Will Pete Carroll pull off the trade for Sam Darnold

[BASF]

Darnold is worse than both Lock and Smith. Why would we trade for a worse player at a higher salary?

End of story.

Bye bye.

See ya later.

 

[Chukarhawk]

why woud you trade for another back up when we already have 3 of them?

 

[Own The West]

There seems to be two hard schools of thought ongoing here:

1. Our present QBs suck and they need to be immediately replaced by whoever the team can sign regardless of cost. As a result every potentially available QB's name is floated out there as a potential trade or signing target. This approach comes with acceptance that the potential trade target/signee might only be just barely better than the candidates the team has on their roster at present. This would possibly lead to the team potentially being slightly stronger than predicted and winning more games than the Vegas prediction of 5.5 this upcoming season.

2. The team has decided to wait and find the replacement QB in the draft and that trading for a player like Mayfield, Garopollo or ? would impair that ability by worsening the team's draft position or the team's ability to use early 2023 draft picks to otherwise improve the team. Thus this group is prepared to accept a lesser outcome from the team to allow it to be better long term. this is suck now to be better later approach which is in consistent with 'Always Compete'.

The 3rd alternative from the usually reliable AP'er sources is nothing the team does is worth much and they will suck no matter what they do. So regardless of what they do there will be a reason to find fault with Pete or Schneider and if not them then Jody Allen. The FO but particularly Pete is blamed if an Outside QB not named Wilson is acquired or if he doesn't acquire an outside QB. Objective evidence of a steady and solid team record since the present FO's arrival is ignored with a what have you done lately approach. There of course is a stoney silence when requests of the AP'ers is made for them to suggest available alternatives. This is regrettably repetitive nihilism.

In reality of course we just don't know how the QB situation is going to play out with the understandable situation of the older player experienced in the system taking the early lead over the young player from another team, or the former 3rd string backup from last season. To me neither hard school of thought fairly assesses the situation and the ability of the team to be better by either direction. We all want the team to be competitive and we all want the team to be able to improve from benefits from the RW trade. Mayfield was clearly not thought by the team to be much improvement over the present QB staff as they were not really 'in' on the trade for the player for which Cleveland got peanuts and assumed $10.5 million for the year against their cap to rid themselves of the player. It can't be said the team got outbid by Carolina when Carolina got Mayfield at less than 1/3 of the player's guaranteed cap cost for a conditional 2024 5th round draft pick. Now it's on to Darnold and the story goes back to the same cap number for a 2023 UFA QB costing $18.585 mil. for a year. Carolina would need to eat Darnold's guaranteed salary for the team to be much interested at all in trading anything similar than what Cleveland got for Mayfield for Darnold at all. In result the team is unlikely to be 'in' on trading for him either. However, even if that happened and you achieved the potential marginal improvement of the QB depth would it be a legitimate detriment to acquiring a top prospect in the draft next year? I suspect not.

I'm just sort of venting here as these positions seem to be shortsighted.

A fourth alternative would be that Pete has a conservative philosophy that prioritizes ball control and consistency over risk-taking and heroics. He has won national championships and a superbowl with this philosophy.

The past 6-7 years Pete has been having to fight his QB to value the ball, keep possession, and move the chains by any means necessary. Now that Russell is gone, Pete may specifically WANT a 2nd tier QB that will play within the system, take coaching, and keep the team balanced.

Ball control and consistency perform better over the long run. Ball control and consistency will make Geno/Lock look like all-pros.

 

[Spin Doctor]

A fourth alternative would be that Pete has a conservative philosophy that prioritizes ball control and consistency over risk-taking and heroics. He has won national championships and a superbowl with this philosophy.

The past 6-7 years Pete has been having to fight his QB to value the ball, keep possession, and move the chains by any means necessary. Now that Russell is gone, Pete may specifically WANT a 2nd tier QB that will play within the system, take coaching, and keep the team balanced.

Ball control and consistency perform better over the long run. Ball control and consistency will make Geno/Lock look like all-pros.

Russell Wilson was a top 10 QB when we won the Super Bowl... We absolutely would not have won without some of his heroics. He was just as much a part of that win as that defense and run game was. Let's also not forget that Leinart was a Heisman winner, TWICE and an extremely talented collegiate level QB.

Just having a run dominated, ball control team does not make a QB look like an all-pro either. Lock and Geno Smith are really bad players.

 

[Torc]

Russell Wilson was a top 10 QB when we won the Super Bowl... We absolutely would not have won without some of his heroics. He was just as much a part of that win as that defense and run game was. Let's also not forget that Leinart was a Heisman winner, TWICE and an extremely talented collegiate level QB.

Just having a run dominated, ball control team does not make a QB look like an all-pro either. Lock and Geno Smith are really bad players.

I'm not sure how you figure that about the Super Bowl. The defense scored 9 and the special teams scored 7. With no offensive scores, the Seahawks would have won 16-8. (I know, you can get into things like time of possession and tired players, my point is that the Seahawks would have won with someone like Trent Dilfer managing a ball control offense.)

