Take this for what it is

mikeak · Dec 4, 2012

I am concerned about the increased amount of running. I don't think it spells long-term success

I love what RW brings to the table and as an NC State Grad I have followed RW for what is now the fifth year so I am completely sold on the guy with that said

He is a rookie - he proves nothing until he is doing this on a consistent level.

Right now he is playing great and making this team win games. Hopefully he can continue to improve and I haven't seen anything that says he won't but life can have different paths for different people.

themunn · Dec 4, 2012

NYCoug":37ebxmla said:
Really nice post, Seahawks2k.

I know exactly what you mean about Russell being a closer and mostly every other Seahawk QB in team history not being able to win us this game. I might disagree that this is the most clutch road win in the past 20 seasons, but I'm partial since I was at the Giants game last season, but regardless I agree with you almost 100%. As much as I love Matt, I don't think he pulls off the 2 drives that we saw on Sunday.

And I also agree with HansGruber. I'd say that Russell is the most exciting Seahawks QB of all-time as well as the one with the most potential, at this point.

I disagree with that being a "clutch" road-win, simply because although we came from behind to score the go-ahead TD, there was still a LOT of time for the Giants to come back, and we simply sealed the deal with the INT return.
This was a "fail to score and you lose the game drive", and we didn't really have one of those - we had a clutch defensive stand yes, but I don't count those as "clutch" wins, because holding on to win isn't clutch, if we'd been behind when we scored the INT and that put us in the lead then I'd agree

morgulon1 · Dec 4, 2012

Uncle Si":ne89fc7z said:
Its a bit early to even call him a "closer"... he had the ball in his hands in all 5 losses with a chance to win and didnt. However, he had the ball in his hands in all 5 losses with a chance to win. That says as much about him as anything. He has this team poised to win games every week. I love that about him (and the team).

the Chicago win was a big one. Finally did it on the road.

That's a pretty broad statment re: Wilson having the ball in his hands all 5 games. The first thing that came to mind was the crappy play calling at Miami. A couple of runs and a screen.

But I'm with you , we won a tough game on the road.

HawkFan72 · Dec 4, 2012

I love Hass, but his biggest problem was that he let things bother him.

He would get worked up over bad calls, bad plays, and it would affect his play. Big time.

So far, Wilson doesn't let things bug him. He stays calm no matter the situation.

That is the biggest difference I see.

SalishHawkFan · Dec 4, 2012

For those who feel that Wilson needs to lead us to a Super Bowl to compare to Hass, I respectfully disagree. That, to me, is like saying Dilfer was better than Flacco because Dilfer led the Ravens to a Super Bowl. Not that Flacco is all that, but he's obviously a superior QB than Dilfer ever was. Football is a team sport.

NYCoug · Dec 4, 2012

themunn":1vutemy6 said:
NYCoug":1vutemy6 said:

Really nice post, Seahawks2k.

I know exactly what you mean about Russell being a closer and mostly every other Seahawk QB in team history not being able to win us this game. I might disagree that this is the most clutch road win in the past 20 seasons, but I'm partial since I was at the Giants game last season, but regardless I agree with you almost 100%. As much as I love Matt, I don't think he pulls off the 2 drives that we saw on Sunday.

And I also agree with HansGruber. I'd say that Russell is the most exciting Seahawks QB of all-time as well as the one with the most potential, at this point.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that being a "clutch" road-win, simply because although we came from behind to score the go-ahead TD, there was still a LOT of time for the Giants to come back, and we simply sealed the deal with the INT return.
This was a "fail to score and you lose the game drive", and we didn't really have one of those - we had a clutch defensive stand yes, but I don't count those as "clutch" wins, because holding on to win isn't clutch, if we'd been behind when we scored the INT and that put us in the lead then I'd agree

I see what you're saying, and I said I was biased by the fact that I was there, but the 'Hawks win against NY was just as improbable and "anti-Seahawk." Hawks come from behind to score a go-ahead TD with 2:37 to game in the game with Whitehurst at QB. Eli, Mr. 4th Quarter, marches the Giants down the field with the writing on the wall. Eli having a knack for 4th quarter dramatics + Seahawks propensity to crumble down the stretch on the road, usually = a Giants win here. Somehow, Browner plucks the ball out of the air and takes it to the house.

