If last night was Pet-ball

Tical21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
82
austinslater25":2rrc1ouu said:
it was working well enough? Are you serious?

We could still stand firm in our commitment to the run and pass a little more in this game. This is a point that keeps getting made that is bizarre. You're again taking the extreme as a reason to argue against it and its intellectually dishonest. So answer this....you're saying Russ AND Pete are wrong then when they both admitted they should've passed more after the fact. Is that what your saying?

Pete and Russ both agree with the sentiment and you still have guys arguing against it. This is weird.
Yep, that's what I'm saying.

If I would've told you our approach got us the lead in the 4th quarter, you would've signed up immediately.
 

Seymour

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
7,459
Reaction score
22
sdog1981":2k30os61 said:
Then why the hell would you ever pay a QB 30 million per year, in a salary capped league?

Pete-ball will be around until 2021 as of today.

Why would Wilson ever want to sign here again? Pete needs Russell and he also abuses him with keeping guys like Cable, Bevell, and Schotty around him that will ruin Wilson before it's all over.

We are caught in the middle trying to figure what would be best for the team. :pukeface:
 

SoulfishHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
29,840
Reaction score
10,288
Location
Sammamish, WA
No Tical, it wasn't working IN THIS GAME. You have to adjust during the game, you know, like other teams do???? :roll:
The Hawks had 74 yards rushing. 74. It was NOT working.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,612
Seymour":1ilz508x said:
sdog1981":1ilz508x said:
Then why the hell would you ever pay a QB 30 million per year, in a salary capped league?

Pete-ball will be around until 2021 as of today.

Why would Wilson ever want to sign here again?:

Because he wants to make a lot of money, get to the playoffs often, have a chance to win more SB's, play for a great coach and organization and be the most beloved sports athlete in Seattle sports history?
 

Fade

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
2,988
Location
Truth Ray
[tweet]https://twitter.com/billbarnwell/status/1081773020912472065[/tweet]

@Tical

Definitely ignoring the playpass, and continuing to run the ball at 2 yards a clip was the optimal strategy.

Ignoring matchups, statistics, and eyeball test be damned.


Dallas weakness was literally the playaction pass. Seattle was having success with it, but continued to go away from it. Indefensible.

Wilson was the least used of all QBs on WC weekend by about a -25% clip than the next closest. Dumbfounding. Given the success he was having when he wasn't just being used as the ball warmer for the running backs.

Former NFL QB put it best.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/danorlovsky7/status/1081775649046609921[/tweet]

INSANE INDEED.
 
OP
OP
sdog1981

sdog1981

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
240
Sgt. Largent":2ebit85r said:
sdog1981":2ebit85r said:
Then why the hell would you ever pay a QB 30 million per year, in a salary capped league?

Pete-ball will be around until 2021 as of today.

So lemme get this straight............we love Pete ball when we're punching the Vikings, Chiefs and other teams in the face rolling for 150-200 yards of rushing and dictating on both sides of the ball with being physical.

But when we lose, we hate Pete Ball and we're wasting Russell even though statistically he had his best year ever.

You guys need to stick to one side of the fence, I'm getting dizzy.


I hope you did not get hurt jumping to conclusions.

This is a positive discussion.

Rusell is elite.

Pete ball works.

Can Pete-ball work with a lower cost QB and money spent on other positions?

Is it wise to spend 15% of your team's salary cap on a player that will only be asked to throw 25 times a game?
 

Seymour

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
7,459
Reaction score
22
sdog1981":3tnskce5 said:
Sgt. Largent":3tnskce5 said:
sdog1981":3tnskce5 said:
Then why the hell would you ever pay a QB 30 million per year, in a salary capped league?

Pete-ball will be around until 2021 as of today.

So lemme get this straight............we love Pete ball when we're punching the Vikings, Chiefs and other teams in the face rolling for 150-200 yards of rushing and dictating on both sides of the ball with being physical.

But when we lose, we hate Pete Ball and we're wasting Russell even though statistically he had his best year ever.

You guys need to stick to one side of the fence, I'm getting dizzy.


I hope you did not get hurt jumping to conclusions.

This is a positive discussion.

Rusell is elite.

Pete ball works.

Can Pete-ball work with a lower cost QB and money spent on other positions?

Is it wise to spend 15% of your team's salary cap on a player that will only be asked to throw 25 times a game?

Playing devils advocate....if they throw 25 times and 5 are TD's then yes.

Point being, that alone is not enough information to make the decision.

Pete plays to often win on the last drive. You put in your bargain $20M QB that you saved $12M on and you lose minimum 2-3 more games without a question.

In other words....Pete ball doesn't work without him either! :141847_bnono:
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,612
sdog1981":ijh591hp said:
Can Pete-ball work with a lower cost QB and money spent on other positions?

Is it wise to spend 15% of your team's salary cap on a player that will only be asked to throw 25 times a game?

Yes, we already know the answer because we went to two SB's with a cheap QB. But we also had an all time elite defense. So if you like that scenario, you better hope Pete can build another elite defense like the 2013-2015 to make up for your new QB being less productive and explosive than Russell is now in his prime.

I'm more for paying Russell and not having to try and assemble another all time elite defense. I'd rather it be a VERY good defense and a VERY good offense that can pound the rock and make explosive plays with a top 5 QB in his prime..........and I think that's where we're headed in the next 2-3 years.

Just weren't there yet this year.
 
OP
OP
sdog1981

sdog1981

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
240
Sgt. Largent":iwna2lob said:
sdog1981":iwna2lob said:
Can Pete-ball work with a lower cost QB and money spent on other positions?

Is it wise to spend 15% of your team's salary cap on a player that will only be asked to throw 25 times a game?

Yes, we already know the answer because we went to two SB's with a cheap QB. But we also had an all time elite defense. So if you like that scenario, you better hope Pete can build another elite defense like the 2013-2015 to make up for your new QB being less productive and explosive than Russell is now in his prime.

I'm more for paying Russell and not having to try and assemble another all time elite defense. I'd rather it be a VERY good defense and a VERY good offense that can pound the rock and make explosive plays with a top 5 QB in his prime..........and I think that's where we're headed in the next 2-3 years.

Just weren't there yet this year.


Based off what I have seen Pete do I trust his ability to find and coach up defensive players.

The All-Time Defence had:

5 drafted DB's as key players.

3 drafted linebackers that were key contributors.

Two key D-linemen acquired by trade.

Two pass rushers brought in on cheap free agent deals.

I don't know if the team can land another Avril and Bennett type in free agency again. I do feel that Pete can do the defensive drafting and development a second time.
 

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
knownone":2rz1ng6u said:
It's not Pete's philosophy that is the problem. It's the lack of a contingency plan when the philosophy isn't working, that is the problem. They need to do a better job of planning for teams that can potentially shut down our running game. As good as our running game was for 12 of 17 games this season when teams found a way to stop it our offense completely fell apart. The Seahawks are like a boxer with one great punch, neutralize it, and they suddenly turn into a boxer who's just trying to stay alive long enough to hopefully land one of em.

Pete, Schotty, and Russell's objective this offseason should be to find a way to build our offense so that when we need Russ to take over he can. If they don't feel like we have the personnel in place to do that then they need to do whatever it takes to get those guys on this team. Pete's proven he can take an average defense and make them good. He should use that to his advantage by investing more in his offense and relying on his strength at developing defensive players to offset the loss in spending on defense.

Yes - the Plan B is such a lackluster Plan B because they really don't invest much into things that have overlap with that Plan B. Plan B in my opinion is to utilize shorter routes and combo routes to realize 5-7 yard gains. If this was even a small part of what we do maybe it could be relied upon when needed and even keep our Plan A more intact.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,612
sdog1981":32w534kn said:
Sgt. Largent":32w534kn said:
sdog1981":32w534kn said:
Can Pete-ball work with a lower cost QB and money spent on other positions?

Is it wise to spend 15% of your team's salary cap on a player that will only be asked to throw 25 times a game?

Yes, we already know the answer because we went to two SB's with a cheap QB. But we also had an all time elite defense. So if you like that scenario, you better hope Pete can build another elite defense like the 2013-2015 to make up for your new QB being less productive and explosive than Russell is now in his prime.

I'm more for paying Russell and not having to try and assemble another all time elite defense. I'd rather it be a VERY good defense and a VERY good offense that can pound the rock and make explosive plays with a top 5 QB in his prime..........and I think that's where we're headed in the next 2-3 years.

Just weren't there yet this year.


Based off what I have seen Pete do I trust his ability to find and coach up defensive players.

I do too, that's why I'm not worried about it. But I also think that defense is a top 2-3 defense of all time, so while I think Pete and John can assemble another great defense, I don't think they can assemble another top 2-3 all time defense that would allow for no Russell, AND still win a SB.

Trading or allowing Russell to walk would be a monumental mistake IMO........unless we can draft a Mahomes type this year or next, we have to either extend Russell or franchise him until that replacement is found. You find another dynamic young QB? I'm all ears, but until then, I gotta keep Russell.
 

Fade

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
2,988
Location
Truth Ray
Sgt. Largent":2p2ybm7x said:
sdog1981":2p2ybm7x said:
Sgt. Largent":2p2ybm7x said:
sdog1981":2p2ybm7x said:
Can Pete-ball work with a lower cost QB and money spent on other positions?

Is it wise to spend 15% of your team's salary cap on a player that will only be asked to throw 25 times a game?

Yes, we already know the answer because we went to two SB's with a cheap QB. But we also had an all time elite defense. So if you like that scenario, you better hope Pete can build another elite defense like the 2013-2015 to make up for your new QB being less productive and explosive than Russell is now in his prime.

I'm more for paying Russell and not having to try and assemble another all time elite defense. I'd rather it be a VERY good defense and a VERY good offense that can pound the rock and make explosive plays with a top 5 QB in his prime..........and I think that's where we're headed in the next 2-3 years.

Just weren't there yet this year.


Based off what I have seen Pete do I trust his ability to find and coach up defensive players.

I do too, that's why I'm not worried about it. But I also think that defense is a top 2-3 defense of all time, so while I think Pete and John can assemble another great defense, I don't think they can assemble another top 2-3 all time defense that would allow for no Russell, AND still win a SB.

Trading or allowing Russell to walk would be a monumental mistake IMO........unless we can draft a Mahomes type this year or next, we have to either extend Russell or franchise him until that replacement is found. You find another dynamic young QB? I'm all ears, but until then, I gotta keep Russell.

Hold up.

Your argument through the years has been they couldn't pay Wilson $30M, and be a Superbowl contender? You flip-flopping?
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,612
Fade":2ykwyzt7 said:
Sgt. Largent":2ykwyzt7 said:
sdog1981":2ykwyzt7 said:
Sgt. Largent":2ykwyzt7 said:
Yes, we already know the answer because we went to two SB's with a cheap QB. But we also had an all time elite defense. So if you like that scenario, you better hope Pete can build another elite defense like the 2013-2015 to make up for your new QB being less productive and explosive than Russell is now in his prime.

I'm more for paying Russell and not having to try and assemble another all time elite defense. I'd rather it be a VERY good defense and a VERY good offense that can pound the rock and make explosive plays with a top 5 QB in his prime..........and I think that's where we're headed in the next 2-3 years.

Just weren't there yet this year.


Based off what I have seen Pete do I trust his ability to find and coach up defensive players.

I do too, that's why I'm not worried about it. But I also think that defense is a top 2-3 defense of all time, so while I think Pete and John can assemble another great defense, I don't think they can assemble another top 2-3 all time defense that would allow for no Russell, AND still win a SB.

Trading or allowing Russell to walk would be a monumental mistake IMO........unless we can draft a Mahomes type this year or next, we have to either extend Russell or franchise him until that replacement is found. You find another dynamic young QB? I'm all ears, but until then, I gotta keep Russell.

Hold up.

Your argument through the years has been they couldn't pay Wilson $30M, and be a Superbowl contender? You flip-flopping?

I've been consistent.........I've said since Russell's first big extension that the margin for error gets less and less the more you pay him to miss on draft picks and personnel decisions.

I've also said I'm open to trading and letting Russell walk, IF the next young dynamic QB is already on the roster. But damned if I want my Hawks to be another one of the 20-23 have nots in the league constantly wasting picks and money on QB's that don't work out.
 

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
Sgt. Largent":2ie528wa said:
Fade":2ie528wa said:
Sgt. Largent":2ie528wa said:
sdog1981":2ie528wa said:
Based off what I have seen Pete do I trust his ability to find and coach up defensive players.

I do too, that's why I'm not worried about it. But I also think that defense is a top 2-3 defense of all time, so while I think Pete and John can assemble another great defense, I don't think they can assemble another top 2-3 all time defense that would allow for no Russell, AND still win a SB.

Trading or allowing Russell to walk would be a monumental mistake IMO........unless we can draft a Mahomes type this year or next, we have to either extend Russell or franchise him until that replacement is found. You find another dynamic young QB? I'm all ears, but until then, I gotta keep Russell.

Hold up.

Your argument through the years has been they couldn't pay Wilson $30M, and be a Superbowl contender? You flip-flopping?

I've been consistent.........I've said since Russell's first big extension that the margin for error gets less and less the more you pay him to miss on draft picks and personnel decisions.

I've also said I'm open to trading and letting Russell walk, IF the next young dynamic QB is already on the roster. But damned if I want my Hawks to be another one of the 20-23 have nots in the league constantly wasting picks and money on QB's that don't work out.

Here's the one wrinkle - the margin for error on every other single player is smaller but the margin for error on RW himself...is non existent.

I keep banging on this drum but RW's latest contract did not impact the margin of error that much when weighing his output value against other signings output value. I keep using Joeckle as an example but there are more examples - RW's contract didn't make that 9.5 Million any smaller, and one could argue that because of Joeckles terrible performance for price, his reduction on the margin for error for the rest of the team was many times greater than RW's despite his one year salary being guaranteed and about 7/16th's of RW's APY.
 

IBleedBlueAndGreen

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,136
Reaction score
0
Location
Poulsbo, WA
sdog1981":2e1prj5t said:
Peteball can be played with Ryan Tinnihill.

This is a capped league. Either you find an old elite QB making 15 million per or you take your chances with a Dak type on a rookie deal.

If Pete traded Wilson to the Giants for Sequan, along with a first and second rounder this team would still be 11-5 10-6.

It is based on the math of salary cap and deminiahing returns. Don’t pay a QB 30 million if he is going to throw the ball less than 25 times a game. You can win in the NFL running the ball, just use the strategic advantage of low pass attempts to save money at the QB position.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. This offense is SUPPOSED to be predicated on running the ball first and foremost and then using that to be effective passing the ball DOWNFIELD. Russell Wilson is (if not the best) one of the two or three best deep ball passers in the NFL. You think that Ryan Tannehill could have had the same success, throwing for 35 touchdowns, with the limited amount of passing opportunities that Wilson had? You think Tannehill could have made plays outside the pocket when the O Line breaks down the way that Russell does? That's kind of a ridiculous way to think in my opinion.

The 2018 Seahawks would have been 5-11 with Ryan Tannehill behind center instead of Russell Wilson. And we'd have a top ten pick in the draft with a focus on finding somebody to replace Tannehill.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,612
IBleedBlueAndGreen":37kd2bkg said:
sdog1981":37kd2bkg said:
Peteball can be played with Ryan Tinnihill.

This is a capped league. Either you find an old elite QB making 15 million per or you take your chances with a Dak type on a rookie deal.

If Pete traded Wilson to the Giants for Sequan, along with a first and second rounder this team would still be 11-5 10-6.

It is based on the math of salary cap and deminiahing returns. Don’t pay a QB 30 million if he is going to throw the ball less than 25 times a game. You can win in the NFL running the ball, just use the strategic advantage of low pass attempts to save money at the QB position.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. This offense is SUPPOSED to be predicated on running the ball first and foremost and then using that to be effective passing the ball DOWNFIELD. Russell Wilson is (if not the best) one of the two or three best deep ball passers in the NFL. You think that Ryan Tannehill could have had the same success, throwing for 35 touchdowns, with the limited amount of passing opportunities that Wilson had? You think Tannehill could have made plays outside the pocket when the O Line breaks down the way that Russell does? That's kind of a ridiculous way to think in my opinion.

The 2018 Seahawks would have been 5-11 with Ryan Tannehill behind center instead of Russell Wilson. And we'd have a top ten pick in the draft with a focus on finding somebody to replace Tannehill.

And if Peteball could be played with Ryan Tannehill, then every team would be playing Peteball, because Tannehill's are a dime a dozen in the NFL.

What makes our offense dangerous is the combo of a physical run game AND Russell's explosiveness, accuracy to burn you downfield if you pack the box and his allusiveness.

This is the NFL, you can't be one dimensional, you need a QB that can make plays consistently to win. To think this offense would be anywhere near what it is with an average QB is naive.
 

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
IBleedBlueAndGreen":2n3ioyjc said:
sdog1981":2n3ioyjc said:
Peteball can be played with Ryan Tinnihill.

This is a capped league. Either you find an old elite QB making 15 million per or you take your chances with a Dak type on a rookie deal.

If Pete traded Wilson to the Giants for Sequan, along with a first and second rounder this team would still be 11-5 10-6.

It is based on the math of salary cap and deminiahing returns. Don’t pay a QB 30 million if he is going to throw the ball less than 25 times a game. You can win in the NFL running the ball, just use the strategic advantage of low pass attempts to save money at the QB position.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. This offense is SUPPOSED to be predicated on running the ball first and foremost and then using that to be effective passing the ball DOWNFIELD. Russell Wilson is (if not the best) one of the two or three best deep ball passers in the NFL. You think that Ryan Tannehill could have had the same success, throwing for 35 touchdowns, with the limited amount of passing opportunities that Wilson had? You think Tannehill could have made plays outside the pocket when the O Line breaks down the way that Russell does? That's kind of a ridiculous way to think in my opinion.

The 2018 Seahawks would have been 5-11 with Ryan Tannehill behind center instead of Russell Wilson. And we'd have a top ten pick in the draft with a focus on finding somebody to replace Tannehill.

The problem is that the plank of downfield passing doesn't necessarily NEED the run game to work and the run game itself seemingly comes at the expense of shorter pass plays that would accomplish a similar expected gain profile.

Point blank, the run game can ill afford to be below average because schematically everything on both sides of the ball is predicated on it not being below average and there is no 'short yardage passing gainers' in our book that we seem to happily rely on as a matter of course. When the run game is below average it further exacerbates the short/midrange passing gap because those are exactly the kinds of plays we need to convert in that scenario but only attempt out of necessity.
 

Spin Doctor

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
5,242
Reaction score
2,193
Sgt. Largent":8qz0hhdr said:
IBleedBlueAndGreen":8qz0hhdr said:
sdog1981":8qz0hhdr said:
Peteball can be played with Ryan Tinnihill.

This is a capped league. Either you find an old elite QB making 15 million per or you take your chances with a Dak type on a rookie deal.

If Pete traded Wilson to the Giants for Sequan, along with a first and second rounder this team would still be 11-5 10-6.

It is based on the math of salary cap and deminiahing returns. Don’t pay a QB 30 million if he is going to throw the ball less than 25 times a game. You can win in the NFL running the ball, just use the strategic advantage of low pass attempts to save money at the QB position.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. This offense is SUPPOSED to be predicated on running the ball first and foremost and then using that to be effective passing the ball DOWNFIELD. Russell Wilson is (if not the best) one of the two or three best deep ball passers in the NFL. You think that Ryan Tannehill could have had the same success, throwing for 35 touchdowns, with the limited amount of passing opportunities that Wilson had? You think Tannehill could have made plays outside the pocket when the O Line breaks down the way that Russell does? That's kind of a ridiculous way to think in my opinion.

The 2018 Seahawks would have been 5-11 with Ryan Tannehill behind center instead of Russell Wilson. And we'd have a top ten pick in the draft with a focus on finding somebody to replace Tannehill.

And if Peteball could be played with Ryan Tannehill, then every team would be playing Peteball, because Tannehill's are a dime a dozen in the NFL.

What makes our offense dangerous is the combo of a physical run game AND Russell's explosiveness, accuracy to burn you downfield if you pack the box and his allusiveness.

This is the NFL, you can't be one dimensional, you need a QB that can make plays consistently to win. To think this offense would be anywhere near what it is with an average QB is naive.
Tannehill's are not a dime a dozen.... He isn't a top tier QB for sure, but he isn't a replacement tier QB either, or at least he wasn't before this season. He was just outside the top 10 QB's in the NFL before this season. The dime a dozen QB's are your Fitzpatricks, and Bridgewaters.
 
Top