I think the Coaches are correctly managing the situation with QBs currently on the roster

hawkfan68

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
8,591
Reaction score
91
Location
Sammamish, WA
We didn't struggle because of Russel's finger. We struggled because he made really bad decision. I put together a thread that started to highlight just how bad it was and intended to do the entire game, but there were too many plays to clip. That game was literally amateur hour at the QB position.

And the single biggest reason we lost that game, even beyond the qb play, was the fact that we chose to throw the ball 40 plus times vs 11 runs... the entire game... in a game where we were never in a position to need to throw that much and would have benefited from leaning on the run. In fact, the running game was effective in its limited use. Throwing that much was entirely unnecessary, untirely unPete or unShane, and would never have happened had Russ not dictated it.
It was a factor that caused him to struggle. I agree there was no way RW should be throwing 40 times in that game. Especially with his situation. Those who were calling the plays weren't doing their jobs (I'm saying this as collective and not pointing fingers at any one person). They had plenty of time to make adjustments but didn't. Why is that? Unless you are in the huddle or listening to communication between coaches and team, you don't know what plays are being called. My guess is they had a game plan to pass more because the Packer D was stout in the middle and had a great interior DL. In hindsight it was the wrong plan. I'm sure they would do things differently if they had the chance for a do over. Packers aren't a slouch team.
 
Last edited:

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Cockeysville, Md
It was a factor that caused him to struggle. I agree there was no way RW should be throwing 40 times in that game. Whoever was making the play calls weren't doing their jobs. Unless you are in the huddle or listening to communication between coaches and team, you don't know what plays are being called. My guess is they had a game plan to pass more because the Packer D was stout in the middle and had a great interior DL. In hindsight it was the wrong plan. I'm sure they would do things differently if they had the chance for a do over. Packers aren't a slouch team.

Bud, there's no gameplan that would lean on a passing game so much that it would result in a 2 to 1 TOP advantage to the opposing team... in a game that was 3 - 0 in the 4th quarter. We didn't not run because GB was so effective. We just didn't run. The defense held Aaron Rodgers to 3 points through 3 qtrs until they were physically spent and couldn't anymore.

New Orleans had the no1 ranked rush defense when we played them a few weeks before and we ran almost exclusively. What's the key difference? The QB.

And Pete was visibly pissed afterward that we passed the way we did and didn't run. And in no game before or after did that happen. The running game netted 4.1ypc behind Collins . So the HC didn't want it, the OC didn't seem to defend it. But we do know it was prime-time, Mano a Mano- Russ vs Rodgers, and Russ clealry had his own agenda the entire season.
 

hawkfan68

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
8,591
Reaction score
91
Location
Sammamish, WA
Bud, there's no gameplan that would lean on a passing game so much that it would result in a 2 to 1 TOP advantage to the opposing team... in a game that was 3 - 0 in the 4th quarter. We didn't not run because GB was so effective. We just didn't run. The defense held Aaron Rodgers to 3 points through 3 qtrs until they were physically spent and couldn't anymore.

New Orleans had the no1 ranked rush defense when we played them a few weeks before and we ran almost exclusively. What's the key difference? The QB.

And Pete was visibly pissed afterward that we passed the way we did and didn't run. And in no game before or after did that happen. The running game netted 4.1ypc behind Collins . So the HC didn't want it, the OC didn't seem to defend it. But we do know it was prime-time, Mano a Mano- Russ vs Rodgers, and Russ clealry had his own agenda the entire season.
If it was Russ changing plays....why wasn't he benched? Probably because PC knew that maybe there is a chance he would pull some RW magic in the end. He was certain that Smith couldn't do it because he never has. He could have against the Steelers and Saints but failed to do so. I believe (very highly) Smith would have been playing if he had won one of those two games. He didn't. PC had no confidence in Smith to win that game or be better than Russ.
 