But I do see your point about this game being more "clutch" in that sense of the term.

Scottemojo · Dec 4, 2012

For his career, Hass was at his worst when the Seahawks were behind. Yeah he had some comebacks, but his career QB rating when behind was 75. That's below average.

The rookie Russell so far in his career has a rating of 94.5 when playing from behind.

seahawk2k · Dec 4, 2012

RichNhansom said:
It is kind of hard to really make an accurate comparison simply because the teams and ERA of football are so drastically different.

The only year Hasselbeck had a team comparable to this one he took us to a super bowl and in that game where you say he should have ignored the Locklear hold and thrown another 1st down, ignores that is exactly what he did. He threw a 39 yard pass to Jackson and hit him perfectly at the one yard line but Jackson failed to get his left foot down and it was egregious because it would have been easy for him to do. Unfortunately Jackson caught the ball with his right foot in bounds and momentum carrying him towards the sidelines and he made no attempt to drag his left foot, he simply took the next step and went out of bounds.

I love what Wilson is doing right now and I'm pretty confident we have only seen the tip of the iceberg but ignoring that we were even in that Chicago game when we had no running game and a below average crew of receivers, is really not a fair assessment. You can also use games like the Redskins playoff game where Alexander went down the first time he touched the ball and Matt carried the team to victory or the NO playoff game in Seattle were not only were we given zero chance to win, we went down by 10 points twice before Matt took over the game and that was with guy's like BMW and Ruvell Martin to throw to. quote]

A) Never said he was the best ever. But he's the first quarterback I've seen since Krieg that could pull a win out like that on the road
B) Shaun was a beast in that 2006 playoff game in Chicago. And yes, I have a lot of respect for Hass to get the team in situations like OT of that Bears playoff game, but he never pushed the team over the hump and won those games did he?
C) The parameters of the situation I was talking about included winning on the road. Totally different animal than at home. Hass was money at home, no question about it.
D) I think you have your XL sequence of events a little off, but I might as well. I'm not going to look it up, I still haven't recovered.

I'm not even saying that Wilson is a better qb than Hass. I'm simply stating that mentally, the Seahawks have a quarterback that can win you games at the end, on the road, against good teams, with respect to Hass and others, we haven't had that in a long time. I'm stoked about that.

RichNhansom · Dec 4, 2012

SalishHawkFan":1ljgfi2m said:
For those who feel that Wilson needs to lead us to a Super Bowl to compare to Hass, I respectfully disagree. That, to me, is like saying Dilfer was better than Flacco because Dilfer led the Ravens to a Super Bowl. Not that Flacco is all that, but he's obviously a superior QB than Dilfer ever was. Football is a team sport.

But that is part of the question. Which TEAM is better? This one with Rice, Tate and Lynch? Or the 05 team with Djack, Engram and Alexander?
This defense is rated higher but the 05 o-line was better.
I don't think Wilson needs to win a super bowl to surpass Hass but an all pro appearance would help.

I think some are so excited right now that they are having a little revisionist memory problem.

onanygivensunday · Dec 4, 2012

Here's some interesting stats comparing early-career Matt Hasselbeck to Russell Wilson, and even to early-career Mr. Clutch himself, John Elway.

Russell has started only 12 games thus far... and he has three (3) Fourth Quarter Comebacks (4QC) and three (3) Game Winning Drives (GWD).

Source... http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... lsRu00.htm

It took Matt nineteen (19) starts to get to three (3) GWDs... and it took him 27 starts until he got to his third 4QC.

Source... http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... r=HassMa00

By comparison, it took John Elway 24 starts to get to the same 3 and 3 that Russell has achieved in his first 12 starts.

