hinton
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 171
knownone":2vgsu57t said:I'm sort of on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, I think Russell is an elite QB, and they should do everything to make things easier on him. On the other, I think Pete is one of the greatest coaches of all time, and I have zero doubt that he would be successful without Wilson.
The problem I see is the asymmetrical distribution of credit and blame. For example, I have yet to wrap my head around the logic that "Pete's conservative offense is holding Russell back," and also "Russell is the only reason Seattle is not a 4 win team." These are two mutually exclusive concepts, in my opinion. You can't think Pete is underutilizing Russ while simultaneously thinking they couldn't win with a lesser QB than Russ. It's nonsense.
A more rational approach, with symmetrical distribution, would be to acknowledge that Seattle is better with Russell than without him. The same logic then also applies to Pete. We can't assume that a new coach would be better than Pete just because it's not Pete.
Ultimately, this is a "my dad could beat your dad" situation where each side of the equation has already made up their mind and is unwilling to consider the possibility that they are wrong. In this case, all other things equal, the only reason you'd favor keeping Russ over Pete is because of age. Pete's future is less certain than Russell's. Without that consideration, their accomplishments are functionally inseparable. We cannot assume that one is better without the other because we have no evidence to support that conclusion, just opinions.
Exactly, so many people are over-reacting to the entire thing and forcing narratives without realising the contradictions.
The same people yelling "Pate is keeping the O on a leash" are the same people that yelled "how could Pete have let Bevell call a pass in the SB", you can't have it both ways.
Pete s a top-tier coach, Russ is a top-tier QB. Both need to get on the same page, quickly.