Russell Wilson gets sacked an average of once every 10.4 passing attempts. The only teams worse than that are the Jaguars (8), Redskins (9.1), 49ers (8.9), Jets (10.1). That's pretty horrible whichever way you look at it.
I look at it this way. Russell Wilson is the best scrambling QB in the NFL, and whilst him holding onto the ball longer than any other QB has led to a fair amount of these sacks, his ability to evade them balances that out.
Clearly we compromise a lot of our passing game for a stout running game, so let's have a look at how some other teams with a top rushing game rank (I recognize that our rushing game is by some way the best, that's the benefit of having your QB run for over 750 yards).
The Jets rank next to us, and they have a similar sack rate (per 10.1 attempts). Wilson > Vick > Smith.
The Dallas Cowboys are everyone's favourite example of a good O-line, and I think it's justified. They've stunk it up in a few games where they were clearly outcoached, but for the most part, they look a really good unit. They're ranked third in rushing ypg, and their QB gets sacked once every 14.5 attempts (credit where it's due, Romo is one of the more evasive QBs in the league even with a bad back, but that's still a good line).
Houston Texans rank next in the run game. Their QB only gets sacked once every 17.7 attempts. Russell Wilson would lead them to Super Bowls.
Fifth are the Ravens, who IMO have the best line in football. I love seeing J-Force carving it up there, but it's hard to think Lynch wouldn't be doing even better behind that line, and Wilson might have himself 29 (29.3) attempts before getting sacked - that's what Flacco's getting.
Now this information is just based on sacks. It would be interesting/uncomfortable reading to include hits in the breakdown.
I don't want to come to the hasty conclusion that Cable and our O-line flat out suck (I've already said I'm not convinced I trust Cable to protect the future of this franchise - Russell Wilson), there's other things to consider here.
In our best year - Russell's first year, he was being afforded the best part of 12 attempts before taking a sack (11.9), however, he had Sidney Rice, Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin and Zach Miller to throw to, all of whom combined to miss only 3 games!
Russell's taken more coverage sacks this year than I can remember. Still, a healthy combination of those 2012 targets only afforded him an extra 1.5 attempts per game. Granted, it was his Rookie year, put third year Russell in that situation and it's feasible to think we'd probably have something more reminiscent of Dallas' 2014 stats. We'll never know, all I remember of that year was our O-line looking really solid down the stretch, and we had a 7th round DT playing RG for the first time.
Our passing game has undoubtedly got weaker since then, and in (negative) correlation with the rising sacks. Last year Russ was only afforded 9.25 attempts before being sacked, and if it's a surprise how it's got slightly better this year despite Russ looking worse, it shouldn't be. "Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing your starting left tackle... PAUL - MC - QUISTAN!!!"
Anyway, my point is that the loss of WRs IS an acceptable argument for the Russell taking more punishment, not sure I had to make that point, but I'm pretty sure I'd seen people suggest otherwise/refuse to acknowledge it.
However, it's only a contributing factor. The sack rate's never been anything to write home about and we appear to have regressed since 2012. Whilst injuries have hurt our chances at progression, they're nothing new to contend with. Outside of Sweezy the guys Cable has bought in have left much to be desired, out of five starters three can't be trusted to stay healthy and our depth is ugly to say the least.
So much of our effectiveness appears to hinge on Unger, which is acceptable, but the amount of unforced mistakes we make without him is not. Zach Miller is a better pass protector than our second round draft pick.
I just don't think this is an acceptable state of things when we're about to make Russell Wilson the highest paid Seahawk in history and one of the highest in the NFL. Whilst this formula has led to success, it appears it's only a matter of time before it really hurts Russell, and subsequently us. Can we afford to keep taking that risk?
We've spent a lot of money trying to hit on offensive weapons like Rice and Harvin, but I'd rather we focused it on our O-line, I think that's ultimately going to be more beneficial to Russ and whoever we replace Lynch with.
Also, if Russ is serious about wanting to be the best in history, then taking some discount on the trust that we'll try and improve the offense will not hinder that ambition.
