LTH":fd3naatv said:
SoulfishHawk":fd3naatv said:
So now Geno is Joe Montana. Got it..........
lets face it Geno does have a different game than Russ does...That quick passing game (stuff he did in college that we might see now) might suit the Hawks better because of where the D stands right now... I'm not saying Geno is Joe Montana or better than Russ but I am saying that it's the Hawks philosophy to play to a players strength and I see no reason why they would not do that with Geno which might optimize the team as a whole...
am I wrong?
LTH
Alex Smith got the ball out quickly. The Chiefs got rid of him for a big play QB who holds onto the ball.
Great QB play is about decision making, not a quick passing game. I can't believe this is the hill some of you are willing to die on. It's as if you all think the Josh McDaniels/Tom Brady way is going to save you. But it's not Brady's quick passing that has made him great, it's his decision making. And the fact that he can usually comb his hair in the pocket.
So if Geno does quick passes and also throws over the middle, that will solve it? You realize that you still need to beat teams over the top right? Most defenses WANT you to quick pass and dink/dunk your way all over the field. Because 10-15 play drives are likely to result in mistakes. A fumble, an interception, a false start. A team that can get cheap points every now and then are usually great on offense.
So Geno playing opposite of Russ, is not necessarily a good thing if you're not scoring enough, and if you're not capitalizing in the red zone. You have to protect the ball, throw accurately, scare teams over the top, and score points. Something we've had no problem doing under Russ but something you take for granted because you think what Russ does every Sunday is easy. You all keep talking about what Geno does well while ignoring the OTHER things he has to do well.
Sgt. Largent":fd3naatv said:
SoulfishHawk":fd3naatv said:
It's a good point :mrgreen:
That I think Geno is Joe Montana?
No, it's a terrible point. Inaccurate, exaggerated and lazily passive aggressive.
This forum has a lot of age old narratives that just aren't true, and one of the big ones is OMG Russell would be so amazing on another team.
Take your pick of teams, and Russell would still hold onto the ball and get hit a lot looking to make the big plays downfield, has very little to do with protection and the O-line.
It's ingrained in his football DNA. That's they style of QB he is, for better or worse. Most of the time it's for the better, but that better is diminishing with each and every year his legs and body fail him more and more.
Oh my you're right. Russ might just go to another team and..*checks notes*...score 42 touchdowns. For an offensive minded coach better than Schotty, Bevel, or a rookie O-Coordinator who has LITERALLY never called games before (Shane Waldron).
How on earth will Russ ever succeed with a coach better than these options? Every other QB would score 50 TDs with those guys.
How does something become an age old narrative that isn't true? Because you want it to be so? Sure sounds like it. I want to be respectful on here but some of you are really stubborn and too prideful to admit your viewpoints have a million holes in them.
I look at the Cardinals, and the Bills, and the Chiefs. All three have QBs who hold the ball longer than Russ...based on actual facts. Do we care about actual facts? Or winning arguments? We're sticking to actual facts right, not just stuff you or myself want to be true?
I look at the Cardinals, and I see they sign Hopkins, AJ Green, and now they trade for Ertz. They invested in the O-line. In summary, they invested in the offense way more than the Seahawks have ever invested for Russ. Please, I would love for you to actually debate that this is false. We can even compare with the BIlls and Chiefs next.
The feeling that Russ would succeed on another team, is based on the fact that he gets rid of the ball quicker than he did before (FACT). That based on actual O-line stats, he's had a bad O-line for most of his career (FACT). And he has always played for an old school Defensive coach (FACT). Russ has never had the Seahawks sign a top 3 receiver like Hopkins, or nearly the level of scheme and offensive investment that some of these other QBs have.
You all spent years analyzing Wilson who played with Kearse, Ricardo Lockette, A Doug Baldwin that took years to mature, a DK Metcalf that has the dropsies and is still maturing, and a solid wide receiver in Lockett who has limitations. None of those options are Hopkins, AJ Green, and now Zach Ertz all at once on the same team. None of those options are Kelce and Hill with an offensive genius in Andy Reid.
Your argument is no different than those who said Lamar Jackson would never be able to throw. Or that Kyler Murray was a bust, or that Ryan Tannehill would never succeed. Especially for Jackson, Murray, and Wilson, we all love to put people who are "different" in boxes. I sometimes get sad realizing that if Murray or Jackson played for a conservative defensive minded coach, they would never realize their potential. Instead, their teams invested heavily in them, and believed in them. They don't listen to guys like yourself who never invest in those who are "different," then blame them for their "shortcomings." That is what Pete did with Russ.
Everything that makes Russ great...his playmaking...his overall accuracy, his deep throw accuracy..his strong arm, his instincts and decision making. That is all him. I'll give Pete credit for perhaps teaching Russ how to read defenses, but that inevitably comes with time for good QBs. There is nothing Pete has contributed to Russ' career that isn't replaceable. Coaching matters and where you land matters. Russ has never had an elite offensive coach or a strict focus of investment on the offense. He's never been given the keys to run an offense like what the Cardinals are doing now..spreading defenses out with elite weapons.
Four of Pete's last Five first round picks, have been an investment in Pete's philosophy (not his quarterback). Ignoring that fact is literally the definition of a lazy narrative.