Let's Get Down To It...What Side Are You On?

[SNDavidson]

We have a battle hardened poised cool customer at QB that has the talent to win a super bowl for a team.

roughly 27 of the other 32 teams can't say that. They have no chance of winning a Superbowl. Why do you play the game?

 

[TwistedHusky]

NJ,

Trading Wilson is probably good for Wilson, likely not good for us.

Being a Seahawk fan, and wanting to see Seahawk wins - I want him to stay.

I know we probably won't be in the playoffs again without Wilson, at least under Carroll.

And fairly sure we will not advance in the playoffs with Wilson past the divisional playoff round - too much to overcome.

The advantage of trading him is in burning all down so hopefully, in 2-5 years we have a competitive team again.

But we still have to watch some awful teams for 2-5 years then, maybe 10+ even.

If we are stuck with Pete, and not going to have playoff success anyway - might as well have some good entertaining games against highly-ranked opponents for regular-season wins. That likely only happens with Wilson on the roster.

Sure Wilson's people will chirp/squawk, leak about the Seahawks, and otherwise constantly campaign to get him out of there. (often undercutting his own team in the process). And sure Wilson will talk out of one side of his mouth while stating empty platitudes that most people stopped believing long ago.

Got used to that some time ago, after the 'miracle water' incident. Those annoyances are still a small price to pay though.

We will have some good regular-season games vs the alternative. Still some entertaining Sundays.

Today's NFL is built to give every advantage to the QB. Removing the QB or replacing it with an average player, assures you lose those advantages and thus games. So yeah, it would be nice to go into Sundays knowing we still have a chance even against the better teams.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

I voted 'trade'. I'll keep it very short.

- System is broken. Doesn't matter which side it's broken on. Russ isn't functioning properly.

- Grab assing at the last 5 minutes of the Cardinals game doesn't make everything ok all of a sudden.

The one thing I finally thought about was that the argument is FLAWED.

The question isn't: "Should we trade Russ? Should we keep Russ?". I honestly think from an organizational standpoint, I kind of agree with another poster in another thread. In a dearth of options, the 'business' side of the arrangement wants butts in seats. A functional quarterback with the perennial chance to show in the playoffs keeps butts in seats.

I think the more apt question is: "If you are a several billion dollar organization, and can't see yourself functioning with a key staff member. A staff member that your company/organization just CAN'T function without - then where is the Hawks game plan to perpetually replace Russ?". I think if I was running a company, and I had one person that the company could NOT LIVE without, I'd have a game plan, or zero game plan. Either or - but I wouldn't do it blindly.

That's the part I think that's always bugged me. "How do you traitors think we're gonna get along without Russ?." Well, to quote an often used phrase lately: I don't think it's binary - and if it IS Binary - the organization better have a plan.

I'm on the Hawks side. I see a quarterback that got paid. I know it's tough to pick up a replacement. I know that the entire team could/is/was/should be geared around Russ/one player. I do think it's not binary. I think the answer to the question is: Either re-tool the offence, players, co-ordinator and everything AROUND Russ, or stop playing around and blow it up. Either or. And, I'm fine with either. If I had to guess - if the Oline was gonna get fixed, it already would be.

So, all things being equal? System staying the same? Coaches pretty much staying the same? The only change that can be effected - is to trade Russ.

The business case the other poster made in another thread was: organization isn't unhappy. They have playoff hopes every year. They have an owl. If things can get back on track for an 11 or 12 win season and one and done/not one and done in the playoffs. I don't think they care much, and PC is set for another couple years.

So. My raw vote? Regrettably - trade Russ. I don't think the system fixes itself, and someone else probably needs to be plugged in.

What do I 'think' will happen? Given the economics, the fact that really the Hawks have all the cards, and that they have Russ for 4-5 years if they want - gruntled, disgruntled and playing for his own stats - or whatever - I THINK that NOTHING will happen. I think we'll hit FA and what we can inn the draft, spend a little on some holes, and get back to an 11 or 12 win year next season.