And that does not take into account what happened in Arizona, Detroit and Miami. Dropped passes and the Hawks leaky D negated additional GWDs and 4QCs for Russell.

Here's the source for the Elway numbers... http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... r=ElwaJo00

Russell is off to a FANTASTIC start. The above numbers confirm it imo.

Over his 10-year Seattle career, Matt's most clutch year during the regular season yielded four 4QCs and five GWDs.

Elway's over his sixteen year career was 6 and 6.

I've got a pretty solid feeling that Russell will surpass both of those career-high numbers.

Sgt. Largent · Dec 4, 2012

"Best ever" is something earned over a long period of time, not 3/4 of a season. Could Wilson be? Might he be? Does he have the potential to be? Most certainly. Is he? Nope, not yet.........IMO Hasselbeck is, for two reasons;

1. Longevity of success
2. Took us to a Superbowl

seahawk2k · Dec 4, 2012

This thread wasn't meant to devolve into a "Whose Better?" discussion. Its unfair to both players, Hass has a full decade of work, full of success and failure, and Wilson has less than a season. A game like Sunday hasn't happened in a long time. It's worthy of note.

Sgt. Largent · Dec 4, 2012

seahawk2k":2uxg8znt said:
This thread wasn't meant to devolve into a "Whose Better?" discussion.

Seems like this was exactly the intent of the OP

But, nonetheless, I'm going to compare the two

Scottemojo · Dec 4, 2012

Sgt. Largent":1ahhx2ie said:
"Best ever" is something earned over a long period of time, not 3/4 of a season. Could Wilson be? Might he be? Does he have the potential to be? Most certainly. Is he? Nope, not yet.........IMO Hasselbeck is, for two reasons;

1. Longevity of success
2. Took us to a Superbowl

On point number one, with all due respect, list for me the actual number of really successful seasons Matt had.
On point number two, with all due respect, going to a Super Bowl is not in itself that big an accomplishment. In Seattle it is kind of a big deal, but in most franchises it is not.

I simply do not understand anyone being defensive about people thinking this guy might be better than Matt. Matt was an above average QB with a very likeable personality. He is not a sacred cow.

HawksFTW · Dec 4, 2012

Scottemojo":317mlsry said:
On point number two, with all due respect, going to a Super Bowl is not in itself that big an accomplishment. In Seattle it is kind of a big deal, but in most franchises it is not.

With all due respect, I think you are dead wrong here. There are a few teams that are dead set on SB contention every single year, and just an appearance isn't enough. I would say the LARGE majority of fans would be ecstatic to make the SB, not just Seattle.

I agree with the rest of what you have to say.

theENGLISHseahawk · Dec 4, 2012

MontanaHawk05":11u2bpfn said:
It's also why I was scared of Flynn and blatantly wanted someone to knock him down the depth chart - he's another "high-maintenance QB", and this offense wasn't built for that. I'm still shocked that PC even signed him.

First scheduled meeting was with Chad Henne - and had he signed then Flynn would've never happened. They clearly wanted competition/an upgrade for Tarvaris Jackson. The Flynn deal was whatever it was - there weren't many alternative options. Money was never a big deal for this front office. Whether it was Henne or Flynn, they just wanted another guy.

They were always going to draft a QB after the first round. We all know how much they loved Wilson. If another team beat Seattle to the punch, it probably would've been Kirk Cousins. They were happy to wait until 2013 to solve this issue and manage the situation. And part of the Flynn signing will have been - this guy can manage us for a year if we need him to.

And this loose plan has been blown to pieces by the sheer brilliance of Russell Wilson. Now the issue has been solved. He is the QBOTF. And it's put this team a year ahead of schedule as a consequence.

seahawk2k · Dec 4, 2012

Sgt. Largent":2r0x78zr said:
seahawk2k":2r0x78zr said:

This thread wasn't meant to devolve into a "Whose Better?" discussion.

Click to expand...

Seems like this was exactly the intent of the OP

But, nonetheless, I'm going to compare the two

Click to expand...

By god, your right, by comparing one aspect of the quarterback position where it appears our current quarterback excels in an area of weakness for Seahawks quarterbacks for the last twenty years I was definitely making an all encompassing point about how Wilson is better than not only Hasslebeck but every quarterback that has ever suited up for the Seahawks.

Thanks for reading!

Scottemojo · Dec 4, 2012

HawksFTW":1ph6mbdb said:
Scottemojo":1ph6mbdb said:

On point number two, with all due respect, going to a Super Bowl is not in itself that big an accomplishment. In Seattle it is kind of a big deal, but in most franchises it is not.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think you are dead wrong here. There are a few teams that are dead set on SB contention every single year, and just an appearance isn't enough. I would say the LARGE majority of fans would be ecstatic to make the SB, not just Seattle.

I agree with the rest of what you have to say.

Let me rephrase: in most franchises, going to a Super Bowl does not define a player's legacy. Redskin fans don't laud Doug Williams as one of their best quarterbacks, just as Baltimore fans do not celebrate Trent Dilfer's legacy, and Dolphin fans don't wax poetically about the time Marino lost a Super Bowl. Those fans talk about the QBs legacies more in terms of how those guys were the best in the league, or were not the best. They get to brag about Johnny U, Sammy Baugh and Joe Theisman, or even without the trophy, how awesome Marino clearly was. We have never had a guy who was the best, not even really top 5 in some indisputable way, so we hang on to the reasons they were fan favorites. Like Matt's wit and his one Super Bowl trip or his couple of pro bowls, but not how defenses were freaked out by having to play him, because they really weren't. That is part of why Russell Wilson is so intriguing, he is doing things no Seattle QB has ever done, and doing them as a rookie.

Why people feel the need to protect Matt's legacy is beyond me, but I am not really all that sentimental.

HawksFTW · Dec 4, 2012

Scottemojo":ssmsut75 said:
HawksFTW":ssmsut75 said:

Scottemojo":ssmsut75 said:

On point number two, with all due respect, going to a Super Bowl is not in itself that big an accomplishment. In Seattle it is kind of a big deal, but in most franchises it is not.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I think you are dead wrong here. There are a few teams that are dead set on SB contention every single year, and just an appearance isn't enough. I would say the LARGE majority of fans would be ecstatic to make the SB, not just Seattle.

I agree with the rest of what you have to say.

Click to expand...

Let me rephrase: in most franchises, going to a Super Bowl does not define a player's legacy. Redskin fans don't laud Doug Williams as one of their best quarterbacks, just as Baltimore fans do not celebrate Trent Dilfer's legacy, and Dolphin fans don't wax poetically about the time Marino lost a Super Bowl. Those fans talk about the QBs legacies more in terms of how those guys were the best in the league. We have never had a guy who was the best, not even really top 5 in some indisputable way, so we hang on to the reasons they were fan favorites. That is part of why Russell Wilson is so intriguing, he is doing things no Seattle QB has ever done.

Why people feel the need to protect Matt's legacy is beyond me, but I am not really all that sentimental.

Ah, got it. Totally agree.

Sgt. Largent · Dec 4, 2012

Scottemojo":363u5mlr said:
On point number one, with all due respect, list for me the actual number of really successful seasons Matt had.

Hasselbeck has 11 postseason starts, that's good for 16th all time. He had five seasons in a row that he took us to the playoffs, and a Superbowl appearance. Those stats alone puts him ahead of any other Seahawk QB, including Wilson who hasn't even made one postseason start. I didn't even get into passing yards, TD's, etc.

I simply do not understand anyone being defensive about people thinking this guy might be better than Matt. Matt was an above average QB with a very likeable personality. He is not a sacred cow.

I'm not being defensive, I just think it's crazy to anoint Wilson "the best ever" when the dude hasn't even played a full season. You yourself used the words "might be" and not "is"........that right there tells me you agree with me. Potential is not fact when it comes to "best ever," at least not in my book, or the NFL in general, that's why the league keeps all those silly stats.

Take this for what it is

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads