Why Russell Wilson is washed?

RiverDog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
5,486
Reaction score
3,151
Location
Kennewick, WA
Russell's skill set had been diminishing for several years before last year's trade to Denver. Like every other human being, he's lost a step, put on a couple of pounds, and doesn't have the same degree of escape ability that made him such a great QB at the height of his career.

One of the metrics that best explains this problem is his time to throw. It was a problem in the last few seasons when he played for us and it was a problem in his first year with the Broncos. Last season, the only QB's with 200 or more attempts that had a longer TT than Russell were Zach Wilson (23), Justin Fields (23), and Lamar Jackson (25). Russell turned 34 in mid season last year, nearly a decade older than the next oldest. This led directly to his league leading 55 sacks taken and 368 sack yardage lost.

There's no question that Russell must get the ball out of his hands quicker if he is going to make the adjustments to his game that has eluded him to this point of his career. He can't run around in the pocket and extend plays like he used to.

Like they say in an addiction to a substance like alcohol or drugs, the first step to recovery is acceptance of the problem. IMO up until now, Russell has not admitted to himself that he can't do the things he used to. Last season, with the firing of his head coach and his team's belly flop might have been the cold slap in the face that he needed to sober him up and make him realize that he has a problem.

It's not as much of an interest to me as it was last season as we no longer have any skin in the game with the draft capital and the Broncos are in the opposite conference from us. I'm neither rooting for or against Russell, but it will be an interesting drama to watch unfold.
 

Palmegranite

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
582
Location
CAN
Someone posted that he didn't play "normal" football......as if that was some sort of critique or slight.....in this revisionist history redo.

They aren't convincing anyone. We saw what we saw. 10 years of winning football.
 

Rainger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
3,847
Reaction score
2,111
Location
Brisbane OZ Down Under Hawk
Someone posted that he didn't play "normal" football......as if that was some sort of critique or slight.....in this revisionist history redo.

They aren't convincing anyone. We saw what we saw. 10 years of winning football.
for those who have limited abilities to understand nuance please note the word normal is in quotation marks, One of the purposes of a quotation make is to:

Set apart a word to show irony, sarcasm, or skepticism (scare quotes)​

 

Rainger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
3,847
Reaction score
2,111
Location
Brisbane OZ Down Under Hawk

Haha note that 8 out of 10 were before 2020 and most were in the first 5 years. 80% were on broken scramble plays and 60% were incredible adjustments and catches by WR's that bailed him out.

I don't think anyone doubts he was fantastic at what HE did with sand lot football on broken plays ,he WAS a master, but that is all gone now.

I have said I was once a groupie. But RW the last 4 plus years is not close to RW in the first 5 years.

He is slow, fat, always bails out into a sack, cant play in a scheme and cant or wont throw from a set play over the middle.

I bet you I could put together 10 plays over the last 4 years that make him look like a third stringer. LOL Haha I could find 10 plays just from his one year in Denver.
 

Palmegranite

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
582
Location
CAN
Well, from the last 1 year here on Seahawks.net there are likely an order of 10, the number of threads RW-related compared to the threads on the current QB.

If nothing else, the QB that left the city is still on the minds of Seattle fans.
 

Palmegranite

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
582
Location
CAN
You forgot these teams that were less winning:
Green Bay Packers 178 111-65-2 .629 111 65 2 537 4,537 25.5 4,031 22.6 3,740 41.3 51.4
Pittsburgh Steelers Pittsburgh Steelers 178 108-68-2 .612 108 68 2 457 4,163 23.4 3,725 20.9 3,646 41.3 49.4
New Orleans Saints New Orleans Saints 178 104-74 .584 104 74 0 564 4,739 26.6 4,149 23.3 3,917 43.4 60.8
Baltimore Ravens Baltimore Ravens 178 103-75 .579 103 75 0 461 4,318 24.3 3,602 20.2 3,715 40.0 54.3
Dallas Cowboys Dallas Cowboys 178 102-76 .573 102 76 0 511 4,497 25.3 4,014 22.6 3,793 42.3 56.7
Minnesota Vikings Minnesota Vikings 178 100-76-2 .567 100 76 2 476 4,215 23.7 4,004 22.5 3,558 39.0 49.4
Buffalo Bills Buffalo Bills 177 98-79 .554 98 79 0 467 4,128 23.3 3,791 21.4 3,537 40.1 44.8
Philadelphia Eagles Philadelphia Eagles 178 96-81-1 .542 96 81 1 509 4,404 24.7 4,131 23.2 3,826 41.3 53.1
Indianapolis Colts Indianapolis Colts 178 94-83-1 .531 94 83 1 466 4,198 23.6 4,167 23.4 3,717 40.5 52.7
Denver Broncos Denver Broncos 178 94-84 .528 94 84 0 463 4,102 23.0 3,809 21.4 3,614 37.7 52.7
Cincinnati Bengals Cincinnati Bengals 177 90-84-3 .517 90 84 3 466 4,056 22.9 3,909 22.1 3,495 38.4 57.3
Los Angeles Rams Los Angeles Rams 178 91-86-1 .514 91 86 1 445 4,013 22.5 3,919 22.0 3,397 37.5 45.6
San Francisco 49ers San Francisco 49ers 178 90-87-1 .508 90 87 1 451 4,061 22.8 3,912 22.0 3,518 38.5 50.9
Carolina Panthers Carolina Panthers 178 87-90-1 .492 87 90 1 451 4,011 22.5 4,047 22.7 3,618 39.1 52.8
Arizona Cardinals Arizona Cardinals 178 85-91-2 .483 85 91 2 439 3,926 22.1 4,065 22.8 3,555 37.1 51.7
Los Angeles Chargers Los Angeles Chargers 178 86-92 .483 86 92 0 480 4,193 23.6 4,082 22.9 3,826 43.1 54.4
Miami Dolphins Miami Dolphins 178 85-93 .478 85 93 0 421 3,714 20.9 4,224 23.7 3,359 35.7 43.5
Tennessee Titans Tennessee Titans 178 84-94 .472 84 94 0 454 3,880 21.8 4,233 23.8 3,365 38.9 49.4
Atlanta Falcons Atlanta Falcons 178 84-94 .472 84 94 0 468 4,254 23.9 4,306 24.2 3,807 43.5 49.5
Houston Texans Houston Texans 178 77-100-1 .435 77 100 1 410 3,753 21.1 4,180 23.5 3,462 37.9 47.7
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Tampa Bay Buccaneers 178 77-101 .433 77 101 0 479 4,155 23.3 4,340 24.4 3,716 40.7 50.0
Chicago Bears Chicago Bears 178 74-104 .416 74 104 0 421 3,727 20.9 4,134 23.2 3,435 38.0 44.8
Detroit Lions
Washington Commanders
Las Vegas Raiders
New York Giants
New York Jets
Cleveland Browns
Jacksonville Jaguars
 

Rainger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
3,847
Reaction score
2,111
Location
Brisbane OZ Down Under Hawk
10 years of winning football? You mean 10 years of C+, one and done in the playoffs football. It's only satisfactory if you're a Jets, Browns, or Lions fan. I expect more.
I agree in general with your statement, however the 2012 to 2017 Hawks were good A football, yes after the 2015 SB (2014 season), things started to slide. But I put as much blame on that slide to RW as to the rest of the team and PC or FO.

But that is the point, RW was a very good QB in a broken scramble drill for over 5 years, pulling off some incredible hero ball. But once the incredible D started to slide and Marshawn was no longer there his play and the team moved to your C+. So granite's point of 10 years of winning football and trying to attribute it to RW is off base.
 

Rainger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
3,847
Reaction score
2,111
Location
Brisbane OZ Down Under Hawk
You forgot these teams that were less winning:
Green Bay Packers 178 111-65-2 .629 111 65 2 537 4,537 25.5 4,031 22.6 3,740 41.3 51.4
Pittsburgh Steelers Pittsburgh Steelers 178 108-68-2 .612 108 68 2 457 4,163 23.4 3,725 20.9 3,646 41.3 49.4
New Orleans Saints New Orleans Saints 178 104-74 .584 104 74 0 564 4,739 26.6 4,149 23.3 3,917 43.4 60.8
Baltimore Ravens Baltimore Ravens 178 103-75 .579 103 75 0 461 4,318 24.3 3,602 20.2 3,715 40.0 54.3
Dallas Cowboys Dallas Cowboys 178 102-76 .573 102 76 0 511 4,497 25.3 4,014 22.6 3,793 42.3 56.7
Minnesota Vikings Minnesota Vikings 178 100-76-2 .567 100 76 2 476 4,215 23.7 4,004 22.5 3,558 39.0 49.4
Buffalo Bills Buffalo Bills 177 98-79 .554 98 79 0 467 4,128 23.3 3,791 21.4 3,537 40.1 44.8
Philadelphia Eagles Philadelphia Eagles 178 96-81-1 .542 96 81 1 509 4,404 24.7 4,131 23.2 3,826 41.3 53.1
Indianapolis Colts Indianapolis Colts 178 94-83-1 .531 94 83 1 466 4,198 23.6 4,167 23.4 3,717 40.5 52.7
Denver Broncos Denver Broncos 178 94-84 .528 94 84 0 463 4,102 23.0 3,809 21.4 3,614 37.7 52.7
Cincinnati Bengals Cincinnati Bengals 177 90-84-3 .517 90 84 3 466 4,056 22.9 3,909 22.1 3,495 38.4 57.3
Los Angeles Rams Los Angeles Rams 178 91-86-1 .514 91 86 1 445 4,013 22.5 3,919 22.0 3,397 37.5 45.6
San Francisco 49ers San Francisco 49ers 178 90-87-1 .508 90 87 1 451 4,061 22.8 3,912 22.0 3,518 38.5 50.9
Carolina Panthers Carolina Panthers 178 87-90-1 .492 87 90 1 451 4,011 22.5 4,047 22.7 3,618 39.1 52.8
Arizona Cardinals Arizona Cardinals 178 85-91-2 .483 85 91 2 439 3,926 22.1 4,065 22.8 3,555 37.1 51.7
Los Angeles Chargers Los Angeles Chargers 178 86-92 .483 86 92 0 480 4,193 23.6 4,082 22.9 3,826 43.1 54.4
Miami Dolphins Miami Dolphins 178 85-93 .478 85 93 0 421 3,714 20.9 4,224 23.7 3,359 35.7 43.5
Tennessee Titans Tennessee Titans 178 84-94 .472 84 94 0 454 3,880 21.8 4,233 23.8 3,365 38.9 49.4
Atlanta Falcons Atlanta Falcons 178 84-94 .472 84 94 0 468 4,254 23.9 4,306 24.2 3,807 43.5 49.5
Houston Texans Houston Texans 178 77-100-1 .435 77 100 1 410 3,753 21.1 4,180 23.5 3,462 37.9 47.7
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Tampa Bay Buccaneers 178 77-101 .433 77 101 0 479 4,155 23.3 4,340 24.4 3,716 40.7 50.0
Chicago Bears Chicago Bears 178 74-104 .416 74 104 0 421 3,727 20.9 4,134 23.2 3,435 38.0 44.8
Detroit Lions
Washington Commanders
Las Vegas Raiders
New York Giants
New York Jets
Cleveland Browns
Jacksonville Jaguars
You just proved the point TEAMS not RW. The Seahawks were winning, not the QB.
 

Weadoption

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
730
i can actually troll some Hawks fans by posting this. absolutely incredible.
IMG 0331
 
OP
OP
toffee

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
10,674
Reaction score
6,837
Location
SoCal Desert
Well, from the last 1 year here on Seahawks.net there are likely an order of 10, the number of threads RW-related compared to the threads on the current QB.

If nothing else, the QB that left the city is still on the minds of Seattle fans.

Begging your pardon, but what's your point?
 

m0ng0

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
4,376
Reaction score
868
Location
Vancouver, Wa
The question of the OP is Why is Russell washed? Well he had a really bad season and he is another year older, and IMO the team he had last year is better than what he has this year, he has another new offense to learn this off season...but on the bright side he doesn't play us this year🤣
 

Rainger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
3,847
Reaction score
2,111
Location
Brisbane OZ Down Under Hawk
i can actually troll some Hawks fans by posting this. absolutely incredible.
View attachment 59285
No not a troll pic to us. Loved that RW was part of an historic defense and running game and helped the over all TEAM to get to and win a SB. Winning that game was one of the happiest days of my life. I love the pic.

I give him credit for being a part.

But you are a delusional RW groupie if you think he was the REASON the team got to or won the SB.

Heck his play was so average in that game he didn't even win MVP. They gave it to a LB who only returned 1 int for a TD. They couldn't find any single person from the Hawks worthy of the MVP because they won that SB as a TEAM! He was only PART of an historic TEAM.

He stopped being a part of this team when he tried to insert the letter I into the word.

And back to the thread. HE IS WASHED UP!

What have you done for me lately RW. (asked by reasonable Hawk fans and a whole lot of Donk fans.) LOL You cant keep living on 2012 to 2015!!!

PS: I want him to fail miserably again this year because we have a 3rd round pick riding on it. Would love to see that pick get up to say the 3rd pick in the 3rd round. LOL

It is not about hating RW it is about LOVING the Hawks. He is not a part of them!!!!!!! The problem with fantasy football is to many "FANS" love the player and not the TEAM.
 
Last edited:
Top