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

[John63]

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.

Are you honestly saying if we had the LOB and no Wilson we win the SB? Answer no as they had the LOB in 2011 and were 7-9. Thr FACT is it took the LOB, Lynch and Wilson to win. Oh and that great defense and rb never won anything without Wilson. Also Wilson got us a division title or 2. Without the defense and run game.

 

[keasley45]

Circular argument. Was rebutting the argument that Wilson carried us to the legacy we attained.

 

[Own The West]

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!

It's funny you mention Brady, because I was going to include him in the list of immobile, read and distribute type quarterbacks, but left him out because of the 'mystique'. But since you brought him up, yes. He's never had elite arm talent. He's not a runner per se.
He's always just been a guy that distributes the ball and they call him the GOAT. Why?

Well, first he's very good at reading and distributing the ball. But it's also noteworthy that for 6 of his 7 Superbowl wins, his team has had a top 10 defense. And in that 7th in 2015, he should have lost, except the Seahawks gave into the pleading of their young quarterback to "keep throwing the ball" up 10 in the 3rd which stopped the clock, gave the pats a chance to catch up, and still they would have lost if said young qb would have placed the ball better...

My point is: having a superstar QB is not necessary to win a superbowl, in fact if your 'franchise' QB is putting your defense on the field for 40 minutes a game, he may be a liability. You'd be better off with a 'decent' QB that can make reads, distribute the ball, and execute the game plan.

 

[Throwdown]

It's funny you mention Brady, because I was going to include him in the list of immobile, read and distribute type quarterbacks, but left him out because of the 'mystique'. But since you brought him up, yes. He's never had elite arm talent. He's not a runner per se.
He's always just been a guy that distributes the ball and they call him the GOAT. Why?

Well, first he's very good at reading and distributing the ball. But it's also noteworthy that for 6 of his 7 Superbowl wins, his team has had a top 10 defense. And in that 7th in 2015, he should have lost, except the Seahawks gave into the pleading of their young quarterback to "keep throwing the ball" up 10 in the 3rd which stopped the clock, gave the pats a chance to catch up, and still they would have lost if said young qb would have placed the ball better...

My point is: having a superstar QB is not necessary to win a superbowl, in fact if your 'franchise' QB is putting your defense on the field for 40 minutes a game, he may be a liability. You'd be better off with a 'decent' QB that can make reads, distribute the ball, and execute the game plan.

Boyyyyyyy all this

 

[Palmegranite]

It's funny you mention Brady, because I was going to include him in the list ...... they call him the GOAT. Why?

Well, first he's very good at reading and distributing the ball. But it's also noteworthy that for 6 of his 7 Superbowl wins, his team has had a top 10 defense.

So what you're saying is, the coach and supporting staff allowed the Seahawks defense to fade and wither on the vine over the years, dropping off where it was no longer top 10.
Well that's food for thought, and this team needs to assess responsibility and address this situation, and fast.

Let's get back to a top 10 defence!

 

[toffee]

Circular argument. Was rebutting the argument that Wilson carried us to the legacy we attained.

The joy of debating with someone who's void of logic. Enjoy.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Go Hawks! Especially the ones who are actually ON THE TEAM

 

[TwistedHusky]

Can you get to a SB without a top-tier QB? Sure. But the odds are stacked against you.

Expecting it as likely is like signing a bottom-tier QB because you don't need a great starter, you can win with a backup (remember the Eagles did it right? So everyone should be able to). It is the equivalent of not bothering to save for retirement because you bought a lottery ticket.

Sure you CAN win. But you likely won't.

If you want a regular trip upper levels of the playoffs to contend for SBs, then you need a top-tier QB.

Now if you are paying that top tier QB top tier money, you are likely only appearing once every 3 to 4 years. But without a great QB your odds are less unless you have a great QB still on a rookie deal, then you can make a run for a few years in a row.

But to argue you have a chance without a great (or at least very good QB) is pretty ludicrous.

It makes sense for people to cling to the delusion. Because if you acknowledge you have no chance without a top-tier QB, and you no longer have a top tier QB...it is isn't a crazy jump of logic to realize that means you no longer matter as a viable playoff contender or even a dark horse. So it makes perfect sense that people will hope that somehow their coach can bridge that gap.

I would love for you to be right. But it doesn't look like it when you juxtapose the playoff teams with the top QBs. The only teams I can think of that can even 'contend' without a top tier QB are 49ers and Titans. (And both of those teams are more "pretend contenders" than actual threats. Nobody expected them to succeed without a QB.)

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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

Idk what team you've been watching the past 4-5 years, but it sure as heck hasn't been the defense winning games. No top 10 defense since 2015.

I sure hope you're right, and Pete and John can build another contender. But their track record in the draft, trades and poor free agent signings doesn't exactly give me a lot of hope.

