Who is our next QB? 70 million would be useless with no QB?!

[TwistedHusky]

I don't think it matters much as we worry.

Carroll has a weird, risk-averse way of playing that is high floor and low ceiling. It translates to him getting more from less when we have less and less from more when we have more.

I don't see us getting 2 or even 4 seasons. Probably more in the 5 -7, maybe even 8 range.

It probably doesn't help us get a good QB and who knows how many years Carroll has left.

Carroll doesn't have the upside he once had but I think with a QB that is any better than Geno (since Geno sucked) and a decent defense we will be a bottom third team but not garbage tier.

We need to define what expectations are and what kind of success we hope to have moving forward. We don't have a team that is playoff-caliber without an exceptional QB. We are probably the easy win in our division due to the holes in the roster, including whatever we get at QB.

But we won't become bottom-feeder either. (Which isn't great news because that is what allows you to stockpile picks to get a stellar QB and make another run for 5+ years again)

The real problem becomes when Carroll leaves and we have an iffy roster and nothing to attract a decent HC. But for now, we are just going to be bobbing near .500 or a bit below.

 

[chris98251]

Before we draft a QB we need a certified QB coach that can make QB's better and not just echo their egos, Holmgren, Reid, Bevell, Schotty, Peterson all have that knack, why I also think so many potential QB's bust, they have talent but never are tough loved to make them better.

 

[John63]

I think the idea of a franchise qb is a myth. It's a team game. Vinnie Testaverde won a Heismann, dumping the ball off to MIchael Irvin, Brett Perriman, and Brian Blades. And Brett Farve could not reverse the fortunes of the Jets. These are examples of the "greatness" of a QB being defined by more by the supporting cast than the athlete themselves. We all recall Richard Sherman telling the world that the Seattle defense knew it was on them to win games -- not Russ.

Having a QB that can make reads and distribute the ball is all you need to win a SB (Flacco, Dilfer, Roethlisberger, E.Manning) if you have a solid team around them.

So I would have to disagree with the OP's premise that $70M would be useless without a franchise QB. I think $70M pumped into the roster would 'create' a franchise QB.

So let's look at all the Qbs you mention

Starting with Favre- took the jest form 4 wins to 9 that's is pretty dang good, and again in MInny made a huge difference.

Testaverde ahh college, not apple sot apples.

As for what Sherman said ahh he is a defender, of course, he will say that. Where was he in 2011 when they were 7-9. 2012 get Wilson 12-4. Obviously, he was wrong.
Also as it relates to what Sherman said, really it was on them is that why Wilson had 4 4th qtr/Ot victories the year they won the Sb because the defense won the games? NOT. Is that why the defense in 2012 could not hold a lead with 20 seconds to go in the NFCCG?

Now lets look at the others
Dilfer okay that is 1
Roethlisberger who was considered one ofo the best QBs in the league for most of his career. A guy who is 8th in career TDs, 5th career yards. So sorry while the last couple of years were not great for his career the guy is a HOF.

E Manning-okay I guess

Flacco okay he won 1 sb

So that means out of the 52 Super Bowls and about 75 qbs(some played in more than 1), you think because you found 2, that were less than Steller, thats the way to go.

Those 2 won 3 and I will even give you the guy who took TB to and won the Sb that makes 4. So you think 7% is better than 93% Got it.

4 Sb winners out of 52 is 7%, I think I like 93% better. Also the most recent of those 4 was 2013. Alot has changed since then.

 

[John63]

I don't think it matters much as we worry.

Carroll has a weird, risk-averse way of playing that is high floor and low ceiling. It translates to him getting more from less when we have less and less from more when we have more.

I don't see us getting 2 or even 4 seasons. Probably more in the 5 -7, maybe even 8 range.

It probably doesn't help us get a good QB and who knows how many years Carroll has left.

Carroll doesn't have the upside he once had but I think with a QB that is any better than Geno (since Geno sucked) and a decent defense we will be a bottom third team but not garbage tier.

We need to define what expectations are and what kind of success we hope to have moving forward. We don't have a team that is playoff-caliber without an exceptional QB. We are probably the easy win in our division due to the holes in the roster, including whatever we get at QB.

But we won't become bottom-feeder either. (Which isn't great news because that is what allows you to stockpile picks to get a stellar QB and make another run for 5+ years again)

The real problem becomes when Carroll leaves and we have an iffy roster and nothing to attract a decent HC. But for now, we are just going to be bobbing near .500 or a bit below.

He will leave us the same way he left USC screwed.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

But we won't become bottom-feeder either. (Which isn't great news because that is what allows you to stockpile picks to get a stellar QB and make another run for 5+ years again)

There's definitely a plausible scenario where the Hawks become a very bad football team.

We just traded away the person who was keeping this team competitive. Now with no Russell, all the glaring holes in talent and the starting roster are even more glaring.

So if some of the talking heads are right that Pete's lost it and on the quick downhill decline? Then yeah man, this could get ugly.

 

[FrodosFinger]

There's definitely a plausible scenario where the Hawks become a very bad football team.

We just traded away the person who was keeping this team competitive. Now with no Russell, all the glaring holes in talent and the starting roster are even more glaring.

So if some of the talking heads are right that Pete's lost it and on the quick downhill decline? Then yeah man, this could get ugly.

Wilson certainly wasn't keeping the team afloat. They won many games by the defense throughout Wilson's tenure in Seattle. Glad he's gone he was hogging up too much cap for very poor production the past 3 years. The fresh start, stacked D and stout running game with a competent passing game and the wins are going to pile up. I guarantee it

 

[94Smith]

Wilson certainly wasn't keeping the team afloat. They won many games by the defense throughout Wilson's tenure in Seattle. Glad he's gone he was hogging up too much cap for very poor production the past 3 years. The fresh start, stacked D and stout running game with a competent passing game and the wins are going to pile up. I guarantee it

Sure...

 

[FrodosFinger]

Sure...

 

[John63]

Wilson certainly wasn't keeping the team afloat. They won many games by the defense throughout Wilson's tenure in Seattle. Glad he's gone he was hogging up too much cap for very poor production the past 3 years. The fresh start, stacked D and stout running game with a competent passing game and the wins are going to pile up. I guarantee it

LOL R...I....G...H...T lol

 

[John63]

Don't know if he is jealous but do know what you said is factually wrong.

 

[oldhawkfan]

I think the idea of a franchise qb is a myth. It's a team game. Vinnie Testaverde won a Heismann, dumping the ball off to MIchael Irvin, Brett Perriman, and Brian Blades. And Brett Farve could not reverse the fortunes of the Jets. These are examples of the "greatness" of a QB being defined by more by the supporting cast than the athlete themselves. We all recall Richard Sherman telling the world that the Seattle defense knew it was on them to win games -- not Russ.

Having a QB that can make reads and distribute the ball is all you need to win a SB (Flacco, Dilfer, Roethlisberger, E.Manning) if you have a solid team around them.

So I would have to disagree with the OP's premise that $70M would be useless without a franchise QB. I think $70M pumped into the roster would 'create' a franchise QB.

A myth? I agree that its a team game but at the same time, a QB can make all the difference. The right QB that is. Favre was at the end of his career when the Jets traded for him. The Jets not doing anything relevant with him is more on them thinking a guy almost 40 can be the difference. Testeverde winning a Heisman is from college. What did he do in the NFL? Sure he had a long career but he wasn't the type of QB who tilted the field. Franchise caliber QBs do that. Wilson tilted the field. Not in the traditional dropback pick apart defenses kind of way but in his own way he was and maybe still is a franchise QB. We will find out soon enough on that. The four QBs you brought up were functional QBs and their teams won with them but not because of them. Maybe Roethlisberger or perhaps Manning made a bigger impact than Flacco and Dilfer, but those examples are outliers.

By your logic, Brady is not a franchise QB. You could also say Montana was just a guy playing QB. A franchise QB is not a myth. If the team around the QB is better than the opponent(s) then sure Jon Kitna, Dave Krieg, etc could have been Super Bowl winning QBs. If you use the logic that a franchise QB is a myth couldn't you also say that about every position? Was LT a myth? Dick Butkus? Aaron Donald? There are simply guys that are just much better players at their position than others. This makes them franchise guys. Pete and John call it "tilting the field". Chuck Knox called the "impact players".

So the idea of a franchise QB is not a myth but rather a luxury that only a few teams are able to experience at any given time. For the better part of the past 10 years, we Seahawks fans got to experience what that is like. For the past 46 years we have had one!

 

[FrodosFinger]

Don't know if he is jealous but do know what you said is factually wrong.

Uhm no...no it wasn't but carry on

 

[TwistedHusky]

QBs are more important than coaches right now.

It used to be that the defining factor of whether you are a winning or losing team was your coach, maybe your GM.

A coach can hold you back (Carroll is a perfect illustration here) but you can have a great coach and have zero chance (Patriots) or move from having zero chance to being a contender (Bucs).

The rules have been bent to such an extent that even an exceptional team without a good QB will have a hard time overcoming a great QB in the playoffs. Sure there are outliers, Stafford isn't 'great' (he is very good, however) and he needed a stacked team and some iffy officiating to get him over the hump. But for the most part, no QB, no success.

Coaches probably still matter, but nowhere like they did.
(Look at Bill B, he might be the greatest NFL coach in the past 20+ years and he could not do anything without a QB)

QBs not coaches ar the new key. Great QBs are like a key to the elevator. If you don't have one, you aren't getting to the top floor. If you have an average roster but a great QB, you are in a far better situation than a great roster and an average QB.
(Unless you can changeout the QB as part of your next step...like the Bucs did)

 

[FrodosFinger]

QBs are more important than coaches right now.

It used to be that the defining factor of whether you are a winning or losing team was your coach, maybe your GM.

A coach can hold you back (Carroll is a perfect illustration here) but you can have a great coach and have zero chance (Patriots) or move from having zero chance to being a contender (Bucs).

The rules have been bent to such an extent that even an exceptional team without a good QB will have a hard time overcoming a great QB in the playoffs. Sure there are outliers, Stafford isn't 'great' (he is very good, however) and he needed a stacked team and some iffy officiating to get him over the hump. But for the most part, no QB, no success.

Coaches probably still matter, but nowhere like they did.
(Look at Bill B, he might be the greatest NFL coach in the past 20+ years and he could not do anything without a QB)

QBs not coaches ar the new key. Great QBs are like a key to the elevator. If you don't have one, you aren't getting to the top floor. If you have an average roster but a great QB, you are in a far better situation than a great roster and an average QB.
(Unless you can changeout the QB as part of your next step...like the Bucs did)

You can poke holes all over this theory. Look at Jimmy G over Aaron Rodgers. Look at Cincy over Mahomes. If anything, parity for better or worse has taken a grip on the league especially in the NFC and so the league has become less quarterback driven and more about sound schematics.

 

[had2bhawk]

Ahh..music to my ears!

 

[Rat]

You can poke holes all over this theory. Look at Jimmy G over Aaron Rodgers. Look at Cincy over Mahomes. If anything, parity for better or worse has taken a grip on the league especially in the NFC and so the league has become less quarterback driven and more about sound schematics.

Mahomes has been in the AFC Title Game the past three years (and the Super Bowl in two of those), and wasnt dethroned until Joe Burrow came along. The Bengals had one of the worst OLs in the entire league. Rams broke through when adding a high-end QB. Bills have become a contender as Josh Allen has grown into an elite player. Tampa added Brady and immediately won the Super Bowl. The Colts were tremendous in the trenches, had an elite running game, and still missed the playoffs. I don't see where it's getting away from being a QB league.

 

[keasley45]

Sure...

Are you honestly saying that if we had Wilson playing the way Wilson was in his early years and DIDNT have the LOB, we still win a super bowl? You're smoking Crack.

If we didn't have a defense that could lead the league in points scored, we don't have a Lombardi, and if that same defense and Beast Mode don't smack the crap out of A Rodgers and company in the NFC championship game, we don't go to a second superbowl under Pete.

You'll see this year the same Wilson you've see in Seattle. He'll win a few comebacks. But the one thing that was his super power that we ALWAYS leaned on whenever he did begin to move the ball late in games and earlier in his career when they were designed, is his running. When defenses had to spy against him or prevent the RPO or in the 2 minute drill, he could beat a defense. Or, with a running game to lean on, he could beat a team. Or, with a HOF defense to overcome his historically average to below average passing 3rd down conversion average, he could win. Do away with one or more of those, no windy.

Russ had NEVER won anything without a HOF running back behind him and a HOF defense keeping scores low.

Hes also never been top 10 in 3rd down conversion percentage through the air, simple fact. You know how many other top franchise qbs who have won the lombardi or seen signifucant success in the recent past HAVENT finished in the top 10 in that stat?
None. And it aint like the conversions weren't there to be had...

He also for his career is almost alone among the recent crop of franchise qbs who is sub 60% on 3rd down conversions... and of his 59% or so rate, he also has the highest ratio of rushing conversions as compared guys like Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Rodgers, etc. Etc. Take those out (like he removed them himself over the last several years) and that number approaches the rate we saw last year even before his injury.

Let Denver figure it out.

As to the OP question. If Lock is who Lock has been and doesn't 'bloom', we will get our guy next year. Who, depends on how many wins we grab this year.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Mahomes has been in the AFC Title Game the past three years (and the Super Bowl in two of those), and wasnt dethroned until Joe Burrow came along. The Bengals had one of the worst OLs in the entire league. Rams broke through when adding a high-end QB. Bills have become a contender as Josh Allen has grown into an elite player. Tampa added Brady and immediately won the Super Bowl. The Colts were tremendous in the trenches, had an elite running game, and still missed the playoffs. I don't see where it's getting away from being a QB league.

Copium is what it is. The Cincy example doesn't even make sense, Joe Burrow was one of the best QB's in the league last year. He had a 70 percent completion percentage, threw for 4600 yards, 34 TDs and 14 INTs with a Y/A of 8.9. In the playoffs, more often than not the better QB won. Even using Jimmy Garoppolo as an example -- he wasn't even bad, his statline wasn't bad and he excelled in high pressure situations.

The NFL is driven by the QB position, people are delusional if you think otherwise. Even with the vaunted LOB defense, Wilson was still one of the integral players. We probably would not have won a Super Bowl with a Tarvaris Jackson or Matt Flynn character.

Even many of the examples people are using are dating back to the 2000s when the league was a lot different. The rules have switched even in the last 5 years to favor the passing attack. Without at least a competent QB, you can't do anything in the NFL.

 

[John63]

Uhm no...no it wasn't but carry on

Well I showed it was but whatever floats your boat

 

[John63]

You can poke holes all over this theory. Look at Jimmy G over Aaron Rodgers. Look at Cincy over Mahomes. If anything, parity for better or worse has taken a grip on the league especially in the NFC and so the league has become less quarterback driven and more about sound schematics.

A couple of exceptions does not mean the theory is not correct. Even a blund squirrel finds a nut ince in awhile. Bit a squirrel who can see will find one almost every time.