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
5,503
Reaction score
743
Location
SoCal Desert
If it was Russ changing plays....why wasn't he benched? Probably because PC knew that maybe there is a chance he would pull some RW magic in the end. He was certain that Smith couldn't do it because he never has. He could have against the Steelers and Saints but failed to do so. I believe (very highly) Smith would have been playing if he had won one of those two games. He didn't. PC had no confidence in Smith to win that game or be better than Russ.
I beg to differ, Pete and Russ had a dysfunctional relationship. John63 isn't the biggest Wilson homer, Pete Carroll owned that title. Wilson knew Pete's so addicted to his magic that inmate ran the asylum. Carroll should have pull Wilson at half time of GB game, but he didn't have the courage to, he should bench Wilson for couple more games, but he didn't have the courage to.

Pete and Russ' dysfunctional relationship sunk Hawks' dynasty.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Cockeysville, Md
If it was Russ changing plays....why wasn't he benched? Probably because PC knew that maybe there is a chance he would pull some RW magic in the end. He was certain that Smith couldn't do it because he never has. He could have against the Steelers and Saints but failed to do so. I believe (very highly) Smith would have been playing if he had won one of those two games. He didn't. PC had no confidence in Smith to win that game or be better than Russ.

Pete's greatest fault has been being blinded by faith. Faith that Ken Norton woukd turn it around. Faith that things would click for Tre Flowers. Faith that his defense could adapt to a changing league in minor tweaks over the years ... or that drafting purely on less tangible player traits over raw, obvious ability was adequate. Faith that Russ would acknowledge his faults and improve areas of his play, or that at any point last year he would come to his senses and come back into the fold. That faith was on full display in an interview after the season when he was asked whether Russ could be convinced that the style of play we transitioned to over thr last 4 or 5 games was one that Russ would be ok with - relying on the run, playing balanced ball. Despite the obvious skepticism on the oart of whoever was asking him ( maybe Wyman or Bob?) he responded assuredly and with certainty that Russ would put the winning strategy above thr one that featured some high powered passing attack. Pete was completely blind to it. It was obvious that even John Schnedier was tired of it if you watched the way they answered the questions at the post Wilson trade presser.

Russ demanded to play at GB and every week after and Pete let him ... I'd wager, just as with letting Schotty go in favor of a 'hotter OC', that if he gave way and made Russ happy, that he'd stay.
 

Scout

Active member
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
96
Actually I like to think that PC exhausted all avenues to try to make it work with RW. Once all roads were traveled and ended up being dead ends that is when PC decided to turn the page. Maybe PC gave RW too much leeway but then again you had to explore the Let Russ Cook approach to see if it can work or not. In some aspects it did look promising but then again RW had to evolve as a passer to really take off and he simply didn't. That is okay if RW returns to doing what he does best in Denver. But if RW tries to be what he is not ala Drew Brees then he will struggle.

As for Geno and Lock my take is that Geno can be the point guard of the offense. But Lock brings an X factor outside of the pocket with his arm. Both will bring a welcomed wrinkle that the offense needs to force defenses to adjust. Geno has no problem throwing short and intermediate throws and Lock has no problem hitting darts down the seem.

I do not see any problem with Geno or Lock starting with this team. Unless Geno or Lock are catastrophic as starters I think both will be just fine IMVHO.
 

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
5,503
Reaction score
743
Location
SoCal Desert
As for Geno and Lock my take is that Geno can be the point guard of the offense. But Lock brings an X factor outside of the pocket with his arm. Both will bring a welcomed wrinkle that the offense needs to force defenses to adjust. Geno has no problem throwing short and intermediate throws and Lock has no problem hitting darts down the seem.

I do not see any problem with Geno or Lock starting with this team. Unless Geno or Lock are catastrophic as starters I think both will be just fine IMVHO.
Geno had 3.5 good games with a 5TD/1INT record in the past 6 years. Lock had a few good moments in his rookie year. IMO, both deserve the disrespect that they are getting from the national media, however, media experts will not suit up and play the game. Lock and Geno will, the opportunity is there for them to step up and shine. And what excellent opportunity, we have excellent WRs, potentially excellent RBs, and an OL that opened running lanes for Penny.

I am sure that Lock and Geno knew that this is their last bus to glory!
 

Hawkspeed

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Messages
49
Reaction score
34
It's interesting...I really believe in both of them and am "rooting" for each of them to succeed. They are both excellent athletes who maybe lack self confidence because of the way that their careers have gone. I sure have made mistakes in my career, but also didn't have to be "the man" in a select group...imagine the pressure...but, no doubt fun too :)

Everyone here has probably experienced a tough experience that they had to come back from. These guys are both on the verge of successful careers in the NFL! It is not the competition between the two, but the fact that one or both might reach their goals and bring the team to success this year.

As for this year, our other "stars", which include some pretty strong talent, can help the quarterback overcome any limitations while adding their own talent to the mix. Next year the team will change again, with the draft choices that are in the bank, so enjoy the ride...

Playoffs!!!
 

hgwellz12

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
4,973
Reaction score
269
Location
In a lofty place tanglin' with Satan over history.
I beg to differ, Pete and Russ had a dysfunctional relationship. John63 isn't the biggest Wilson homer, Pete Carroll owned that title. Wilson knew Pete's so addicted to his magic that inmate ran the asylum. Carroll should have pull Wilson at half time of GB game, but he didn't have the courage to, he should bench Wilson for couple more games, but he didn't have the courage to.

Pete and Russ' dysfunctional relationship sunk Hawks' dynasty.
Lol
 
OP
OP
M

Mike D in 332

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
52
Reaction score
21
This conversation has devolved into a talk about how we got here. I am more interested in what you all see going forward at the QB position. How will this year's QB situation set us up for the next potential dynasty? Does it put us in good draft position? Do we find a serviceable player at the position? are we too good to get a high enough draft pick? How do they need to play this for the best result?
 

Scout

Active member
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
96
This conversation has devolved into a talk about how we got here. I am more interested in what you all see going forward at the QB position. How will this year's QB situation set us up for the next potential dynasty? Does it put us in good draft position? Do we find a serviceable player at the position? are we too good to get a high enough draft pick? How do they need to play this for the best result?
For 2023 the Seahawks have more than enough draft capital to obtain any QB they desire. Along with freed up cap space in 2023 the Seahawks have a lot of flexibility in further shaping the roster. Keep in mind that the current roster isn't lacking talent overall. How the coaches put these talented players in position to shine will be key. Especially true with a defense that has talent on all three levels.

Geno and Lock are competing and either could continue to be serviceable beyond this season. But that depends upon how they perform.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Cockeysville, Md
This conversation has devolved into a talk about how we got here. I am more interested in what you all see going forward at the QB position. How will this year's QB situation set us up for the next potential dynasty? Does it put us in good draft position? Do we find a serviceable player at the position? are we too good to get a high enough draft pick? How do they need to play this for the best result?
I think it's a win / win, regardless. We have two 1sts and two 2nds. All the talk about sucking for a high draft pick seems to ignore that. If Lock takes off and he turns out to be the guy, we can draft whichever of the qbs we want at ahwatever spot we want. If Lock is average and we land middle of round 1, we still have enough trade capital to get whatever qb we want AND we did well enough in the last 3 drafts to lay the foundations for the future, so sacrificing 2 #1s and even a #2 to move up wouldn't be the end of the world. Next year, after round 1, we'll have the luxury of taking BPA, wherever we pick.

And the most important thing, regardless of how the QB situation pans out, for at least the next 4 to 5 years, we likely won't be paying a QB top tier, franchise money. It's 2012 all over again. If Lock plays well, smart money says we extend him for manageable $ for a few years and give him an opportunity to really prove what he can do. If we bring in a rookie as THE guy,and he pans out, he won't be paid big $ until 2027. The window is about to open again.
 
Last edited:

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Cockeysville, Md
For 2023 the Seahawks have more than enough draft capital to obtain any QB they desire. Along with freed up cap space in 2023 the Seahawks have a lot of flexibility in further shaping the roster. Keep in mind that the current roster isn't lacking talent overall. How the coaches put these talented players in position to shine will be key. Especially true with a defense that has talent on all three levels.

Geno and Lock are competing and either could continue to be serviceable beyond this season. But that depends upon how they perform.
What he said
 

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
5,503
Reaction score
743
Location
SoCal Desert
This conversation has devolved into a talk about how we got here. I am more interested in what you all see going forward at the QB position. How will this year's QB situation set us up for the next potential dynasty? Does it put us in good draft position? Do we find a serviceable player at the position? are we too good to get a high enough draft pick? How do they need to play this for the best result?
IF and a big IF Geno could play a whole season at the same level as his 3.5 games in 2021, we may just got ourselves a game manager. In those 3.5 games, he basically played at the same level as JimmyG's 2021.

Lock may just turn into a Russ Lite, but with less resistance letting the running game take pressure off him. He could be our somewhat elite game manager. Lock has more mobility than Geno, and likes to go deep. But unlike Russ, he has less fear attacking the middle. To get there, Lock had to improve footwork, and work on a quicker release. To my uneducated eyes, it's taking too long for the ball to leave his hand after he decided to throw.

If both failed after first 7 games, we may need to shop for an interim QB, and draft someone who could start in 2023. If one of them works, we may have the luxury to draft a QB that sit in 2023 and start in 2024.

My two pennies.
 

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
5,503
Reaction score
743
Location
SoCal Desert
I think it's a win / win, regardless. We have two 1sts and two 2nds. All the talk about sucking for a high draft pick seems to ignore that. If Lock takes off and he turns out to be the guy, we can draft whichever of the qbs we want at ahwatever spot we want. If Lock is average and we land middle of round 1, we still have enough trade capital to get whatever qb we want AND we did well enough in the last 3 drafts to lay the foundations for the future, so sacrificing 2 #1s and even a #2 to move up wouldn't be the end of the world. Next year, after round 1, we'll have the luxury of taking BPA, wherever we pick.

And the most important thing, regardless of how the QB situation pans out, for at least the next 4 to 5 years, we likely won't be paying a QB top tier, franchise money. It's 2012 all over again. If Lock plays well, smart money says we extend him for manageable for a few years and five him an opportunity to really prove what he can do. If we bring in a rookie as THE guy,and he pans out, he won't be paid big $ until 2027. The window is about to open again.
If Lock or Geno turned into serviceable QB. What would be your thoughts on what to pick in 2023? Center? guard? ED, NT? LBs? We have lots of picks.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Cockeysville, Md
If Lock or Geno turned into serviceable QB. What would be your thoughts on what to pick in 2023? Center? guard? ED, NT? LBs? We have lots of picks.

I would go Dline (x2), Safety and WR. I
LOVE Adams but am concerned about his durability. AND, he was brought in with the intention of being the finishing piece of a team that had SB aspirations and SHOULD have gone farther.

If he can't stay healthy, we move on but will need to have a solid replacement behind him. His contract may also be a factor, although I can't speak to how it's loaded. I'd like to say Blair is the guy to replace him. He's certainly talented enough, but he can't stay healthy either.

Also woukd be good to begin to think about Tyler 2.0. Maybe Eskridge is the guy? Again, he needs to stay on the field.

But yeah. DL, S, WR.
 

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
5,503
Reaction score
743
Location
SoCal Desert
I would go Dline (x2), Safety and WR. I
LOVE Adams but am concerned about his durability. AND, he was brought in with the intention of being the finishing piece of a team that had SB aspirations and SHOULD have gone farther.

If he can't stay healthy, we move on but will need to have a solid replacement behind him. His contract may also be a factor, although I can't speak to how it's loaded. I'd like to say Blair is the guy to replace him. He's certainly talented enough, but he can't stay healthy either.

Also woukd be good to begin to think about Tyler 2.0. Maybe Eskridge is the guy? Again, he needs to stay on the field.

But yeah. DL, S, WR.
true but we have lots of picks :)
 

Hawkspeed

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Messages
49
Reaction score
34
Lots of picks...awesome! But I would still like to pick up an early round quarterback. Maybe even with the first pick if he seems like the right choice. In the past, Greenbay has drafted good quarterbacks that could sit for a year or two and develop. That is where Matt Hasselbeck came from.

If not a quarterback, I would get the "best player available" that has a speed and size advantage. Those are things that mostly cannot be taught or acquired through training. I would go for the best defensive lineman or linebacker available. If an offensive lineman fell to us, that would be ok too. You can't teach size or speed.

But, you have to "draft early or pay later" for talent like that. If we have a chance to acquire a game changer next year and our quarterback situation is resolved, let's go Defense with the first pick!!!

Like toffee's icon, I hope we get a Hyena, not just a Wolf.
 
Top