 

[sc85sis]

I'm not sure how you figure that about the Super Bowl. The defense scored 9 and the special teams scored 7. With no offensive scores, the Seahawks would have won 16-8. (I know, you can get into things like time of possession and tired players, my point is that the Seahawks would have won with someone like Trent Dilfer managing a ball control offense.)

There were games on the way to getting to the Super Bowl that we might not have won without Russell. His escapability did matter back then.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

Lmfao yeah no

Dear god…No.

^^^^^ This. 1000 times this.

 

[Lagartixa]

Lmfao yeah no

...

Dear god…No.

...

^^^^^ This. 1000 times this.

I think we need a new thing, related to Betteridge's Law, but instead of "no," the answer to some headlines that end in question marks could be "oh heavens, I hope not!"

 

[fenderbender123]

What I never understood is why there's so many QBs out there, yet hardly any of them are capable of improving their accuracy and decision making enough to be good. It seems like being in the NFL, with all those coaches and time to train, that most QBs would be able to spend an entire off-season working on getting waaaay better. But most hardly get better enough to be a good starter. Why is that? Is it really all about talent they're born with? Why do so many run into a wall with their progression once they're in the NfL?

For example, let's take Geno Smith. Hey man, you can be the starter, but you got to work on your accuracy and decision making. "You got it!" He should say, and then spend a whole off-season working on that. Does this just not work with improving most QBs? Again... Why?

 

[ElvisInBlue]

What I never understood is why there's so many QBs out there, yet hardly any of them are capable of improving their accuracy and decision making enough to be good. It seems like being in the NFL, with all those coaches and time to train, that most QBs would be able to spend an entire off-season working on getting waaaay better. But most hardly get better enough to be a good starter. Why is that? Is it really all about talent they're born with? Why do so many run into a wall with their progression once they're in the NfL?

For example, let's take Geno Smith. Hey man, you can be the starter, but you got to work on your accuracy and decision making. "You got it!" He should say, and then spend a whole off-season working on that. Does this just not work with improving most QBs? Again... Why?

Most QBs do improve in their first couple years in the league,

Let’s say they’re now 25, they’ve been working on their craft for somewhere around 15 years. You’re as physically mature as you’re going to get and by that point you either get it mentally or don’t.

 

[fenderbender123]

Most QBs do improve in their first couple years in the league,

Let’s say they’re now 25, they’ve been working on their craft for somewhere around 15 years. You’re as physically mature as you’re going to get and by that point you either get it mentally or don’t.

And if you don't, go figure out what it takes to get it mentally! Right?

 

[sc85sis]

And if you don't, go figure out what it takes to get it mentally! Right?

Go see Tom House. Worked for Brady. Of course, House is about throwing mechanics not how football smart a guy is, but mechanics are part of it.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Dear god…No.

Exactly this!

 

[DarkVictory23]

Russell Wilson was a top 10 QB when we won the Super Bowl... We absolutely would not have won without some of his heroics. He was just as much a part of that win as that defense and run game was. Let's also not forget that Leinart was a Heisman winner, TWICE and an extremely talented collegiate level QB.

Just having a run dominated, ball control team does not make a QB look like an all-pro either. Lock and Geno Smith are really bad players.

Yes, Russell was just a much a 'part' of the team, but the importance of his part was very, very different.

The bottom line is: Our 'top 10' QB was asked to throw the ball the LEAST of any starting QB in the NFL across our 2 Super Bowl appearances.

Yes, if we don't have a few fourth quarter comebacks, we don't make it to the Super Bowl. But the issue is, INCLUDING all of his heroics and spotting him one of the most dominant RBs in NFL history, our Wilson led offense was less than a field goal a game better than an average NFL offense both years. Less than a field goal.

If you take away those extra 2 to 2.5 points from our final score, our record goes unchanged. In other words, if we had just an average offense, instead of one just barely better than average, we are still amazing.

If you make our DEFENSE average, our records go to 8-8 and 9-7 those two seasons.


Now obviously, you can't just 'magically' subtract or add points to either side of the ball as if that doesn't affect how the other side performs. However, if we remove the years of watching all of Russ's highlights and performances and just view the situation for what it was: Russ was asked to do less with his arm than any other starting QB in the league. Basically every defense he faced was gameplanning against Lynch instead of him. And he had one of the historically greatest defenses in the entire history of the NFL on the other side of the ball.

I'm not saying he didn't do his part, but you could put A LOT of QBs into that very same situation and probably achieve very similar results.

 

[CallMeADawg]

Lol Pete was not his coach. He left USC long before. More fake news.

Pete was his coach his junior and senior years at USC. Carson won the Heisman in 2002, his second year under Pete.

 

[Rainger]

Pete was his coach his junior and senior years at USC. Carson won the Heisman in 2002, his second year under Pete.

What ever drugs u r on I want some. The Thread is about Sam Donald. Not Carson. Pete was gone before Sam Donald went to USC.

"USC defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox, who recruited Darnold to the school, wanted him to play linebacker before he declined.[2] In the 2015 season, Darnold redshirted for his freshman year as he was behind Cody Kessler and Max Browne on the depth chart.[9]"

 

[Spin Doctor]

Yes, Russell was just a much a 'part' of the team, but the importance of his part was very, very different.