I could be wrong.

 

[nwHawk]

Today's NFL is built to give every advantage to the QB. Removing the QB or replacing it with an average player, assures you lose those advantages and thus games. So yeah, it would be nice to go into Sundays knowing we still have a chance even against the better teams.

I tend agree, but quietly the Hawks are 14-14 in their last 28 games. And all but 3 were started but Russ.

Doesn’t seem like this team is built to win. Part of that is on Pete to be sure. Part is on John and part is on Russ. Moving forward, we have to make tough choices. Bobby Wagner’s coming to the end, KJ moved on last year and on and on. What’s hard for most fans is the thought of disconnecting the current team’s past glory (Super Bowl, Lynch and the LOB). Feels like the end of an era. That’s scary, but it’s time to sharpen the tool.

Russell’s limitations have been talked about so the question really comes down to does Russ and the current cast give Seattle a better chance to win going forward rather than QB X and a better team (offense and defense)? Is Russ the best qb for Waldron? If it’s only about making Russ the best version of himself, what else has to change scheme/players for that to hit it’s peak? Do we have to see a 4th offensive coordinator fail to realize a change is needed?

 

[CalgaryFan05]

Today's NFL is built to give every advantage to the QB. Removing the QB or replacing it with an average player, assures you lose those advantages and thus games. So yeah, it would be nice to go into Sundays knowing we still have a chance even against the better teams.

I tend agree, but quietly the Hawks are 14-14 in their last 28 games. And all but 3 were started but Russ.

Doesn’t seem like this team is built to win. Part of that is on Pete to be sure. Part is on John and part is on Russ. Moving forward, we have to make tough choices. Bobby Wagner’s coming to the end, KJ moved on last year and on and on. What’s hard for most fans is the thought of disconnecting the current team’s past glory (Super Bowl, Lynch and the LOB). Feels like the end of an era. That’s scary, but it’s time to sharpen the tool.

Russell’s limitations have been talked about so the question really comes down to does Russ and the current cast give Seattle a better chance to win going forward rather than QB X and a better team (offense and defense)? Is Russ the best qb for Waldron? If it’s only about making Russ the best version of himself, what else has to change scheme/players for that to hit it’s peak? Do we have to see a 4th offensive coordinator fail to realize a change is needed?

Honestly, after dealing with 'problem' employees in running my own shop for a bunch of years - I think basically you set yourself up for alot of failures - trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

If an employee is not fitting, you can change the employee, or you can change the whole company. Which is easier?

I've gone out of my way to accomodate employees over the years - trying to 'make the system fit their strengths' - you know what? It doesn't work 99% of the time. Particularly once someone is already disgruntled.

I think that we might want to spend less time asking 'what's wrong with us' - 'cause sometimes 'it's not me, it's you' applies. I'd love the Hawks/RW 'relationship' - and that's what it is - to be fixed - but it's not gonna.

Don't kill the whole team. Replace the puzzle piece that ain't fitting. Yea, BWagz is aging. Adams is/was a bit of a dumpster fire - but they aren't the real problem if you're QB focused.

 

[NJlargent]

NJ,

Trading Wilson is probably good for Wilson, likely not good for us.

Being a Seahawk fan, and wanting to see Seahawk wins - I want him to stay.

I know we probably won't be in the playoffs again without Wilson, at least under Carroll.

And fairly sure we will not advance in the playoffs with Wilson past the divisional playoff round - too much to overcome.

The advantage of trading him is in burning all down so hopefully, in 2-5 years we have a competitive team again.

But we still have to watch some awful teams for 2-5 years then, maybe 10+ even.

If we are stuck with Pete, and not going to have playoff success anyway - might as well have some good entertaining games against highly-ranked opponents for regular-season wins. That likely only happens with Wilson on the roster.

