Rumor: RW asking to be the highest paid player in history

[Shadowhawk]

You start losing defensive players, is Russel Wilson good enough to match touchdowns with Rodgers?

I want to see more games where we let Russell just sling away, in all seriousness. There have been a couple where he's been allowed to do it at the tail end of games...Go watch the 4th quarter and overtime of Sea @ Chi from 2012. Watch it, and tell us what you honestly think.

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

Don't get me wrong, Wilson is a fine quarterback but.... If I'm a Seattle fan, I'm keeping that defense together and grooming another, more affordable quarterback. I don't think Wilson can carry your team if you start losing great defensive players after next year.

Oh, just get another quarterback, huh? Who? We've just seen three weak quarterback drafts in a row, so it's not like there's a lot of talent coming out of the collegiate ranks these days. Teams are fighting to sign career backups like Josh McCown and Matt Cassell. There just aren't that many good quarterbacks in the NFL right now. If the Seahawks are foolish enough to let Russell Wilson go, it could be years if not decades before they find another player of his caliber again.

 

[Hawkpower]

All this drama people are trying to inject into the negotiations is just awful. It's like having a website full of Mike Florios, and it sucks.

Truth.

We have a lot of 710 ESPN listeners here, and radio guys will do anything to fill air time in May when the Mariners are losing. Mike Salk has been insufferable on this issue, and he's hardly alone. Florio plays a part too. I completely blame the media for this. The media has a tremendous ability to make people either dumber or smarter. And it's usually the former.

There are many Seahawk fans who would want, and gladly sign off on a 300 million dollar contract for RW if that's what it took. Hyperbole I know, but we have a large contingent of "new" fans who don't understand the big picture of the NFL....yet.

I would have to think that contemplating solutions other than Wilson if the price becomes too much to bear is the quite the opposite of "dumb".

Letting Wilson walk is probably not in our best interests obviously, but blindly shouting I LOVE RW GIVE HIM ANYTHING HE WANTS!!!! doesnt seem all that intelligent either.

As with all things, the best win-win solution is somewhere in between. Lets hope they nail it.

 

[Anthony!]

Don't get me wrong, Wilson is a fine quarterback but.... If I'm a Seattle fan, I'm keeping that defense together and grooming another, more affordable quarterback. I don't think Wilson can carry your team if you start losing great defensive players after next year.

Seattle is defense first. But it's not like Seattle has had to let their superstars on defense walk. Some of the 2nd and 3rd tier guys sure, though even they could have been kept if Seattle was a little wiser with their money in other areas (Flynn, Wright, Rice, Miller, Harvin, Clipboard Jesus, etc).

Seattle had a top 10 defense and Marshawn Lynch kicking ass in 2011 and went 7-9. Being a team that wants to win with running the football, making big plays, avoiding turnovers, and shining brightest in the 4th quarter, Wilson is like a human genome project at QB who excels in all the exact areas Pete Carroll needs. Seattle would never get another Russell Wilson if they let him go, much less on the cheap. His value to the team, in terms of wins, far exceeds 17% of his team's cap number.

I just can't let that go you can't compare 2011 and 2012 . Sherman wasn't even starting yet . That argument just has so many variables that you didn't take into account it's a lazy argument at best. So many things got better in 2012 vs 2011 sure Wilson had a lot to do with that but Lynch has been the most consistent offensive player weve had for the last 4 years and Wilson wouldn't have all those wins on his resume without without Lynch and that defense.
Fortunatly the Seahawks FO is doing exactly what they should do . Make sure they don't overpay for Wilson. He will get somewhere in the 20 to 22 million range when all is said and done and that's exactly what he's worth right now. If they don't get a deal done and he puts his best season on film he will get a lot more . We'll just have to see if he's willing to roll the dice on that or take a reasonable contract now.

And we would not have al those wins without Wilson. 2011 Defense you may have a case for. But the Offense was the same except for Wilson and it got much better and a lot of that was due to Wilson. As to the FO that remains to be seen fi they know what they are doing or not.

 

[Hawkpower]

Don't get me wrong, Wilson is a fine quarterback but.... If I'm a Seattle fan, I'm keeping that defense together and grooming another, more affordable quarterback. I don't think Wilson can carry your team if you start losing great defensive players after next year.