 

[keasley45]

So what you're saying is, the coach and supporting staff allowed the Seahawks defense to fade and wither on the vine over the years, dropping off where it was no longer top 10.
Well that's food for thought, and this team needs to assess responsibility and address this situation, and fast.

Let's get back to a top 10 defence!

I think what happened was that the FO decided to pay a kings ransome for a qb who they had to compromise the offense for, tried multiple coordinators to make it 'click' for him, tried to accommodate his wishes, and then were bent over a barrel anyway when he decided his legacy was bigger than the team's... and in the process, sacrificed their identity and philosophy to try to make it 'work'.

Lesson learned. Yes, absolutley, let's get back to what made us great in the first place.

 

[beaumaris]

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

At last,a bit of reasonable thinking.

 

[Own The West]

Can you get to a SB without a top-tier QB? Sure. But the odds are stacked against you.

Expecting it as likely is like signing a bottom-tier QB because you don't need a great starter, you can win with a backup (remember the Eagles did it right? So everyone should be able to). It is the equivalent of not bothering to save for retirement because you bought a lottery ticket.

Sure you CAN win. But you likely won't.

If you want a regular trip upper levels of the playoffs to contend for SBs, then you need a top-tier QB.

Now if you are paying that top tier QB top tier money, you are likely only appearing once every 3 to 4 years. But without a great QB your odds are less unless you have a great QB still on a rookie deal, then you can make a run for a few years in a row.

But to argue you have a chance without a great (or at least very good QB) is pretty ludicrous.

It makes sense for people to cling to the delusion. Because if you acknowledge you have no chance without a top-tier QB, and you no longer have a top tier QB...it is isn't a crazy jump of logic to realize that means you no longer matter as a viable playoff contender or even a dark horse. So it makes perfect sense that people will hope that somehow their coach can bridge that gap.

I would love for you to be right. But it doesn't look like it when you juxtapose the playoff teams with the top QBs. The only teams I can think of that can even 'contend' without a top tier QB are 49ers and Titans. (And both of those teams are more "pretend contenders" than actual threats. Nobody expected them to succeed without a QB.)

Someone should probably let Marino, Rivers, Tarkenton, and Fouts know that they should go pick up their Superbowl rings then; since Dilfer, Plunkett, Foles and Jeff Hostetler must have got theirs by mistake.

 

[John63]

Circular argument. Was rebutting the argument that Wilson carried us to the legacy we

It's funny you mention Brady, because I was going to include him in the list of immobile, read and distribute type quarterbacks, but left him out because of the 'mystique'. But since you brought him up, yes. He's never had elite arm talent. He's not a runner per se.
He's always just been a guy that distributes the ball and they call him the GOAT. Why?

Well, first he's very good at reading and distributing the ball. But it's also noteworthy that for 6 of his 7 Superbowl wins, his team has had a top 10 defense. And in that 7th in 2015, he should have lost, except the Seahawks gave into the pleading of their young quarterback to "keep throwing the ball" up 10 in the 3rd which stopped the clock, gave the pats a chance to catch up, and still they would have lost if said young qb would have placed the ball better...

My point is: having a superstar QB is not necessary to win a superbowl, in fact if your 'franchise' QB is putting your defense on the field for 40 minutes a game, he may be a liability. You'd be better off with a 'decent' QB that can make reads, distribute the ball, and execute the game plan.

And again the odds say you need a superstar QB.

 

[John63]

Someone should probably let Marino, Rivers, Tarkenton, and Fouts know that they should go pick up their Superbowl rings then; since Dilfer, Plunkett, Foles and Jeff Hostetler must have got theirs by mistake.

again a hand full of exceptions in 50+ years does not mean that it is the way to go. That like saying you would rather have a guy batting .125 than a guy batting .800

 

[keasley45]

It's not about 'the way to go'. Mark Rypien wasn't a great qb either. Neither was Terry Bradshaw. Troy Aikman? He was never 'great' either. Look at his stats. He had an incredible, HoF rb, HOF wr, and HOF o-line and respectable defense.

Eli Manning? He has more rings than his all time great, brother.

Doug Williams caught lightning in a bottle for a few years.

It's about building a whole team because the sum of the parts is greater than any one piece, or leaning on an extraordinary piece to get you there. There are plenty of examples of the former. They aren't anomalies

 

[TwistedHusky]

What are you talking about?

We are talking about NOW. BEFORE the rule changes. Back before when stopping the run mattered or being able to run the ball effectively won you anything of note.

Yes, back when Mark Rypien played or even Randal Cunningham, it was different. But ever since you could go from 3rd and 30 to a 1st down based on an iffy contact with the WR past 5 yds? The rules have all shifted to the passing game.

Why do you think QBs get paid 40M a year and RBs essentially get a 2-for-1 coupon for any snack at AM/PM?

In this past half-decade, if not the decade, you win because of your passing game. Period.

You either stop the pass or you get TD through the pass. If you don't have a top passing game, you don't have a chance. Period.
Yes you CAN have a strong passing game and still lose (Steelers) if you literally have NO run game. But if you have even a passable run game, barely average? That is all you need.

But if you have everything else and no great pass game ? Then you are the Colts and nobody cares. Or maybe the Titans. Whatever.

 

[keasley45]

I'm talking about now as well.

Defense and stopping the run still matters, especially in the playoffs. Ask Aaron Rodgers. Dude has a closet full of MVP's and only one Superbowl ring. Why? Because when the crap hits the fan when the games matter and football is boiled down to its base characteristics, it's still all about the same thing.

What happened to Mahomes the last 2 years. Stopped squarely by defenses that threw him off his game. Burrow wasn't great, just good enough.

Last superbowl - neither qb was a phenom. That game was lost by the team that caved on defense.

Defense and running the ball will always be a strategy to win in the league. If that wasn't the case, Aaron Rodgers would be the 7 time champion and not Tom Brady. Doesn't matter if it's 2022 or Dan Marino and John Elway in 1992.

The passing game is a powerful tool, but one that historically ebbs and flows in terms of the success it brings. A team will innovate an approach, find success, defenses adapt and then the pendulum swings back again. It's entirely based on timing and strategy.

Running and defense - they are fundamental to football and are rooted in aggression, physical strength, size, and intimidation.

Has the game changed? Yes. But until it becomes non contact, two hand touch, aggressive rushing and defense will still be it's cornerstone.

 

[John63]

It's not about 'the way to go'. Mark Rypien wasn't a great qb either. Neither was Terry Bradshaw. Troy Aikman? He was never 'great' either. Look at his stats. He had an incredible, HoF rb, HOF wr, and HOF o-line and respectable defense.

Eli Manning? He has more rings than his all time great, brother.

Doug Williams caught lightning in a bottle for a few years.

It's about building a whole team because the sum of the parts is greater than any one piece, or leaning on an extraordinary piece to get you there. There are plenty of examples of the former. They aren't anomalies

And again the odds say you need the great QB. FYI some of those QBs are HOF so I would disagree about them not being great. They were great in their time.

 

[John63]

I'm talking about now as well.

Defense and stopping the run still matters, especially in the playoffs. Ask Aaron Rodgers. Dude has a closet full of MVP's and only one Superbowl ring. Why? Because when the crap hits the fan when the games matter and football is boiled down to its base characteristics, it's still all about the same thing.

What happened to Mahomes the last 2 years. Stopped squarely by defenses that threw him off his game. Burrow wasn't great, just good enough.

Last superbowl - neither qb was a phenom. That game was lost by the team that caved on defense.

Defense and running the ball will always be a strategy to win in the league. If that wasn't the case, Aaron Rodgers would be the 7 time champion and not Tom Brady. Doesn't matter if it's 2022 or Dan Marino and John Elway in 1992.

The passing game is a powerful tool, but one that historically ebbs and flows in terms of the success it brings. A team will innovate an approach, find success, defenses adapt and then the pendulum swings back again. It's entirely based on timing and strategy.

Running and defense - they are fundamental to football and are rooted in aggression, physical strength, size, and intimidation.

Has the game changed? Yes. But until it becomes non contact, two hand touch, aggressive rushing and defense will still be it's cornerstone.

Okay let's look at that. Just the last SB to make it easy

Rams were #5 in Passing
Bengals # 7

Neither top 15 in rushing
Neither top 10 in defense by yards or scoring

So the answer is no. You don't need a top Run game or Defense. You can have an avg defense and run game if you are committed to the pass. But you need an HC who commits to it. We did not have that.

 

[keasley45]

What are you talking about?

We are talking about NOW. BEFORE the rule changes. Back before when stopping the run mattered or being able to run the ball effectively won you anything of note.

Yes, back when Mark Rypien played or even Randal Cunningham, it was different. But ever since you could go from 3rd and 30 to a 1st down based on an iffy contact with the WR past 5 yds? The rules have all shifted to the passing game.

Why do you think QBs get paid 40M a year and RBs essentially get a 2-for-1 coupon for any snack at AM/PM?

In this past half-decade, if not the decade, you win because of your passing game. Period.

You either stop the pass or you get TD through the pass. If you don't have a top passing game, you don't have a chance. Period.
Yes you CAN have a strong passing game and still lose (Steelers) if you literally have NO run game. But if you have even a passable run game, barely average? That is all you need.

But if you have everything else and no great pass game ? Then you are the Colts and nobody cares. Or maybe the Titans. Whatev

You're using the Colts as an example? They had a schizophrenic joke at qb. He was ssooooo much the reason they squandered a season that his HC and biggest advocate, kicked him to the curb.

If they had competent play last year, who knows what they'd have done.

Again - Rodgers- amazing stats. One appearance.

Matt Ryan - perennial tops in the league passing . One appearance

Mahomes - all world stats. Crumbled by crushing defenses two years running since they were figured out.

Drew Brees - all time stats. One appearance.

Can keep going