Sure Wilson's people will chirp/squawk, leak about the Seahawks, and otherwise constantly campaign to get him out of there. (often undercutting his own team in the process). And sure Wilson will talk out of one side of his mouth while stating empty platitudes that most people stopped believing long ago.

Got used to that some time ago, after the 'miracle water' incident. Those annoyances are still a small price to pay though.

We will have some good regular-season games vs the alternative. Still some entertaining Sundays.

Today's NFL is built to give every advantage to the QB. Removing the QB or replacing it with an average player, assures you lose those advantages and thus games. So yeah, it would be nice to go into Sundays knowing we still have a chance even against the better teams.

Good points as always. I would prefer some lousy seasons if it gave us a shot at being a legit contender but I do get your position. Also don’t want to revisit the dreadful 90s either though.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

I voted 'trade'. I'll keep it very short.

- System is broken. Doesn't matter which side it's broken on. Russ isn't functioning properly.

- Grab assing at the last 5 minutes of the Cardinals game doesn't make everything ok all of a sudden.

The one thing I finally thought about was that the argument is FLAWED.

The question isn't: "Should we trade Russ? Should we keep Russ?". I honestly think from an organizational standpoint, I kind of agree with another poster in another thread. In a dearth of options, the 'business' side of the arrangement wants butts in seats. A functional quarterback with the perennial chance to show in the playoffs keeps butts in seats.

I think the more apt question is: "If you are a several billion dollar organization, and can't see yourself functioning with a key staff member. A staff member that your company/organization just CAN'T function without - then where is the Hawks game plan to perpetually replace Russ?". I think if I was running a company, and I had one person that the company could NOT LIVE without, I'd have a game plan, or zero game plan. Either or - but I wouldn't do it blindly.

That's the part I think that's always bugged me. "How do you traitors think we're gonna get along without Russ?." Well, to quote an often used phrase lately: I don't think it's binary - and if it IS Binary - the organization better have a plan.

I'm on the Hawks side. I see a quarterback that got paid. I know it's tough to pick up a replacement. I know that the entire team could/is/was/should be geared around Russ/one player. I do think it's not binary. I think the answer to the question is: Either re-tool the offence, players, co-ordinator and everything AROUND Russ, or stop playing around and blow it up. Either or. And, I'm fine with either. If I had to guess - if the Oline was gonna get fixed, it already would be.

So, all things being equal? System staying the same? Coaches pretty much staying the same? The only change that can be effected - is to trade Russ.

The business case the other poster made in another thread was: organization isn't unhappy. They have playoff hopes every year. They have an owl. If things can get back on track for an 11 or 12 win season and one and done/not one and done in the playoffs. I don't think they care much, and PC is set for another couple years.

So. My raw vote? Regrettably - trade Russ. I don't think the system fixes itself, and someone else probably needs to be plugged in.

What do I 'think' will happen? Given the economics, the fact that really the Hawks have all the cards, and that they have Russ for 4-5 years if they want - gruntled, disgruntled and playing for his own stats - or whatever - I THINK that NOTHING will happen. I think we'll hit FA and what we can inn the draft, spend a little on some holes, and get back to an 11 or 12 win year next season.

I could be wrong.

This is a great post!
If an organization thinks one single person is solely the only one responsible for all successes, than that person is equally responsible for all failures of the organization.

If Jody Allen at the end of the day believes having Wilson as QB is the single most important business decision, then Wilson will continue to hold the organization hostage, for any reasons he like.

Truth be told, the organization isn’t very good, if one single person, is/was the reason it was functional to begin with.

A Super Bowl winning organization needs to be good in 3 areas: Owner, coaches, players.

The Seahawks are in a world of trouble if Russell Wilson is the sole reason Seattle is successful or a failure.

I guess Wilson should forever be the Seahawks QB for all time.

 

[toffee]

I voted 'trade'. I'll keep it very short.

- System is broken. Doesn't matter which side it's broken on. Russ isn't functioning properly.