Seattle is defense first. But it's not like Seattle has had to let their superstars on defense walk. Some of the 2nd and 3rd tier guys sure, though even they could have been kept if Seattle was a little wiser with their money in other areas (Flynn, Wright, Rice, Miller, Harvin, Clipboard Jesus, etc).

Seattle had a top 10 defense and Marshawn Lynch kicking ass in 2011 and went 7-9. Being a team that wants to win with running the football, making big plays, avoiding turnovers, and shining brightest in the 4th quarter, Wilson is like a human genome project at QB who excels in all the exact areas Pete Carroll needs. Seattle would never get another Russell Wilson if they let him go, much less on the cheap. His value to the team, in terms of wins, far exceeds 17% of his team's cap number.

I just can't let that go you can't compare 2011 and 2012 . Sherman wasn't even starting yet . That argument just has so many variables that you didn't take into account it's a lazy argument at best. So many things got better in 2012 vs 2011 sure Wilson had a lot to do with that but Lynch has been the most consistent offensive player weve had for the last 4 years and Wilson wouldn't have all those wins on his resume without without Lynch and that defense.
Fortunatly the Seahawks FO is doing exactly what they should do . Make sure they don't overpay for Wilson. He will get somewhere in the 20 to 22 million range when all is said and done and that's exactly what he's worth right now. If they don't get a deal done and he puts his best season on film he will get a lot more . We'll just have to see if he's willing to roll the dice on that or take a reasonable contract now.

And we would not have al those wins without Wilson. 2011 Defense you may have a case for. But the Offense was the same except for Wilson and it got much better and a lot of that was due to Wilson. As to the FO that remains to be seen fi they know what they are doing or not.

Yeah, the jury is still out on our FO :roll:

RW is such a nice QB and I am so glad he is ours, but to insinuate that the Seahawks are the Wilson show and everyone else is just fortunate to be graced by his presence is just ridiculous.

RW benefits from his teammates just as much as they benefit from him. RW does not win the superbowl without his supporting cast, and we likely dont win the superbowl without someone of his caliber.

end of story.

 

[ptisme]

.[/quote]

Hmm lets see most 4th qtr/ot comeback game winning drives ove r3 years. no true #1 wr, oline ranked bottom 1`0 in pass blocking. I guess that answers the question of doe she make others better, and what not. As to carry the team you mean like when our great defense fails? yeah he has already so that checks that. Spoken like a fan who wants us to let him go so our team is not as string and maybe GB can get by us.[/quote]
OK, You're taking what I said as a slight on RW... He's a great QB... I don't know that he's elite from what I've seen of him (about 4-5 games a year only to be honest). I think he's in that second tier. Not highest player in the game tier...

As for your comment about "getting by you": GB has already pulled even with you as far as talent. They didn't finish the deal at your place in January. It's not like the Cowboys of the 90's where Green Bay simply wasn't good enough... I would say that as long as you don't have to pay your QB 20 million a year you are at an advantage however and I look forward to that day when the playing field is equal with regards to pay allocation....

 

[JimmyG]

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

When people call Wilson a game manager ("he's last in pass attempts"), the response is usually, "all the matters in the end is that he wins." When opponents score 24+ points, Seattle is 2-9. Even with Wilson balling out, we still lost both of the games you mentioned (sorry, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades). What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team".

 

[Anthony!]

Seattle is defense first. But it's not like Seattle has had to let their superstars on defense walk. Some of the 2nd and 3rd tier guys sure, though even they could have been kept if Seattle was a little wiser with their money in other areas (Flynn, Wright, Rice, Miller, Harvin, Clipboard Jesus, etc).

Seattle had a top 10 defense and Marshawn Lynch kicking ass in 2011 and went 7-9. Being a team that wants to win with running the football, making big plays, avoiding turnovers, and shining brightest in the 4th quarter, Wilson is like a human genome project at QB who excels in all the exact areas Pete Carroll needs. Seattle would never get another Russell Wilson if they let him go, much less on the cheap. His value to the team, in terms of wins, far exceeds 17% of his team's cap number.

I just can't let that go you can't compare 2011 and 2012 . Sherman wasn't even starting yet . That argument just has so many variables that you didn't take into account it's a lazy argument at best. So many things got better in 2012 vs 2011 sure Wilson had a lot to do with that but Lynch has been the most consistent offensive player weve had for the last 4 years and Wilson wouldn't have all those wins on his resume without without Lynch and that defense.
Fortunatly the Seahawks FO is doing exactly what they should do . Make sure they don't overpay for Wilson. He will get somewhere in the 20 to 22 million range when all is said and done and that's exactly what he's worth right now. If they don't get a deal done and he puts his best season on film he will get a lot more . We'll just have to see if he's willing to roll the dice on that or take a reasonable contract now.

And we would not have al those wins without Wilson. 2011 Defense you may have a case for. But the Offense was the same except for Wilson and it got much better and a lot of that was due to Wilson. As to the FO that remains to be seen fi they know what they are doing or not.

Yeah, the jury is still out on our FO :roll:

RW is such a nice QB and I am so glad he is ours, but to insinuate that the Seahawks are the Wilson show and everyone else is just fortunate to be graced by his presence is just ridiculous.

RW benefits from his teammates just as much as they benefit from him. RW does not win the superbowl without his supporting cast, and we likely dont win the superbowl without someone of his caliber.

end of story.

who ever said it was the Wilson show? No one, however a few have made it clear that for them Wilson is just along for the ride. No QB does it all by themselves, none. However all that said the QB is still the most important position on the field.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

When people call Wilson a game manager ("he's last in pass attempts"), the response is usually, "all the matters in the end is that he wins." When opponents score 24+ points, Seattle is 2-9. Even with Wilson balling out, we still lost both of the games you mentioned (sorry, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades). What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team".

Wait so your saying in those 11 games our elite defense decided to let the other teams score more than 24 points and it's Russell's fault.

 

[Anthony!]

.

Hmm lets see most 4th qtr/ot comeback game winning drives ove r3 years. no true #1 wr, oline ranked bottom 1`0 in pass blocking. I guess that answers the question of doe she make others better, and what not. As to carry the team you mean like when our great defense fails? yeah he has already so that checks that. Spoken like a fan who wants us to let him go so our team is not as string and maybe GB can get by us.[/quote]
OK, You're taking what I said as a slight on RW... He's a great QB... I don't know that he's elite from what I've seen of him (about 4-5 games a year only to be honest). I think he's in that second tier. Not highest player in the game tier...

As for your comment about "getting by you": GB has already pulled even with you as far as talent. They didn't finish the deal at your place in January. It's not like the Cowboys of the 90's where Green Bay simply wasn't good enough... I would say that as long as you don't have to pay your QB 20 million a year you are at an advantage however and I look forward to that day when the playing field is equal with regards to pay allocation....[/quote]

Your entitled to your opinion on talent. Guess what even paying our QB 20 mil a year we are at an advantage although if you pulled even how can we have an advantage.

 

[JimmyG]

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

When people call Wilson a game manager ("he's last in pass attempts"), the response is usually, "all the matters in the end is that he wins." When opponents score 24+ points, Seattle is 2-9. Even with Wilson balling out, we still lost both of the games you mentioned (sorry, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades). What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team".

Wait so your saying in those 11 games our elite defense decided to let the other teams score more than 24 points and it's Russell's fault.

I did not say it was Wilson's fault. The statistic sure seems to imply that Wilson relies heavily on his defense, does it not? Perhaps the correlation between Wilson playing well and us winning are not as high as we'd intuitively believe.

 

[Seahwkgal]

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

When people call Wilson a game manager ("he's last in pass attempts"), the response is usually, "all the matters in the end is that he wins." When opponents score 24+ points, Seattle is 2-9. Even with Wilson balling out, we still lost both of the games you mentioned (sorry, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades). What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team".

Wait so your saying in those 11 games our elite defense decided to let the other teams score more than 24 points and it's Russell's fault.

I did not say it was Wilson's fault. The statistic sure seems to imply that Wilson relies heavily on his defense, does it not? Perhaps the correlation between Wilson playing well and us winning are not as high as we'd intuitively believe.

2011 and an average QB? That's what we get without Wilson. I am with Anthony on this issue. Sue me.

 

[Anthony!]

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

When people call Wilson a game manager ("he's last in pass attempts"), the response is usually, "all the matters in the end is that he wins." When opponents score 24+ points, Seattle is 2-9. Even with Wilson balling out, we still lost both of the games you mentioned (sorry, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades)..

What it tells you is this teams defense sometimes gives up 24 points. And given other than 1 game we never lost by more than 1 score it also tells you our QB gets us points. Now lets look at those games. Lets remember PC has said he wants to get a lead and then have the defense win it. SO the play calling on offense changes once we get a lead.

1. Det vs Sea 2012 28-24 Detroit Seattle wa sup 24-21 with 5 minutes left and our defense gave up the game winning TD with 20 seconds left. Yeah sorry not on Wilson
What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team"
2. Miami VS Sea 2012 24-21 We had a 14-7 lead going into the 4th qtr the defense gave up 17 points. We also scored in the 4th and it was 21-21 when our defense allowed Miami to move 65 yards in 1 minute 32 seconds to win the game. Hmm another r4th qtr Defense issue

3. Atl VS Sea playoffs 30-28 enough here we know Wilson got us the lead and the defense gave up 41 yards and a FG in 23 seconds. Another Def issue

4. Sea vs Indy 34-28 indy. Once again we go into the 4th qtr with a lead and once again the defense gives it up. Now this one Wilson did have chances in the 4th qtr to get more points, so I do put some of this on him.

5. Sea VS SD we lost 30-21 and to me this was on both the offense and defense as no one played well. But Wilson could have played better.

6. Dallas VS Sea 30-23 once again we had a 23-20 lead with 8 minutes to go and the defense gives up 10 points.

7. Rams VS Sea 28-26 Wilson had over 300 yards passing and over 100 yards rushing this one is not on Wilson period. I put it on ST.

8. KC vs Sea 24-20 we started the 4th qtr with a 20-17 lead again. However again Wilson could have played better

9. SB Ne vs Sea again we go into the 4th qtr with a with 12 minutes to go and a 10 point lead and again the defense cannot hold them.

So lets see that is all 9. In 7 of these games we go well into the 4th qtr with a lead an dour #1 ranked defense could not hold them. Since as you said " What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team"" Sure seems like the defense that all of you say this team is built around has problems. I mean if you Offense and QB gives the #1 defense that this team is supposedly built around the lead late into the 4th qtr you would think we win. Now lets add in the 15 4th qtr/ot come back game winning drives Wilson has that leads the NFL over the last 3 years. Hmm sure seems like he was key to those and you take those 3 wins a year away and we do not make the playoffs in any year.

 

[Anthony!]

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

When people call Wilson a game manager ("he's last in pass attempts"), the response is usually, "all the matters in the end is that he wins." When opponents score 24+ points, Seattle is 2-9. Even with Wilson balling out, we still lost both of the games you mentioned (sorry, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades). What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team".

Wait so your saying in those 11 games our elite defense decided to let the other teams score more than 24 points and it's Russell's fault.

I did not say it was Wilson's fault. The statistic sure seems to imply that Wilson relies heavily on his defense, does it not? Perhaps the correlation between Wilson playing well and us winning are not as high as we'd intuitively believe.

See post above, and again realize that is more about game plan as I said PC wants a lead and then let the defense win it. and again sure seems like there is a correlation to the 4th qtr/ot game wining drives and this team making the playoffs since there have been 15 of them in 3 years after going all of 21001 with none.

 

[Hawkpower]

I just can't let that go you can't compare 2011 and 2012 . Sherman wasn't even starting yet . That argument just has so many variables that you didn't take into account it's a lazy argument at best. So many things got better in 2012 vs 2011 sure Wilson had a lot to do with that but Lynch has been the most consistent offensive player weve had for the last 4 years and Wilson wouldn't have all those wins on his resume without without Lynch and that defense.
Fortunatly the Seahawks FO is doing exactly what they should do . Make sure they don't overpay for Wilson. He will get somewhere in the 20 to 22 million range when all is said and done and that's exactly what he's worth right now. If they don't get a deal done and he puts his best season on film he will get a lot more . We'll just have to see if he's willing to roll the dice on that or take a reasonable contract now.[/quote]

And we would not have al those wins without Wilson. 2011 Defense you may have a case for. But the Offense was the same except for Wilson and it got much better and a lot of that was due to Wilson. As to the FO that remains to be seen fi they know what they are doing or not.[/quote]


Yeah, the jury is still out on our FO :roll:

RW is such a nice QB and I am so glad he is ours, but to insinuate that the Seahawks are the Wilson show and everyone else is just fortunate to be graced by his presence is just ridiculous.

RW benefits from his teammates just as much as they benefit from him. RW does not win the superbowl without his supporting cast, and we likely dont win the superbowl without someone of his caliber.

end of story.[/quote]

who ever said it was the Wilson show? No one, however a few have made it clear that for them Wilson is just along for the ride. No QB does it all by themselves, none. However all that said the QB is still the most important position on the field.[/quote]






Neither extreme opinion is correct. Wilson deserves credit for our run. He also is not a savior.

He is a really good QB who we should responsibly try to resign.

 

[Anthony!]

I just can't let that go you can't compare 2011 and 2012 . Sherman wasn't even starting yet . That argument just has so many variables that you didn't take into account it's a lazy argument at best. So many things got better in 2012 vs 2011 sure Wilson had a lot to do with that but Lynch has been the most consistent offensive player weve had for the last 4 years and Wilson wouldn't have all those wins on his resume without without Lynch and that defense.
Fortunatly the Seahawks FO is doing exactly what they should do . Make sure they don't overpay for Wilson. He will get somewhere in the 20 to 22 million range when all is said and done and that's exactly what he's worth right now. If they don't get a deal done and he puts his best season on film he will get a lot more . We'll just have to see if he's willing to roll the dice on that or take a reasonable contract now.

And we would not have al those wins without Wilson. 2011 Defense you may have a case for. But the Offense was the same except for Wilson and it got much better and a lot of that was due to Wilson. As to the FO that remains to be seen fi they know what they are doing or not.[/quote]


Yeah, the jury is still out on our FO :roll:

RW is such a nice QB and I am so glad he is ours, but to insinuate that the Seahawks are the Wilson show and everyone else is just fortunate to be graced by his presence is just ridiculous.

RW benefits from his teammates just as much as they benefit from him. RW does not win the superbowl without his supporting cast, and we likely dont win the superbowl without someone of his caliber.

end of story.[/quote]

who ever said it was the Wilson show? No one, however a few have made it clear that for them Wilson is just along for the ride. No QB does it all by themselves, none. However all that said the QB is still the most important position on the field.[/quote]




No one is saying he is "along for the ride" either. But your constant comparison to a 7-9 2011 team insisting that everything between the two squads is essentially the same (huge lol) sure seems to insinuate you believe Wilson to be a saving angel.

Neither extreme opinion is correct. Wilson deserves credit for our run. He also is not a savior.

He is a really good QB who we should responsibly try to resign.[/quote]

Actually it has been said that he is along for the ride, or that any Avg QB would do. Yes you can compare 2011 to 2012 on offense the main players were the same but the offense got much better. Wilson is what Wilson is a franchise QB and as history ahs shown you need a franchise QB to be consistently in the playoffs.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

When people call Wilson a game manager ("he's last in pass attempts"), the response is usually, "all the matters in the end is that he wins." When opponents score 24+ points, Seattle is 2-9. Even with Wilson balling out, we still lost both of the games you mentioned (sorry, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades). What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team".

Wait so your saying in those 11 games our elite defense decided to let the other teams score more than 24 points and it's Russell's fault.

I did not say it was Wilson's fault. The statistic sure seems to imply that Wilson relies heavily on his defense, does it not? Perhaps the correlation between Wilson playing well and us winning are not as high as we'd intuitively believe.

What about our offensive system.....we are a run first team. Hit them hard and wear them out with the running game, use explosive plays to move the chains while chewing up clock. If Lynch gets stacked then they rely on Wilson which usually ends up being too late after the defense have given up 2-3 TD's, field goals, etc. The Atlanta playoffs games were on the defense, they had 30 seconds to stop them from scoring range, failed by the defense. The Rams game was because of special teams, if they didn't fall for those trick plays we would of won. But like you said it didn't matter because Wilson didn't win. Wilson has his fair share of bad games but no QB is perfect even Manning have some terrible terrible games in his career.

 

[ptisme]

You start losing defensive players, is Russel Wilson good enough to match touchdowns with Rodgers?

I want to see more games where we let Russell just sling away, in all seriousness. There have been a couple where he's been allowed to do it at the tail end of games...Go watch the 4th quarter and overtime of Sea @ Chi from 2012. Watch it, and tell us what you honestly think.

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

Don't get me wrong, Wilson is a fine quarterback but.... If I'm a Seattle fan, I'm keeping that defense together and grooming another, more affordable quarterback. I don't think Wilson can carry your team if you start losing great defensive players after next year.

Oh, just get another quarterback, huh? Who? We've just seen three weak quarterback drafts in a row, so it's not like there's a lot of talent coming out of the collegiate ranks these days. Teams are fighting to sign career backups like Josh McCown and Matt Cassell. There just aren't that many good quarterbacks in the NFL right now. If the Seahawks are foolish enough to let Russell Wilson go, it could be years if not decades before they find another player of his caliber again.

You're right... I've been spoiled.... I was more referring to if he keeps to his demands of being the highest paid player... I think this is all posturing and a deal will get done...

 

[Anthony!]

Wait so your saying in those 11 games our elite defense decided to let the other teams score more than 24 points and it's Russell's fault.

I did not say it was Wilson's fault. The statistic sure seems to imply that Wilson relies heavily on his defense, does it not? Perhaps the correlation between Wilson playing well and us winning are not as high as we'd intuitively believe.

What about our offensive system.....we are a run first team. Hit them hard and wear them out with the running game, use explosive plays to move the chains while chewing up clock. If Lynch gets stacked then they rely on Wilson which usually ends up being too late after the defense have given up 2-3 TD's, field goals, etc. The Atlanta playoffs games were on the defense, they had 30 seconds to stop them from scoring range, failed by the defense. The Rams game was because of special teams, if they didn't fall for those trick plays we would of won. But like you said it didn't matter because Wilson didn't win. Wilson has his fair share of bad games but no QB is perfect even Manning have some terrible terrible games in his career.

all true and as I showed a in 7 of those loses we had a lead going well into the 4th qtr. Also yes Manning, Rodgers and every other QB has bad games. The difference is they have more offensive weapons around them than Wilson. However you see those facts do not matter, all that matters is perception and for some perception is Wilson is a nice QB who we can do without. Interesting is the guy who got on be for down playing Lynch even though I said he was top 5 is just saying nothing has others down play Wilson using Lynch and the Defense as their reason, Hypocrite much.

 

[ptisme]

.[/quote]
Yeah, the jury is still out on our FO :roll:

[/quote]


I don't think the jury is still out on a FO that's been to back to back SB's and won one of them

 

[Shadowhawk]

Or watch the second half of the 2012 Divisional Playoff Game in Atlanta. Or even the Hawks-Rams game in St. Louis last year. In both cases the defense was failing, the running game wasn't stepping up, so Wilson had to just cut loose and damn near won those games all by himself. (Were it not for a last-second defensive collapse in Atlanta and the second of two brutal special teams blunders in St. Louis, he would have.) If Wilson had the opportunity to just sling away more often, we wouldn't hear any of this "game manager" nonsense we've heard for the last couple of years.

When people call Wilson a game manager ("he's last in pass attempts"), the response is usually, "all the matters in the end is that he wins." When opponents score 24+ points, Seattle is 2-9. Even with Wilson balling out, we still lost both of the games you mentioned (sorry, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades). What does that tell us? I'm not sure, but it doesn't exactly scream "Wilson is the key to this team".

Actually I didn't bring up the Atlanta and St. Louis games to prove that "Wilson is the key to this team" as you say. I brought them up to concur with Roland's point that in the few games where Russell Wilson has been allowed to cut loose and "sling it," he has proven he is more than capable of matching touchdowns with Aaron Rodgers, which our Packer fan friend does not believe. It is well established that Wilson plays in an offense where the quarterback is more of a "point guard" and there is a heavy emphasis on avoiding turnovers. If he played in a more wide-open, gunslinging type of offense I believe his performances in the Falcons and Rams games show that he would rise to the occasion. That is why I brought those up. I won't go further into the reasons why Seattle lost those games and the others you mentioned since another poster has already done so, but Wilson has proven that he is more than capable of matching touchdowns with Aaron Rodgers when the need has arisen.

Now, if I wanted to make the point that re-signing Wilson is vital to keeping this team on top of the league (which I do believe) I would bring up other points like the one in the other half of my post that you failed to quote: namely that there are very few championship caliber quarterbacks in this league (hell, there aren't even that many genuine starting-caliber quarterbacks in this league) and that there aren't many coming out of college these days, either. If Seattle lets Wilson go the odds of getting another player as good as he is are very slim, which means that it would almost certainly hurt this team. I'm not saying you think this way because I honestly don't know, but anyone who does think we can just plug another QB into the mix and keep going back to Super Bowls on the strength of our defense will almost certainly be in for a monumental disappointment if Wilson ever does leave. The lack of credible alternatives to Wilson isn't the biggest reason why I think the Seahawks need to re-sign him (and why I believe they will even if it costs us at another position) but it is an important one.