A taste of what to expect this season...Lock 2021 highlights

[fullquartpress]

Anything is possible.

But so far the body of work and the #s seem to point to the need to ratchet expectations WAY down.

I suspect that a reason people continue to want to inflate the possibilities of either Geno or Lock is because they know, winning teams have exceptional QBs. And almost invariably, nonexceptional QBs do not play for consistently winning teams.

So if you want to believe that your team can be a consistent winner, you pretty much have to believe your QB can be exceptional later.

Now the 49ers have demonstrated it is possible to win despite it. And I will just you judge for yourself if you want to consider the Titans a 'winning' team or just what the old Atlanta Hawks used to be, but as an a modern NFL team. (ie regular season only)

The Titans were #1 seed, but Henry and Julio both were useless vs Bengals, vs. which Mahomes' last 3 passes were:
1 scary possible INT
2, INT dropped by Apple
3. INT which could have been any of 3 or 4 Bengals.
Mahomes certainly was consistent. Every pass looked like an INT, vs a D that had played a whole game.
Super Bowls 56 and 55 were won by players, not QBs.
Remember Cooper Kupp(MVP) and the Bucs' D was MVP in SB 55.
Stafford and Brady were carried by better players on their teams.
(and a phantom holding call vs Bengals)

 

[toffee]

The league that Alex Smith came up in is a lot different than the one we know today. It was a much more hostile place for QB's. You guys are grasping at straws here, all of the examples are outliers. Could it happen? Sure, is it likely to happen? Not really. Lock is going to disappoint a lot of folks here, I really don't understand where this unfounded optimism is coming from.

He's not going to be Allen, he's not going to be Smith, he's going to be a mid tier backup level player.

There are two approaches in criminal justice, one could be assume innocent until proven guilty, or one could be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

In our case on Lock, I am taking the approach that he could become a franchise QB under Pete's system until proven that he couldn't. This approach makes my off season happier.

You sir obviously prefer to assume Lock is unsalvageable, until his plays in games prove you wrong. If this approach makes you happier, so be it.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Nobody expected the Titans to do anything. They had a meh QB. They could win regular season games, but the moment the playoffs started they were a placeholder #1 seed or not. That literally had to be the Titans' playoff strategy - win the division, get the bye, and hope to get lucky.

They weren't a serious SB threat.
Now things change.
For a while, you couldn't win an NBA championship by shooting 3s all the time. Ask Suns fans. But then the rule became the exception.
So nobody is saying it cannot change but right now, great QBs and promising upcoming QBs win playoff games.
Unless you are the 49ers, which means it is possible, but more an exception that proves the rule right now.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Anything is possible.

But so far the body of work and the #s seem to point to the need to ratchet expectations WAY down.

I suspect that a reason people continue to want to inflate the possibilities of either Geno or Lock is because they know, winning teams have exceptional QBs. And almost invariably, nonexceptional QBs do not play for consistently winning teams.

So if you want to believe that your team can be a consistent winner, you pretty much have to believe your QB can be exceptional later.

Now the 49ers have demonstrated it is possible to win despite it. And I will just you judge for yourself if you want to consider the Titans a 'winning' team or just what the old Atlanta Hawks used to be, but as an a modern NFL team. (ie regular season only)

Well, I think it's just that fans have gotten used to having winning seasons. Nobody wants to admit that the season is likely going to be a wash and that our signal callers are among some of the worst in the NFL, if we take their collective body of work into account. People are hoping for a miracle that is unlikely to happen at the QB position. I could see one of them becoming a Bridgewater/Fitzmagic sort of player that is perennially a free agent, but also a lower mid tier caliber of QB that serves as a perfect stop gap.

Honestly, it sounds like Wilson forced Carroll's and the managements hands, the end result is this mess. We were unlucky that it happened to happen in one of the worst QB classes that I can remember. Even QB needy teams were hesitant to pull the trigger on the QB's in the draft. Instead we saw mega trades, which we were trying to get in on in at least one of them in the case of the DeShaun Watson debacle. Wisely, Carroll decided to hold off on the QBs in the draft and stick with the cheap options.

I don't think Seattle is under any delusions that Lock or Geno is our future. They are simply just placeholders at the moment. Drafting and potentially starting two rookie lineman tells me as much and it matches the MO of what Seattle did in 2010 and 2011 with Hasselbeck and Tarvaris Jackson.

Now onto the Titans and 49ers. Tannehill even before Tennessee was far ahead of anything that Lock or Geno has ever done in their careers. People forget that he was no slouch at Miami. He was inconsistent but he was still a solid QB. Jimmy G is on a team that is headed by what is possibly one of the greatest offensive minds in the modern NFL. Kyle Shanahan has a history of elevating the QB's that work under him and is a pretty solid HC so long as you don't need to put a game away in the Super Bowl. I can only think of a few guys that would able to pull off what Shanahan did with Jimmy G under center. We don't have that kind of offensive mind on our staff.

Now, this season is still going to be fun to watch even if what I say comes to pass with Lock and Geno. We've got a lot of talent that i'm high on and a brand new defensive system. Watching these guys develop is exciting and it reminds me of the early Carroll days. Lock and Geno don't need to be good in order to enjoy the Seahawks, they're already doing some cool stuff.

 

[keasley45]

Well, I think it's just that fans have gotten used to having winning seasons. Nobody wants to admit that the season is likely going to be a wash and that our signal callers are among some of the worst in the NFL, if we take their collective body of work into account. People are hoping for a miracle that is unlikely to happen at the QB position. I could see one of them becoming a Bridgewater/Fitzmagic sort of player that is perennially a free agent, but also a lower mid tier caliber of QB that serves as a perfect stop gap.

Honestly, it sounds like Wilson forced Carroll's and the managements hands, the end result is this mess. We were unlucky that it happened to happen in one of the worst QB classes that I can remember. Even QB needy teams were hesitant to pull the trigger on the QB's in the draft. Instead we saw mega trades, which we were trying to get in on in at least one of them in the case of the DeShaun Watson debacle. Wisely, Carroll decided to hold off on the QBs in the draft and stick with the cheap options.

I don't think Seattle is under any delusions that Lock or Geno is our future. They are simply just placeholders at the moment. Drafting and potentially starting two rookie lineman tells me as much and it matches the MO of what Seattle did in 2010 and 2011 with Hasselbeck and Tarvaris Jackson.

Now onto the Titans and 49ers. Tannehill even before Tennessee was far ahead of anything that Lock or Geno has ever done in their careers. People forget that he was no slouch at Miami. He was inconsistent but he was still a solid QB. Jimmy G is on a team that is headed by what is possibly one of the greatest offensive minds in the modern NFL. Kyle Shanahan has a history of elevating the QB's that work under him and is a pretty solid HC so long as you don't need to put a game away in the Super Bowl. I can only think of a few guys that would able to pull off what Shanahan did with Jimmy G under center. We don't have that kind of offensive mind on our staff.

Now, this season is still going to be fun to watch even if what I say comes to pass with Lock and Geno. We've got a lot of talent that i'm high on and a brand new defensive system. Watching these guys develop is exciting and it reminds me of the early Carroll days. Lock and Geno don't need to be good in order to enjoy the Seahawks, they're already doing some cool stuff.

I guess you don't actually read a good number of the posts in this thread.

Not feeling as though we are hopeless is Not the same as having 'blind hope'..

And I don't recall the folks here who aren't of the mind that Lock is a lost cause, predicting we will be great, or even that Geno or Lock are the longterm solution.

I also see the vast majority of folks who are at peace with Lock, also being at oeace with our season not being one about wins and losses, but of starting the next era of Hawks football.

To me, that's an eyes wide open assessment of where we are. Retooling, likely not competing for a championship, but embracing the construction process of this new team.

Everyone is admitting that our qbs aren't great. It's just some of us aren't so fast to dismiss any and all potential that they might just be better than we expect, or that in Locks case, that the quality of a players coaching, might actually have a little bit to do with how well he performs.

And I still maintain that if you were to create a poll asking the question whether or not Russ was justified in, as you stated, 'forcing the FOs hand' that those answering yes, are for the most part the same folks who think Lock's die is cast, and that it's impossible for him to amount to anything... because he's had every opportunity to show that he can..?..

There's no dilusion here. No spoiled fan. No, not being able to cope with a reality where we are no longer great. If you've been paying attention the last few years, greatness, at its highest level was most certainly out of reach. The difference is in simply not discounting the affect coaching, mentorship, teaching has on an athlete. And the only way you can think Lock is toast, is if you beleive that's the case... that somehow, every qb should be able to show growth and progress regardless of the coordinator, HC, position coach, etc.

This retooling was necessary. Moving on was necessary. A dip is absolutely expected, and welcomed to get is to where we should have been for the last 3 years.

 

[BASF]

And I will just you judge for yourself if you want to consider the Titans a 'winning' team or just what the old Atlanta Hawks used to be, but as an a modern NFL team. (ie regular season only)

Just because we couldn't get past the GOAT in any damn season doesn't mean that you can just throw stuff like that around. Damn.

 

[pittpnthrs]

I guess you don't actually read a good number of the posts in this thread.

Not feeling as though we are hopeless is Not the same as having 'blind hope'..

And I don't recall the folks here who aren't of the mind that Lock is a lost cause, predicting we will be great, or even that Geno or Lock are the longterm solution.

I also see the vast majority of folks who are at peace with Lock, also being at oeace with our season not being one about wins and losses, but of starting the next era of Hawks football.

To me, that's an eyes wide open assessment of where we are. Retooling, likely not competing for a championship, but embracing the construction process of this new team.

Everyone is admitting that our qbs aren't great. It's just some of us aren't so fast to dismiss any and all potential that they might just be better than we expect, or that in Locks case, that the quality of a players coaching, might actually have a little bit to do with how well he performs.

And I still maintain that if you were to create a poll asking the question whether or not Russ was justified in, as you stated, 'forcing the FOs hand' that those answering yes, are for the most part the same folks who think Lock's die is cast, and that it's impossible for him to amount to anything... because he's had every opportunity to show that he can..?..

There's no dilusion here. No spoiled fan. No, not being able to cope with a reality where we are no longer great. If you've been paying attention the last few years, greatness, at its highest level was most certainly out of reach. The difference is in simply not discounting the affect coaching, mentorship, teaching has on an athlete. And the only way you can think Lock is toast, is if you beleive that's the case... that somehow, every qb should be able to show growth and progress regardless of the coordinator, HC, position coach, etc.

This retooling was necessary. Moving on was necessary. A dip is absolutely expected, and welcomed to get is to where we should have been for the last 3 years.

My issue with all of this is that the team is being retooled by a coach that is no longer capable of retooling (and hasent been for some time now). The game has shifted as to where his philosophy and schemes arent very effective anymore. He had a HOF QB masking that for years that got fed up with it all and had to leave because nothing was going to change.

The saddest part of it all is that greatness was in the organizations grasp and Carroll squandered it. Seattle should have moved on from him 5 years ago. Instead they doubled down. By doing so, the current state of the team is what they deserve. As for moving forward, I have zero confidence Pete Carroll will be able to turn it around. He is already the worst coach in the division (its true and everybody knows it). The team wont move forward until the next regime comes in.

 

[Maelstrom787]

My issue with all of this is that the team is being retooled by a coach that is no longer capable of retooling (and hasent been for some time now). The game has shifted as to where his philosophy and schemes arent very effective anymore. He had a HOF QB masking that for years that got fed up with it all and had to leave because nothing was going to change.

The saddest part of it all is that greatness was in the organizations grasp and Carroll squandered it. Seattle should have moved on from him 5 years ago. Instead they doubled down. By doing so, the current state of the team is what they deserve. As for moving forward, I have zero confidence Pete Carroll will be able to turn it around. He is already the worst coach in the division (its true and everybody knows it). The team wont move forward until the next regime comes in.

If you'd take Kliff Kingsbury over Pete Carroll, whew.

 

[BASF]

He had a HOF QB masking that for years that got fed up with it all and had to leave because nothing was going to change.

So you are just going to ignore that once Wilson started getting the blame, he threw everyone else under the bus for his poor play. Then took his ball to play somewhere else when he totally stunk up the joint against our division rivals in his last playoff appearnace.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The NFL does want 7 to 10 football games, it doesn't even want scores of 7 to 10 at halftime.
Pete has no problems with those kinds of scores, and if you do not see the problem there - not sure what I can tell you.

The NFL rules are being structured to encourage high scoring, because that sells TV revenue and tickets. That means a lot of what Carroll wants to do is doing to be discouraged, if not outright made harder.
Pete still thinks he can win low-scoring games. But the league does not want them and it is going to make it harder for a coach to do this. It is bad TV for the casual fan, and bad for casual stats guy - those power a lot of those revenue streams.
Pete is at a big disadvantage.

Pete's strength is building rosters and defense. Defense is being discouraged and I don't know if he can still do the other thing (certainly in the past 5, if not 7, years he has checkered history at it).

Pete is the guy steering the boat so we have to assume he has a plan. And NFL arbitrage is a strength for him, so maybe he can make it work. But then it makes you wonder why we didn't do this over the past 5 years? Is it just that he is execeptional at building stars into the roster but isn't great at filling gaps? Even crucial ones?

That gives us a ceiling but also gives us a chance we could get a QB.

The math seems to argue that we should accept that after 10 years of being exceptional we probably have to fall back into the mean, if not below it.

 

[keasley45]

I dont remember Pete saying he prefers low scoring games over higher scoring games if scoring points is what is needed. Just because we have been horrendous on 3rd down conversions passing and he refrained from being overly critical of an offense that couldnt execute (which is what has perpetuated the Pete's ok with winning this way) doesn't mean it's what he wants. Sherm said it best when he expressed the 'what the F are you talking about' sentiment, at Pete, for years, throwing out praise for his QB for failed execution rather than holding him to task. The scores were low because we were never consistently great at moving the chains on schedule or within the scheme of a play. It was on Lynch's legs, and Russ's scrambling late that the offense worked. TDs were left on the field for years. Thankfully, we had the defense to 'fix' things. But when we rewarded the QB with his 2nd and 3rd deal, we went all in on an offense that would only ever convert 3rd downs the way it had. And that never changed... all the way up to December 2022.

When we were racking up points, I don't ever recall him saying that he preferred to keep the score lower. As a matter of fact even when Russ was cooking in 2020, until he saw the writing on the wall and watched Russ, still, after 9 years, incapable of beating basic defenses and committing turnovers constantly, all he had was praise for an offense that was setting records.

He may be a defense minded coach, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want an offense that can outscore a defense when it needs to. Pete simply understands that scoring 40 points is significantly more difficult than scoring 24 or 14. And that the need to score more points is often tied to the errors you commit. It's common sense.

 

[TwistedHusky]

It isn't what Pete says that matters, his actions indicate what is important to him.

If he cared about scoring points in the 1st half, he would have prioritized it. He didn't.

But you might be right on the scoring.
Before last year, the average winner needed to score 24 to win. This is why at the start of the year I stated that our goal per game needed to be 28.

There was, however, one of the biggest drops in scoring last year - almost 5 pts per game. So does the NFL accept that or clamp down to encourage scoring?

We will see.

 

[Spin Doctor]

The NFL does want 7 to 10 football games, it doesn't even want scores of 7 to 10 at halftime.
Pete has no problems with those kinds of scores, and if you do not see the problem there - not sure what I can tell you.

The NFL rules are being structured to encourage high scoring, because that sells TV revenue and tickets. That means a lot of what Carroll wants to do is doing to be discouraged, if not outright made harder.
Pete still thinks he can win low-scoring games. But the league does not want them and it is going to make it harder for a coach to do this. It is bad TV for the casual fan, and bad for casual stats guy - those power a lot of those revenue streams.
Pete is at a big disadvantage.

Pete's strength is building rosters and defense. Defense is being discouraged and I don't know if he can still do the other thing (certainly in the past 5, if not 7, years he has checkered history at it).

Pete is the guy steering the boat so we have to assume he has a plan. And NFL arbitrage is a strength for him, so maybe he can make it work. But then it makes you wonder why we didn't do this over the past 5 years? Is it just that he is execeptional at building stars into the roster but isn't great at filling gaps? Even crucial ones?

That gives us a ceiling but also gives us a chance we could get a QB.

The math seems to argue that we should accept that after 10 years of being exceptional we probably have to fall back into the mean, if not below it.

I'm not exactly sure he views things that way the more I look at things. I know he loves big plays and likes close games, but i'm wondering if this was a Carroll thing or a result of Wilson's skillset. There has been a lot of documentation over Wilson's inability to see the field, flat out ignoring open receivers. I'm curious to see how Wilson does with an offensive minded HC in Denver, if he looks exactly the same it will tell us a lot.

In college, Carroll was known for running up the score on offense. People complained about him a lot around here back in his USC days. Another thing I noticed is we always placed a huge premium on WR's and playmaking TE's under Carroll on the Seahawks.

Interestingly our strategy on lineman has also pivitted after the departure of Wilson. Previously we would go after road graders that were bad in pass pro. This year we drafted Charles Cross and Abraham Lucas. What is interesting about these guys is that they do not match the typical Seahawks profile. They both came from an air raid offense and both of these guys are more raw when it comes to run blocking, but have a lot more polish in the pass protection game.

Was our offense structured the way it was because of Wilson's limitations or is it Carroll's philosophy? Schottenheimer tried to run a more conventional offense under Wilson, but Wilson just ad libbed after a certain time. Under Waldron we ran a lot of passes over the middle with Smith under center and we utilized the TEs more. While Wilson still was one of the best QB's in the NFL, his style was feast or famine. He was like Mohammed Ali, waiting for the enemy to be tired out with a rope a dope strategy, then he'd launch his rainbow passes.

I'm not exactly sure what our offense would look like with a more traditional, capable QB under center. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that our offensive strategy was due to Russell Wilson's limitations as a passer. I know Carroll loves the run game, but based on the premium on WR's and playmakers that he seems to relish, plus the pass blocking offensive lineman he went and hired -- i'm almost certain that we did certain things to accommodate our passer.

 

[pittpnthrs]

So you are just going to ignore that once Wilson started getting the blame, he threw everyone else under the bus for his poor play. Then took his ball to play somewhere else when he totally stunk up the joint against our division rivals in his last playoff appearnace.

You mean when he started holding people accountable that needed to be held accountable? The Rams playoff game is a perfect example as to why he wanted and needed to get out of Seattle. Carroll came into that game with the exact same game plan he used just two weeks prior when they played. McVay adjusted as usual and coached circles around Carroll once again. Wilson was getting destroyed and they called a roll out to alleviate the pressure exactly zero times. ZERO. Sadly, things like that are an all to common theme with Pete Carroll coached teams. Wilson was good enough to overcome that kind of coaching incompetence for years for the most part until he finally couldnt anymore and now fans blame him for everything for some reason. Its lunacy.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The problem with blaming Wilson is that typically at end of games or in the final minutes of a half, if we needed a drive to score...Wilson delivered.
Weirdly, the less opportunity he had to consult with his coaches and the more he had to run on instinct - the better he seemed to do.

This even included passing to the TEs and using the middle of the field.
So it is possible that all of this problem scoring is the result of Wilson's weaknesses. But then we have to account for the above issue.

The less Carroll and his coaches were able to touch the offense, the better Wilson seemed to do.
This whole thing about blaming Wilson for all the problems with the offense is going to be proven if the the Broncos have a good offense (not this coming season but the one after that).

And we won't be able to use the excuse that we have a new QB in another year, so I guess we are stuck waiting 2 years to find out who is right.

But it feels like a lot of this cannot be explained away as being a problem with Wilson, because he seemed to produce well when they relied on him.

We've gone over this issue ad nauseum, and we won't know for 2 years. But I don't think people will EVER consider offense a strength for Carroll and nothing in the recent past gives us a reason to expect he will even be average.

 

[Palmegranite]

I remember even going way back, when the first few series on offense of every game were garbage. People on here used to explain that Pete Carroll and Bevell had the same scripted plays to start each game...and accepted that as a valid strategy...which it wasnt..it was idiotic. Wilson won games in spite of the coaching staff.
I think Denver coaches won't be such egomaniac ding dongs and just give Wilson carte blanche. And he's one of a rarified set of QBs that could handle that assignment.

Would anyone trust anything but a micromanaged offense to Drew Lock though?

 

[TwistedHusky]

We won't know for 2 years. Like most arguments like this, both sides are probably a little bit right.

However, most would consider this a playoff team if we still had Wilson. We might even be a darkhorse (not really though).

Now, few but the most insanely optimistic fan would consider this team even a longshot for the playoffs.

It becomes hard to blame Wilson for the shortcomings if the team without Wilson cannot be expected to succeed at all. And yet Wilson somehow impacts the team so significantly that his playing literally is the difference between us making the playoffs or not.

And whatever the rest, the Broncos roster looks a lot better than ours - with the exception of the WRs. So it hard to imagine he will not have success there. Possible, but unlikely. Because he had success here with a weaker roster....

Regardless somehow Wilson is making the team better but to blame for most of the shortcomings.
The next few years should be very telling and remove some of the mystery there for some.

 

[Smellyman]

I remember even going way back, when the first few series on offense of every game were garbage. People on here used to explain that Pete Carroll and Bevell had the same scripted plays to start each game...and accepted that as a valid strategy...which it wasnt..it was idiotic. Wilson won games in spite of the coaching staff.
I think Denver coaches won't be such egomaniac ding dongs and just give Wilson carte blanche. And he's one of a rarified set of QBs that could handle that assignment.

Would anyone trust anything but a micromanaged offense to Drew Lock though?

Or he won because of the coaching staff and Willson was too big of an egomaniac to see it. We will see what happens if the Broncos coaches give him the reigns.

 

[TwistedHusky]

That makes no sense.

The coaching staff was substandard, maybe Waldron isn't but we don't know because Wilson wasn't healthy last year and Waldron wasn't exceptional the year before that.

Unless you are contending that the Offensive coaching staffs we FIRED for not producing are responsible for Wilson's success?

 

[Smellyman]

That makes no sense.

The coaching staff was substandard, maybe Waldron isn't but we don't know because Wilson wasn't healthy last year and Waldron wasn't exceptional the year before that.

Unless you are contending that the Offensive coaching staffs we FIRED for not producing are responsible for Wilson's success?

or Wilson got them fired, trying to appease Wilson, they took the fall.

I think Duane Brown just yelled at RW again for running into a sack and not hitting the route wide open

Edit: Do you think Wilson had a BIG say in getting rid of Bevell and Schotty?