- Grab assing at the last 5 minutes of the Cardinals game doesn't make everything ok all of a sudden.

The one thing I finally thought about was that the argument is FLAWED.

The question isn't: "Should we trade Russ? Should we keep Russ?". I honestly think from an organizational standpoint, I kind of agree with another poster in another thread. In a dearth of options, the 'business' side of the arrangement wants butts in seats. A functional quarterback with the perennial chance to show in the playoffs keeps butts in seats.

I think the more apt question is: "If you are a several billion dollar organization, and can't see yourself functioning with a key staff member. A staff member that your company/organization just CAN'T function without - then where is the Hawks game plan to perpetually replace Russ?". I think if I was running a company, and I had one person that the company could NOT LIVE without, I'd have a game plan, or zero game plan. Either or - but I wouldn't do it blindly.

That's the part I think that's always bugged me. "How do you traitors think we're gonna get along without Russ?." Well, to quote an often used phrase lately: I don't think it's binary - and if it IS Binary - the organization better have a plan.

I'm on the Hawks side. I see a quarterback that got paid. I know it's tough to pick up a replacement. I know that the entire team could/is/was/should be geared around Russ/one player. I do think it's not binary. I think the answer to the question is: Either re-tool the offence, players, co-ordinator and everything AROUND Russ, or stop playing around and blow it up. Either or. And, I'm fine with either. If I had to guess - if the Oline was gonna get fixed, it already would be.

So, all things being equal? System staying the same? Coaches pretty much staying the same? The only change that can be effected - is to trade Russ.

The business case the other poster made in another thread was: organization isn't unhappy. They have playoff hopes every year. They have an owl. If things can get back on track for an 11 or 12 win season and one and done/not one and done in the playoffs. I don't think they care much, and PC is set for another couple years.

So. My raw vote? Regrettably - trade Russ. I don't think the system fixes itself, and someone else probably needs to be plugged in.

What do I 'think' will happen? Given the economics, the fact that really the Hawks have all the cards, and that they have Russ for 4-5 years if they want - gruntled, disgruntled and playing for his own stats - or whatever - I THINK that NOTHING will happen. I think we'll hit FA and what we can inn the draft, spend a little on some holes, and get back to an 11 or 12 win year next season.

I could be wrong.

This is a great post!
If an organization thinks one single person is solely the only one responsible for all successes, than that person is equally responsible for all failures of the organization.

If Jody Allen at the end of the day believes having Wilson as QB is the single most important business decision, then Wilson will continue to hold the organization hostage, for any reasons he like.

Truth be told, the organization isn’t very good, if one single person, is/was the reason it was functional to begin with.

A Super Bowl winning organization needs to be good in 3 areas: Owner, coaches, players.

The Seahawks are in a world of trouble if Russell Wilson is the sole reason Seattle is successful or a failure.

I guess Wilson should forever be the Seahawks QB for all time.

Bravo, lots of deep thoughts. I make it simple for myself:

1. Do I see the team winning super bowl in the next 3 years with Wilson? I don't.
2. Would we get more in return trading Wilson now vs 2-3 years from now? I don't.
3. If Russ can't help us win now, should we holding on to a depreciating asset? I don't.

As a Russ homer, I like to see him trying out new systems, I think that he wants to. As his homer, I can't deny him of that.

As a seahawks homer, I like our chance of picking a poor men's Russ, John seems to have good eyes when it comes to QBs, he found Russ after all, and scouted Mahomes, Allen etc., We are more likely to experience another 2013/2014 if John manages to find another game manager.

 

[chrispy]

Staying or going is irrelevant unless we simultaneously talk about the costs. It's like asking if you want $20 without knowing what you have to do to get it. Everyone would like RW to stay because he's a really good QB. The disagreement is on the cost.


I, personally, think that a 7-10 team has to make some changes. Again, me personally, I think the fact that all 3 other teams in the NFCW are playoff teams and 2 are in the NCFCG means that there's a high liklihood that the Seahawks will have a couple years of irrelevancy regardless of whether RW stays or goes. We're not competitive the way things stand now. We're a 7 and 10 team playing in a Division where you probably need to win 12 to take the Division in '22 and '23. My opinion is that the worst case scenario is to make small changes and improve incrementally to an 8 or 9 or 10 win team for 2-3 years. We're not the Bucs or Pats or Bills. We're thin everywhere and have only a few superstars that are getting older. Not doom and gloom: we have some pieces to build around but it's not enough to be a solid core.

It's the correct off-season for big changes. I'd like to see RW stay but there are limited opportunities to get 5-wins better in 2023 or 2024 without looking at big moves this off season. My personal guess is that if it doesn't happen, PC and JS are trying to push out cap and contract issues a couple years and will leave a new regime with a dumpster fire at that time. If we don't make big moves now and can't be competitive in our own division but still have a mediocre team in 3 years, we'll all wish a big re-build happened this year.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Maybe.

The situation is clearly not ideal.

But the question is: Would the team be better or worse without him?

All BS aside, when Russ is healthy - it is leagues better. 9-10 win team vs basically .500 or worse.

This is a barely .500 team without him and any reasonable replacement we can find (or even pay for) is going to be roughly that.

As for cap saving?

That is an odd goal. Most of the value of the cap is to pay your QB and then pay your other players.

If you don't have a exceptional/great QB, it is kind of pointless.

And not sure why people think we will realize the savings anyway. We had plenty of cap room at the start of the year and we squandered it. Go look at how we spent our cap and whether that worked for us.

Millions more cap room just likely means millions more spent on middling to average players (if that).

 

[RockinHawks]

Franchise QB's who have rings don't grow on trees... stay.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Wow. I'm surprised so many chose trade.

 

[Spohawks]

It's pretty simple. The only 2 smart options...
1) Trade him now if a team will offer more than 2 first.
2) Utilize that cheap contact next year in hopes he doesn't get hurt and trade him with that cheap last year on his contact as bait for another team.

 

[sutz]

Wow. I'm surprised so many chose trade.

I blame Fantasy Football. People don't appreciate how hard it is to build a team in real life.

 

[Fade]

The 49ers and Rams are playing in the NFC Championship game and are expending more resources at QB than the Seahawks. Wilson's pricetag isn't the problem with the team not being able to get over the hump.

Their problem is they haven't had a successful Free Agent class since 2013 (Avril & Bennett). And they've had too many drafts since 2013 that have garnered nothing, or next to nothing. It isn't Wilson's fault they took Malik McDowell, and LJ Collier. Or sold the farm for Jamal Adams and made him the highest paid Safety. And finally they have a coach who is more concerned with hiring "yes" men and his buddies, than getting the best out there that might challenge him. Ken Norton at DC for 4 years is damning. Darrell Bevell continuing to stay at OC as the offense stagnated for years, subpar assistants that stick around due to being Pete's buddies and kids.


2021 Cap Hits and draft pick resources spent at QB:

SEAHAWKS

Russell Wilson $32M cap hit; 2012 3rd round draft pick.
Geno Smith $987.5k; UFA.

Total: $32.98M and a 2012 3rd round draft pick. (Haven't spent a significant pick in a decade.)


49ERS

Jimmy Garropolo $26.85M cap hit; 2017 2nd round draft pick.
Trey Lance $6.2M cap hit; 2021 1st, 2021 3rd, (Also the next two 1st rounders, but irrelevant to this season.)

Total: $33.05M; 2017 2nd; 2021 1st & 2021 3rd.

RAMS

Jered Goff $22.2M dead money hit against their 2021 cap (Traded a boat load of picks to draft him.)
Matt Stafford $20M cap hit; 2021 3rd round draft pick. (2022 & '23 1st rounders as well but irrelevant to 2021.)
John Wolford 855k; Street Free Agent

Total: 43.55M; 2021 3rd round pick

Saying Wilson makes too much is lazy and a cop out.

The 9ers and Rams are spending more resources at QB than the Seahawks and have stacked rosters, with better coaching staffs. The Cowboys are paying Dak $40M a year and have a loaded roster. The Packers have been paying Rodgers top money for forever and spent a 1st rounder on their backup QB, and have a more talented team.

Russell Wilson isn't the issue with the Seahawks. All you have to do is just take a peak at the other successful teams in the conference to realize this.

The Seahawks need to stop flushing money down the toilet in Free Agency on JAGs, have a good draft, get an actual good DC, upgrade LG & C on the O-Line and they will have a chance next year with Russell Wilson. If not, whelp, they will just keep getting worse.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

The 49ers and Rams are playing in the NFC Championship game and are expending more resources at QB than the Seahawks. Wilson's pricetag isn't the problem with the team not being able to get over the hump.

Their problem is they haven't had a successful Free Agent class since 2013 (Avril & Bennett). And they've had too many drafts since 2013 that have garnered nothing, or next to nothing. It isn't Wilson's fault they took Malik McDowell, and LJ Collier. Or sold the farm for Jamal Adams and made him the highest paid Safety. And finally they have a coach who is more concerned with hiring "yes" men and his buddies, than getting the best out there that might challenge him. Ken Norton at DC for 4 years is damning. Darrell Bevell continuing to stay at OC as the offense stagnated for years, subpar assistants that stick around due to being Pete's buddies and kids.


2021 Cap Hits and draft pick resources spent at QB:

SEAHAWKS

Russell Wilson $32M cap hit; 2012 3rd round draft pick.
Geno Smith $987.5k; UFA.

Total: $32.98M and a 2012 3rd round draft pick. (Haven't spent a significant pick in a decade.)


49ERS

Jimmy Garropolo $26.85M cap hit; 2017 2nd round draft pick.
Trey Lance $6.2M cap hit; 2021 1st, 2021 3rd, (Also the next two 1st rounders, but irrelevant to this season.)

Total: $33.05M; 2017 2nd; 2021 1st & 2021 3rd.

RAMS

Jered Goff $22.2M dead money hit against their 2021 cap (Traded a boat load of picks to draft him.)
Matt Stafford $20M cap hit; 2021 3rd round draft pick. (2022 & '23 1st rounders as well but irrelevant to 2021.)
John Wolford 855k; Street Free Agent

Total: 43.55M; 2021 3rd round pick

Saying Wilson makes too much is lazy and a cop out.

The 9ers and Rams are spending more resources at QB than the Seahawks and have stacked rosters, with better coaching staffs. The Cowboys are paying Dak $40M a year and have a loaded roster. The Packers have been paying Rodgers top money for forever and spent a 1st rounder on their backup QB, and have a more talented team.

Russell Wilson isn't the issue with the Seahawks. All you have to do is just take a peak at the other successful teams in the conference to realize this.

The Seahawks need to stop flushing money down the toilet in Free Agency on JAGs, have a good draft, get an actual good DC, upgrade LG & C on the O-Line and they will have a chance next year with Russell Wilson. If not, whelp, they will just keep getting worse.

Dammit. I hate when facts interrupt a good argument.

That's about the best case i've heard for 'rebuild around Russ' - Nice post.

And, um, what you actually did for me is re-tell the story of how the office has ****** things up (FA/Draft/etc) - and I think they have - particularly with Adams. I think the last paragraph says it all if you're in the 'rebuild around Russ camp' - which, is a valid camp.

I'm still of the opinion that this is not a normal relationship. After the noise that Russ made last year, and the angling that's starting already - I'm guessing it's over from his end anyhow - but I could be wrong.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The scary part is the lack of awareness.

Review the draft capital put into the defense this past 5 years, and the trade resources. Then juxtapose with the results. Not even close to inline with expectations.

The other question is why?

The rules of the NFL favor the offense.
Your best player is on offense.
Some of your other best players are on offense.

Doesn't it make sense to enable the offense instead of just patching holes?


But no, we put as much into defense as we can, because at least throwing everything at the defense we can field a bang average defense (or worse) defense.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

The scary part is the lack of awareness.

Review the draft capital put into the defense this past 5 years, and the trade resources. Then juxtapose with the results. Not even close to inline with expectations.

The other question is why?

The rules of the NFL favor the offense.
Your best player is on offense.
Some of your other best players are on offense.

Doesn't it make sense to enable the offense instead of just patching holes?


But no, we put as much into defense as we can, because at least throwing everything at the defense we can field a bang average defense (or worse) defense.

Well, from my perspective, whether or not JS/PC have been 'good' at building a defense - which they really haven't in 4 years - defense still wins championships IMO. Check out the 49ers game they should have lost!

I honestly think I'd like to see the O/D 'fight' stop both internally and externally. JS/PC have been stinking it up the last few years, that's for sure. And they've just straight up wiffed on the Offense.

Having said that, I think I referenced in my first reply in this thread: PICK ONE OR THE OTHER. Build it around Russ, properly. Really properly. Or let him go. Whichever way it is, fix the puzzle, not the piece. I don't think (and never said) that Russ sucked. He's got challenges. So, fix it 'all', or break it and go under development for a few years.

Anyhow - to answer your original question: defense wins championships. The fact that we've built one badly and essentially ignored the offense doesn't change that fact

 

[TwistedHusky]

But does Defense win Championships anymore?

The top 10 defenses in the league, only 2 are situated to win a Championship. One frankly at long long long odds. The other is at the bottom of the list, so barely Top 10.


The top 10 rushing offense in the league? Does that win anything?

What about top ten combined defenses and rushing?


You could just as easily argue that the top playoff teams are top passing offenses (in TDs). The Chargers would be there and not in the playoffs but the rest are on point for playoff teams.

Not sure Defense winning Championships is near as true as it used to be.






You probably are aware that most of those NFL rule changes were put in to encourage either safety or offense. And that is no accident because the NFL prefers to do marketing around the QBs, it creates a face of the franchise.

So if many of the rules were placed to encourage offense, and they worked - then wouldn't offense be advantageous to enable vs defense if you already have many of the offensive pieces in place?

And you already had one of the key offensive pieces that is difficult to obtain?

A lot of great defenses are going to be sitting at home in the later playoff rounds. Many won't even make the playoffs.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

But does Defense win Championships anymore?

The top 10 defenses in the league, only 2 are situated to win a Championship. One frankly at long long long odds. The other is at the bottom of the list, so barely Top 10.


The top 10 rushing offense in the league? Does that win anything?

What about top ten combined defenses and rushing?


You could just as easily argue that the top playoff teams are top passing offenses (in TDs). The Chargers would be there and not in the playoffs but the rest are on point for playoff teams.

Not sure Defense winning Championships is near as true as it used to be.

<snip>

A lot of great defenses are going to be sitting at home in the later playoff rounds. Many won't even make the playoffs.

Well, you make a point, and I'm going to go do some research on defenses, along the lines of what you mentioned.

You're right in a way - I'm trotting out the old mantra - just because - but in all honestly, since pretty much every professional sports league, including the NFL (some might say lead by the NFL after the brain stuff), have essentially castrated defenses - I'm not sure it holds up as well any more.

I like your point about you could argue that top passing offenses (in TDs). That's a good point - and could easily be right.

I guess we're not talking about the 1970's Steelers when we're talking about defenses anymore. We're certainly not talking about the LOB - which honestly I think is the last iteration of such a defense that will exist in the NFL. Gimmie a cross field bone jarring Kam hit any day of the Fing week - stuff lately has just been weak sauce. It's the rules.

I'm gonna STFU and go research your point. Have a nice day.

:0190l: