We have arguably the top QB in NFC - The time is now

[Uncle Si]

Trade Russ? Half salary? Oh boy......it must be the off season. I'd like to assume it's sarcasm, but who knows at this point?

No one suggested it.

It's a conversation about how competitive a team can be at multiple positions while paying a top qb..

Is it better to keep the hall of famer (Wilson, Rodgers, brees) with a more limited roster or play a cheap QB and build a more complete roster: early Wilson Seahawks, mahomes chiefs, last Rams and eagles super bowl roster.

I chose Wilson, but that also means thin margin for error in choosing other roster adds. John thinks people that accept this are content being a very good football team and that he is the one that cares about being great.. like there is a switch that we all just ignore being flipped on

Actually that is not what I think as my main point through all this is the offense can be improved wihthout any additional adds at all. All I want is improvement and when I bring it up numerous people in this thread keep saying, and I am paraphrasing hey we are winning, were making the playoffs, you cant make the Sb every year. That is being content. No mention but hey we could be better only hey were winning, making the playoffs, etc. You can argue it all you want but they said it right in this thread so you areguing with the wrong person, when the FACT is they wrote it. And they have written it in other threads. I am happy with th ewinning, and playoffs, that doe snto mean I am content adn have made my feeling heard to be told to be happy. So sorry but that is what they are posting.

Improvements in the game planning is something different.

I'd be hard pressed to take a top 3 best qb, statistically, over the last 8 years and give him a better game plan.

How many super bowls have Brees and Rodgers won?

I'm going to assume you are a not a qualified nfl coordinator, so your FACTS (love that you keep capitalizing this..) are skipping some basic metrics and finishing with a reading of data in a way that you want.

Let's go up tempo, and put more pressure on a fragile D and average o line to hold up, just so the qb has more snaps to throw the ball... I keep hearing this and yet no real exact reason why it would work without sacrificing another strength or exposing another weakness.

So back to square 1.. seeing a holistic approach as means to an end, or condemning it.

 

[chris98251]

Every year there are three things you need to get a Super Bowl, Schemes, Talent and Health.

We had a scheme that worked, our defense was getting better with the addition of our FS, our offense was steam rolling with pass and run up until the Rams game.

What we have not had is good health on both sides of the ball and a bit of bad luck with Gordon getting suspended also.

Nobody wanted to play us when they seen what Carson, Penny and Gordon Metcalf and Lockett were doing to teams.

They only thought they could beat us because of our defense, well Diggs insertion redefined our defense and we were actually looking legitimate, not great but good.

Health is the key for us, trouble is the older your roster the harder it is to stay healthy as well.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Very good points. This team isn't deep enough yet to overcome many injuries.

 

[John63]

Geezus man, change the record. NOBODY said they are content not making the Super Bowl. Nobody

cheez dude try reading it has been said we should be happy were winning again paraphrased.

 

[John63]

Telling people that they are satisfied with not making the Super Bowl is next level weak sauce. NOBODY is happy when the team doesn't make and/or win the Super Bowl. But acting like they have had no success and/or are basically the Browns? Come on man......

Didn't read the whoel thread I see.

 

[John63]

Trade Russ? Half salary? Oh boy......it must be the off season. I'd like to assume it's sarcasm, but who knows at this point?

No one suggested it.

It's a conversation about how competitive a team can be at multiple positions while paying a top qb..

Is it better to keep the hall of famer (Wilson, Rodgers, brees) with a more limited roster or play a cheap QB and build a more complete roster: early Wilson Seahawks, mahomes chiefs, last Rams and eagles super bowl roster.

I chose Wilson, but that also means thin margin for error in choosing other roster adds. John thinks people that accept this are content being a very good football team and that he is the one that cares about being great.. like there is a switch that we all just ignore being flipped on

Actually that is not what I think as my main point through all this is the offense can be improved wihthout any additional adds at all. All I want is improvement and when I bring it up numerous people in this thread keep saying, and I am paraphrasing hey we are winning, were making the playoffs, you cant make the Sb every year. That is being content. No mention but hey we could be better only hey were winning, making the playoffs, etc. You can argue it all you want but they said it right in this thread so you areguing with the wrong person, when the FACT is they wrote it. And they have written it in other threads. I am happy with th ewinning, and playoffs, that doe snto mean I am content adn have made my feeling heard to be told to be happy. So sorry but that is what they are posting.

Improvements in the game planning is something different.

I'd be hard pressed to take a top 3 best qb, statistically, over the last 8 years and give him a better game plan.

How many super bowls have Brees and Rodgers won?

I'm going to assume you are a not a qualified nfl coordinator, so your FACTS (love that you keep capitalizing this..) are skipping some basic metrics and finishing with a reading of data in a way that you want.

Let's go up tempo, and put more pressure on a fragile D and average o line to hold up, just so the qb has more snaps to throw the ball... I keep hearing this and yet no real exact reason why it would work without sacrificing another strength or exposing another weakness.

So back to square 1.. seeing a holistic approach as means to an end, or condemning it.

Or you can try having an open mind and look at the facts. we win TOP in the 2nd half that is when we go uptempo. We have less sacks in the 2nd half again when we go uptempo. The players want to do it more gee I wonder why. But hey less ignore all that and just come up with excuses why to not even bother trying. Or ignore what some in this ver y thread ahve said when I brought up doing and expecting and mre was told to be happy we were are at. Or out your hands over your ears and yell na na so you dont have to hear other ideas and actually consider them.

 

[Tical21]

No one suggested it.

It's a conversation about how competitive a team can be at multiple positions while paying a top qb..

Is it better to keep the hall of famer (Wilson, Rodgers, brees) with a more limited roster or play a cheap QB and build a more complete roster: early Wilson Seahawks, mahomes chiefs, last Rams and eagles super bowl roster.

I chose Wilson, but that also means thin margin for error in choosing other roster adds. John thinks people that accept this are content being a very good football team and that he is the one that cares about being great.. like there is a switch that we all just ignore being flipped on

Actually that is not what I think as my main point through all this is the offense can be improved wihthout any additional adds at all. All I want is improvement and when I bring it up numerous people in this thread keep saying, and I am paraphrasing hey we are winning, were making the playoffs, you cant make the Sb every year. That is being content. No mention but hey we could be better only hey were winning, making the playoffs, etc. You can argue it all you want but they said it right in this thread so you areguing with the wrong person, when the FACT is they wrote it. And they have written it in other threads. I am happy with th ewinning, and playoffs, that doe snto mean I am content adn have made my feeling heard to be told to be happy. So sorry but that is what they are posting.

Improvements in the game planning is something different.

I'd be hard pressed to take a top 3 best qb, statistically, over the last 8 years and give him a better game plan.

How many super bowls have Brees and Rodgers won?

I'm going to assume you are a not a qualified nfl coordinator, so your FACTS (love that you keep capitalizing this..) are skipping some basic metrics and finishing with a reading of data in a way that you want.

Let's go up tempo, and put more pressure on a fragile D and average o line to hold up, just so the qb has more snaps to throw the ball... I keep hearing this and yet no real exact reason why it would work without sacrificing another strength or exposing another weakness.

So back to square 1.. seeing a holistic approach as means to an end, or condemning it.

Or you can try having an open mind and look at the facts. we win TOP in the 2nd half that is when we go uptempo. We have less sacks in the 2nd half again when we go uptempo. The players want to do it more gee I wonder why. But hey less ignore all that and just come up with excuses why to not even bother trying. Or ignore what some in this ver y thread ahve said when I brought up doing and expecting and mre was told to be happy we were are at. Or out your hands over your ears and yell na na so you dont have to hear other ideas and actually consider them.

I like how we always conveniently forget that we are better in almost every conceivable way in the first halves of games than the second.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I just have a hard time understanding many of his posts. Grammar and/or punctuation is basically ignored.

 

[John63]

Actually that is not what I think as my main point through all this is the offense can be improved wihthout any additional adds at all. All I want is improvement and when I bring it up numerous people in this thread keep saying, and I am paraphrasing hey we are winning, were making the playoffs, you cant make the Sb every year. That is being content. No mention but hey we could be better only hey were winning, making the playoffs, etc. You can argue it all you want but they said it right in this thread so you areguing with the wrong person, when the FACT is they wrote it. And they have written it in other threads. I am happy with th ewinning, and playoffs, that doe snto mean I am content adn have made my feeling heard to be told to be happy. So sorry but that is what they are posting.

Improvements in the game planning is something different.

I'd be hard pressed to take a top 3 best qb, statistically, over the last 8 years and give him a better game plan.

How many super bowls have Brees and Rodgers won?

I'm going to assume you are a not a qualified nfl coordinator, so your FACTS (love that you keep capitalizing this..) are skipping some basic metrics and finishing with a reading of data in a way that you want.

Let's go up tempo, and put more pressure on a fragile D and average o line to hold up, just so the qb has more snaps to throw the ball... I keep hearing this and yet no real exact reason why it would work without sacrificing another strength or exposing another weakness.

So back to square 1.. seeing a holistic approach as means to an end, or condemning it.

Or you can try having an open mind and look at the facts. we win TOP in the 2nd half that is when we go uptempo. We have less sacks in the 2nd half again when we go uptempo. The players want to do it more gee I wonder why. But hey less ignore all that and just come up with excuses why to not even bother trying. Or ignore what some in this ver y thread ahve said when I brought up doing and expecting and mre was told to be happy we were are at. Or out your hands over your ears and yell na na so you dont have to hear other ideas and actually consider them.

I like how we always conveniently forget that we are better in almost every conceivable way in the first halves of games than the second.

Tds first half 21 2nd half 24
Sacks first half 28 2nd half 19
TOP 1st half 50.9, 2nd half 51.51


So we score more and get sacked less, and have a better TOP in the 2nd half hmm

 

[Ad Hawk]

Tds first half 21 2nd half 24
Sacks first half 28 2nd half 19
TOP 1st half 50.9, 2nd half 51.51


So we score more and get sacked less, and have a better TOP in the 2nd half hmm

Until you or anyone else can falsify (or on the other side, prove) that the "slow starts" lead directly to the 2nd half success and more wins generally, your arguments are merely "facts" without cause-effect context. Until you can show this specific relationship in play-calling and game-plan, simply arguing that we should go up-tempo more in the first half is likely confusing correlation of data (success in the 2nd half with up-tempo offense) with causation.

It can be well argued, and KIWI has done so already, that the game-plan requires a chess-match setup where certain plays in the first half not only force the defense to show their tendencies, but also set up the opposing defense to certain predictable responses. These are exploited in the 2nd half when our offense takes advantage. This approach is required because teams are fluid in their game-plans from week-to-week (obviously within certain limits).

I'm not content when we lose. But I love watching the Seahawks play, and I do in fact appreciate the number of wins when compared to most other teams. These are not incompatible emotions, nor does how I feel about it have any affect at all on the front office, or their philosophy/strategy.

The argument that Bellicheck/Brady have done it often so therefore anyone else can do so is a fallacy. But we are still competitive, and the line between winning and losing is often very small, just a handful of plays or bounces.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

This^^
And enough with the Patriot comparisons already. Sure it would be nice to see a little more scoring and/or up tempo in the 1st half. However, this team knows how to win games, especially CLOSE games, better than just about any team the last decade. Pete coaches a certain way, and it works. And the fact that he has one of the best finishers in the history of the game helps a lot. It's not pretty, it never will be, but they get the job done. People have said "2nd half team" for years, and that's kind of their style. That all being said, Pete knows what he's doing, period.
And NO John, I'm not "satisfied" with not making the Super Bowl so save your same old stale argument.

 

[SNDavidson]

[youtube]ZXsQAXx_ao0[/youtube]

 

[John63]

This^^
And enough with the Patriot comparisons already. Sure it would be nice to see a little more scoring and/or up tempo in the 1st half. However, this team knows how to win games, especially CLOSE games, better than just about any team the last decade. Pete coaches a certain way, and it works. And the fact that he has one of the best finishers in the history of the game helps a lot. It's not pretty, it never will be, but they get the job done. People have said "2nd half team" for years, and that's kind of their style. That all being said, Pete knows what he's doing, period.
And NO John, I'm not "satisfied" with not making the Super Bowl so save your same old stale argument.

well since PC way has not done mnore than a 2nd round exit in the last 6 years adn you are advocating being happy with I guess you are content. So seems you aree still pushing that same old arguemtn were winninig and it works except to get beyond the 2nd round. Pushing the old "That all being said, Pete knows what he's doing, period." yet cant beyond the 2nd round for several years but le tit go he knows what he doing like I said who is pushing the same old crap?

 

[John63]

Tds first half 21 2nd half 24
Sacks first half 28 2nd half 19
TOP 1st half 50.9, 2nd half 51.51


So we score more and get sacked less, and have a better TOP in the 2nd half hmm

Until you or anyone else can falsify (or on the other side, prove) that the "slow starts" lead directly to the 2nd half success and more wins generally, your arguments are merely "facts" without cause-effect context. Until you can show this specific relationship in play-calling and game-plan, simply arguing that we should go up-tempo more in the first half is likely confusing correlation of data (success in the 2nd half with up-tempo offense) with causation.

It can be well argued, and KIWI has done so already, that the game-plan requires a chess-match setup where certain plays in the first half not only force the defense to show their tendencies, but also set up the opposing defense to certain predictable responses. These are exploited in the 2nd half when our offense takes advantage. This approach is required because teams are fluid in their game-plans from week-to-week (obviously within certain limits).

I'm not content when we lose. But I love watching the Seahawks play, and I do in fact appreciate the number of wins when compared to most other teams. These are not incompatible emotions, nor does how I feel about it have any affect at all on the front office, or their philosophy/strategy.

The argument that Bellicheck/Brady have done it often so therefore anyone else can do so is a fallacy. But we are still competitive, and the line between winning and losing is often very small, just a handful of plays or bounces.

ah so you want me to show proof that slow starts which PC has admitted to, leads to end half success and wins. Why would I want to prove that my contention and a lot of experts adn PC himself is if we did not start slow we would win more.

 

[chris98251]

I have come to the conclusion that John63's last name is Herpes, we have talked about this for 11 years and like Herpes it seems to come up like 3 or 4 times a year and he needs to be scratched.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The gift that keeps on giving. Now I've heard it all. Fans are happy when the Hawks don't make the Superb Owl.
Got it

 

[John63]

The gift that keeps on giving. Now I've heard it all. Fans are happy when the Hawks don't make the Superb Owl.
Got it

Yeah now try reading the whole thread and see were I said the goal is the SB and was ridiculed saying I should be happy they are winning. You see now I have heard it all, the fact it is in this thread and you still don't want to believe it.

Look this is getting old you are not going to change y mind, I can read what wrote and how people react when I dare say we could be more. I am not going to change your mind so lets just agree to disagree and move on. After all, if as you say we all want he team to be and do its best there is no need to argue about trials.

 

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/byAlistairCorp/status/1250524061425377281[/tweet]

 

[John63]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/byAlistairCorp/status/1250524061425377281[/tweet]

Bet most of that was 2nd half

 

[SoulfishHawk]

It's a deal John, agree to disagree. It's just a message board.
More importantly, 7 days til the draft. Hell yes