening.

Go back to Seahawkblue and stay there please.

Verndog wrote:

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:

Verndog wrote:you and the Wilson fan club

Can someone remind me when backing the teams starting QB became such a negative thing?

OK...lets try last year -- TJack for starters. Wasn't the whole idea to improve the position? On paper that is NOT happening.

Good things the games aren't played on paper. Because it IS happening on the field. The position is being improved.

Scottemojo wrote:
Good things the games aren't played on paper. Because it IS happening on the field. The position is being improved.

And you have factored in the #1D, improved Oline play, and Lynch off to a far better start correct?

Zebulon Dak wrote:
Go back to Seahawkblue and stay there please.

Or....you could prove my comment wrong.....naaaah.

Verndog wrote:OK...lets try last year -- TJack for starters. Wasn't the whole idea to improve the position? On paper that is NOT happening.

Perhaps the plan was to set up Wilson to be the starter for the next 10+ years? Maybe they feel the best way to prepare him to be a long term starter is to get out there and see what this NFL thing is all about? Maybe they feel having him sit and watch isn't the best way to develop - they wouldn't be alone (see: 5 rookie starters this year). They perhaps judged this as - Wilson has more upside and we can go further with this guy... so let's start him and prepare for him to lead this team long term?

Or maybe - just maybe - he actually out played and out worked the other guy and deserved to start? And just because he isn't playing lights out in his first five NFL games against the likes of the Cards, Packers and Cowboys defense, that doesn't mean all that effort and hard work goes out the window and you turn to the other guy who lost out in the first place.

The 'Wilson fan club' as you put it probably just relates to this level of long term thinking. The kind of thinking that has been required for a while.

Verndog wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:
Go back to Seahawkblue and stay there please.

Or....you could prove my comment wrong.....naaaah.

How does one disprove something that is happening in your head? Because that is where Flynn is playing better than Wilson. In the real world, Flynn is a pine jockey.

Verndog wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:
Good things the games aren't played on paper. Because it IS happening on the field. The position is being improved.

And you have factored in the #1D, improved Oline play, and Lynch off to a far better start correct?

Nope. I factored in comeback wins. That is where Jackson struggled last year, right? Wilson is clearly better at those.

Scottemojo wrote:
How does one disprove something that is happening in your head? Because that is where Flynn is playing better than Wilson. In the real world, Flynn is a pine jockey.

Are you having trouble keeping up? I've made no statement about what Flynn would do, only what Wilson hasn't. My comment quoted was TJack on paper played better then Wilson up through 5 games last year with a worse Oline, and less production from Lynch for support.

Disprove the real comment, not your imaginary comment please.

Verndog wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:
How does one disprove something that is happening in your head? Because that is where Flynn is playing better than Wilson. In the real world, Flynn is a pine jockey.

Are you having trouble keeping up? I've made no statement about what Flynn would do, only what Wilson hasn't. My comment quoted was TJack on paper played better then Wilson up through 5 games last year with a worse Oline, and less production from Lynch for support.

Disprove the real comment, not your imaginary comment please.

Why would I want to prove wrong something that I believe to be true? Russell Wilson so far is Tarvaris Jackson with more intelligence and a much bigger upside.

Zebulon Dak wrote:
Go back to Seahawkblue and stay there please.

But yeah English, it's things like the above that don't really fly. It's just eye-roll material and doesn't need to be fostered.

* Just because others aren't feeling the RW praises yet (Zebulon), doesn't mean they are lesser fans, nor should be made to feel unwelcome.

hawkfan1975 wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:
Go back to Seahawkblue and stay there please.

But yeah English, it's things like the above that don't really fly. It's just eye-roll material and doesn't need to be fostered.

* Just because others aren't feeling the RW praises yet (Zebulon), doesn't mean they are lesser fans, nor should be made to feel unwelcome.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Verndog wrote:
Disprove the real comment, not your imaginary comment please.

If you don't mind a suggestion though, verndog you don't need to have some people disprove/prove things left and right, it kind of drags out the fan/fan back and forth (which many here enjoy, that's clear).

But if these same people continually decide to poke and prod others (in this case, screaming at some to blindly coin this QB, who's done so little here, a leader) it's best to ignore most of it and stick to your own guns (because that's usually all it is, baiting for an argument. Trolls calling the Troll, Troll).

Can I take a few minutes of everyone's time to talk about the dangers of online bullying?

Some in this thread have some pretty ugly opinions on the QB situation. As I understand it, and many choose to disagree with and ignore, Flynn has a sore elbow. Do y'all really want him to start with that? IMO, if Flynn was to start, it would probably be a poor decision and he'd get his head torn off or at least aggrevate his arm injury. That may be worth it just to shut some folks up. Why do so many posters demand absolute perfection from any QB, especially a rookie? Flynn is pretty much a rookie as well, do y'all think he would be absolutely perfect? IMO, replacing Wilson with Flynn would just involve different "problems" and wouldn't end up increasing the number of passing yards that so many here are concerned about. PC's run first system has obviously taken away from the passing game, Flynn can't change that.

Verndog wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:
How does one disprove something that is happening in your head? Because that is where Flynn is playing better than Wilson. In the real world, Flynn is a pine jockey.

Are you having trouble keeping up? I've made no statement about what Flynn would do, only what Wilson hasn't. My comment quoted was TJack on paper played better then Wilson up through 5 games last year with a worse Oline, and less production from Lynch for support.

Disprove the real comment, not your imaginary comment please.

Correction, Jackson put up more yardage than Wilson through 5 games, and the "less production from Lynch" is precisely WHY he did. The team was passing a hell of a lot more and running a hell of a lot less. See if you can follow this logic... if you have a lot more pass attempts, you will likely have a lot more yardage, and therefore have a higher ranking when it comes to statistics based on yardage.

And HF1975, the reason I am dug in on this is two primary reasons: 1. I think Wilson is now and will in the future be a better QB than Flynn. 2. I think real game experience is the absolute BEST way for a QB to improve.

I want the Seahawks to win a SB. I want them to win multiple SBs. I want them to be a perennial contender. And I don't think Flynn will get them to any of those goals, but I think Wilson can. Thus, I think any time with Flynn as a starter is completely and utterly wasted.

volsunghawk wrote:Bollocks. Flynn has 4 years of bench sitting. Where has Jim Sorgi's long bench sitting behind Manning gotten him?

The best QB in this franchises history did the same sitting.

So did Aaron Rodgers. So have many others. It's easy to name Sorgi and Whitehurst as your example. The fact is, we don't know what we have in Flynn until he plays.

Wilson probably bought himself another 2 games (I wouldn't want to start Flynn on a short week against the best team in football right now) with the performance yesterday. But I still see some very concerning flaws with our offense and he is a big part of that. Hopefully, Wilson continues to trend upwards and plays better against New England and then San Francisco - if he regresses again though, I think you have to take a long hard look at Flynn.

Hasselbeck wrote:

volsunghawk wrote:Bollocks. Flynn has 4 years of bench sitting. Where has Jim Sorgi's long bench sitting behind Manning gotten him?

The best QB in this franchises history did the same sitting.

So did Aaron Rodgers. So have many others. It's easy to name Sorgi and Whitehurst as your example. The fact is, we don't know what we have in Flynn until he plays.

Wilson probably bought himself another 2 games (I wouldn't want to start Flynn on a short week against the best team in football right now) with the performance yesterday. But I still see some very concerning flaws with our offense and he is a big part of that.

Aaron Rodgers was discussed as a potential #1 overall pick, so the talent was obvious. He slipped for whatever reasons (still won't understand that one, except perhaps the Tedford curse), and fell to a team that already had a HoF-caliber QB. THAT is why he sat, and his talent is why he is succeeding now. It's not that sitting on the bench did wonders for him. How did it do for Aaron Brooks, in that same damn system?

How about Flacco, Ryan, Roethlisberger, Stafford, etc.? All of these QBs are doing quite well now, and many of them did pretty damn well in their rookie years. All without absorbing magical QB knowledge through their asses via bench osmosis.

Matt Flynn wasn't good enough to beat out a rookie drafted in the 3rd round for the starting gig. If Coach doesn't think he gives us a better chance to win than RW then you can be damn sure none of you monkey asses are gonna convince me.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Matt Flynn wasn't good enough to beat out a rookie drafted in the 3rd round for the starting gig. If Coach doesn't think he gives us a better chance to win than RW then you can be damn sure none of you monkey asses are gonna convince me.

CHUUUUUUUUUUUCH!!!!

Zebulon Dak wrote:Matt Flynn wasn't good enough to beat out a rookie drafted in the 3rd round for the starting gig. If Coach doesn't think he gives us a better chance to win than RW then you can be damn sure none of you monkey asses are gonna convince me.

and now we have RW! Our TD machine!

Guh?

I wonder who next years infatuation will be.

hawkfan1975 wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:Matt Flynn wasn't good enough to beat out a rookie drafted in the 3rd round for the starting gig. If Coach doesn't think he gives us a better chance to win than RW then you can be damn sure none of you monkey asses are gonna convince me.

and now we have RW! Our TD machine!

Guh?

I wonder who next years infatuation will be.

It's gonna be the exact same guys plus a few rookies, troll.

All this is really silly guys.

Just cheer on whoever is out there. These agendas around here are old.

I rather like my agenda: let the kids play ball and let us that enjoy watching them play ball do so without being villainized for it.

"DilFER!...DilFER!...DilFER!..." Would you guys knock if off already? I'm guessing most of you know how long it takes to develope an NFL QB (although I'm starting to question that), so stop playing Madden with ours.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Matt Flynn wasn't good enough to beat out a rookie drafted in the 3rd round for the starting gig. If Coach doesn't think he gives us a better chance to win than RW then you can be damn sure none of you monkey asses are gonna convince me.

Bingo. The pro-Flynn crowd is operating on the presumption that they know better than Pete, and Flynn is any sort of improvement. Let's be open to the possibility that Pete has seen what he has in Flynn and has no interest in plugging him in as the starter from this point on.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Matt Flynn wasn't good enough to beat out a rookie drafted in the 3rd round for the starting gig. If Coach doesn't think he gives us a better chance to win than RW then you can be damn sure none of you monkey asses are gonna convince me.

I approve this message.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Matt Flynn wasn't good enough to beat out a rookie drafted in the 3rd round for the starting gig. If Coach doesn't think he gives us a better chance to win than RW then you can be damn sure none of you monkey asses are gonna convince me.

I as well.


Some people in here should look for a nice NFL coaching position or maybe even scout for their favorite team (just hope it's not the Seahawks) when vacancies open up at the end of the year.

If this thread was a science project, it would now be awarded a gold star for achieving perpetual motion.

I think Russell Wilson has fewer acolytes than his detractors imagine. I think Flynn has fewer supporters than his detractors image (I am one of his detractors, but like a few on here, was so long before he was a Hawk). I think that a lot of Seahawk fans use the QB situation as a way of either showing their belief in or lack of faith in Pete Carroll's model, style, competition, and leadership. My favorite of the week is that Pete should be demoted to defensive coordinator. *belly laugh*

Scottemojo wrote:I think Russell Wilson has fewer acolytes than his detractors imagine. I think Flynn has fewer supporters than his detractors image (I am one of his detractors, but like a few on here, was so long before he was a Hawk). I think that a lot of Seahawk fans use the QB situation as a way of either showing their belief in or lack of faith in Pete Carroll's model, style, competition, and leadership. My favorite of the week is that Pete should be demoted to defensive coordinator. *belly laugh*

I think 90% of the hue and cry comes from a small number of people who need something to obsess over. Which would be ok except for that fact that it's disruptive and annoying to everybody else.

3-2

Same record the QB for the Patriots, I forget his name--while facing better opponents. What is the question again?

Alright, time for this to end...