The bottom line is: Our 'top 10' QB was asked to throw the ball the LEAST of any starting QB in the NFL across our 2 Super Bowl appearances.

Yes, if we don't have a few fourth quarter comebacks, we don't make it to the Super Bowl. But the issue is, INCLUDING all of his heroics and spotting him one of the most dominant RBs in NFL history, our Wilson led offense was less than a field goal a game better than an average NFL offense both years. Less than a field goal.

If you take away those extra 2 to 2.5 points from our final score, our record goes unchanged. In other words, if we had just an average offense, instead of one just barely better than average, we are still amazing.

If you make our DEFENSE average, our records go to 8-8 and 9-7 those two seasons.


Now obviously, you can't just 'magically' subtract or add points to either side of the ball as if that doesn't affect how the other side performs. However, if we remove the years of watching all of Russ's highlights and performances and just view the situation for what it was: Russ was asked to do less with his arm than any other starting QB in the league. Basically every defense he faced was gameplanning against Lynch instead of him. And he had one of the historically greatest defenses in the entire history of the NFL on the other side of the ball.

I'm not saying he didn't do his part, but you could put A LOT of QBs into that very same situation and probably achieve very similar results.

I doubt that a lot of QB's could get the same results as Wilson on the Seahawks. He had 3 4th quarter comebacks and 4 game winning drives in 2013. Despite not having to pass as much as other QB's, when he did pass the way Carroll's offense was ran demanded efficiency. Wilson's presence helped many different aspects of the Seahawks.

Marshawn Lynch's numbers also skyrocketed with Russell Wilson at the helm. Wilson's mobility and threat as a runner made it much harder for defenders to key in on Lynch with the read option being employed. Wilson also still had one of the best deep balls in the NFL which complicated things more for defenses. He was a very unique talent back in 2013 and one could say that he started a whole new trend when it came to QB's.

Wilson didn't get bulk numbers but his passing efficiency numbers were near the top of the league. He was 4th in Y/A, 7th in QB rating, third highest in TD%, 12th in completion percentage yet adjusted yards per attempt 6th in the NFL. This doesn't come about just because there is a heavy run game. Just look at how Collin Kaepernick's game fell apart in a similar system after a few years. Relying on the ground game does not mean that you can have a mediocre passer and still make it far in the playoffs. Eventually mediocre passers get found out and exposed.

People are acting like Carroll's system magically churns out passers just by virtue of "leaning on the run and the defense". Something else that should be noted, since our Super Bowl run there have been rule changes that further inhibit defenses. We also need to note that relying on the 2013 model is not likely going to work. That 2013 team is never going to happen again. It was one of those generational defenses. Since then the game has skewed even further towards offense. If we win again under Pete, the team isn't going to be a carbon copy of the 2013 formula.

Teams that win Super Bowls overwhelmingly have a strong passing attack, defense and running game in addition to good luck in the health department. Most of the Super Bowls since 2010 have featured elite passers or in the case of Flacco and Foles, mediocre passers putting on historical postseason performances. There are some exceptions such as the 2015 Super Bowl --- featuring the corpse of Peyton Manning. That being said, by in large the teams that got there had strong passing attacks, defenses and running games.

The notion that we can take a mediocre passer and have them ball out for us is flawed. Even in 2013 we needed a QB that was extremely efficient, one of the biggest ground threats in the NFL and big in high pressure situations to get us to the big game. That doesn't happen with the likes of a Teddy Bridgewater character or hell, perhaps even a Tannehill.

 

[Tusc2000]

We're obviously not going to contend for even a playoff spot this year ... BUT you can't just tank to get a lottery pick. You've got 53 guys on the roster who won't buy into that. It's doubtful Lock has the ability to even be at the level of Taylor Heineke, so bringing in Darnold is not a bad idea -- so long as it doesn't cost us much, and a 6th or 7th round pick sounds about right. Not sure how Darnold's salary fits in, or if it can be negotiated down. Once we draft a QB next year, Darnold can settle into being his backup, which should be fine. And I wouldn't mind seeing a competition between Darnold, Lock and Geno this summer, it might be the most interesting part of our 2022 season

 

[Tusc2000]

and he was having a very disappointing college career until Pete showed up and turned him around.

No, Pete's OC Norm Chow gets the credit for that. And Carson Palmer's career in the NFL was finally turned around when he went to AZ and their QB Whisperer Bruce Arians. I think Sam's career can be re-booted too, with the right OC/QB coaching. I just don't know that we have that in place.

 

[hawkfan68]

No on Darnold. However, the Panthers were talking with the Vikings about a possible trade for Cousins. I wouldn't mind that option for the Seahawks. The team would be drastically improved if they could pull something like that off. Cousins in Seahawk offense could be like what Stafford added to the Rams offense. Maybe a 2nd round pick in next year's draft and mid round draft pick (4th or 5th round) plus a player. Looks like the Vikings are high on Mond again who they drafted in 2021 as 3rd round pick. https://thevikingage.com/2022/05/21/minnesota-vikings-kellen-mond-praise/.