Neutral/Opposition view on Wilson

[John63]

You could certainly argue that most of that winning tradition, if not all of it recently, was built on Wilson's back.

Carroll was nothing but 7-9 without Wilson.

Trust me, I would love to see Pete get thrown out of the boat. (Unlikely for now)

Recently, yeah, but if we're talking about getting back to SB, Russ was almost assuredly the third most important piece of the teams that went to back-to-back Super Bowls, behind our defense and Marshawn Lynch.

Really hmm they had the top 5 defense and Lynch the year before and what were they? oh yea 7-9 what changed the next year oh yeh Wilson, How many games did Wilson have to do his magic to win that year 5, to include the playoff loss to Atlanta when that great defense allowed them to score in 35 seconds. The year we won the Sb he had 4 more 4th qtr OT come from behind wins, without them we don't make the playoffs. One could argue he as still the #1 reason.

 

[fenderbender123]

Good post. I especially agree on your point about Brady. His accomplishments are so far outside of statistical probabilities that it's not even worth comparing.

 

[DarkVictory23]

You could certainly argue that most of that winning tradition, if not all of it recently, was built on Wilson's back.

Carroll was nothing but 7-9 without Wilson.

Trust me, I would love to see Pete get thrown out of the boat. (Unlikely for now)

Recently, yeah, but if we're talking about getting back to SB, Russ was almost assuredly the third most important piece of the teams that went to back-to-back Super Bowls, behind our defense and Marshawn Lynch.

Really hmm they had the top 5 defense and Lynch the year before and what were they? oh yea 7-9 what changed the next year oh yeh Wilson, How many games did Wilson have to do his magic to win that year 5, to include the playoff loss to Atlanta when that great defense allowed them to score in 35 seconds. The year we won the Sb he had 4 more 4th qtr OT come from behind wins, without them we don't make the playoffs. One could argue he as still the #1 reason.

In 2013, we went from a 'top 5' defense to THE best defense for two straight seasons.

Bringing Russ on led to us gaining, approximately, slightly less than a touchdown worth of offensive production a game from Hasselbeck/Jackson (from about 20 pts. a game to about 25). This is good, but that's not exactly the 'final piece of the puzzle' if you have an average defense. In fact, if our team was 'merely' a top 10-ish defense (as our offense was), we're giving up about 24 points a game, just an extra points worth of difference from our offensive production. You think we only need 4 fourth quarter/OT comebacks in that situation?


Russ's ability to put together magic in 4th quarter/OT drives is something I would never question. He absolutely was a major factor in us going to back-to-back Super Bowls. But saying he was more important than the best defense in the entire NFL? That's stretching to me...

 

[gowazzu02]

Great post OP. Agree w/ Brady, he's the exception not the rule.

I've stayed pretty quiet on this whole topic. Because I am a huge fan of both Pete and Russ.

The thing that is odd to me, is this past year, our offensive line was the best it's been in the Russ era. I don't know if there's a stat for it, but would love to see how many sacks were after he was given 3-4 plus seconds in the pocket.

I know I was screaming for him to hit the checkdown/over the middle guys who seemed to always be open. But I'm just a fan watching the broadcast on a 75 inch tv. Sure I don't know the design of the play or really anything above what I've learned watching football my entire adult life. But it was just weird.

I just don't know.

 

[John63]

Great post OP. Agree w/ Brady, he's the exception not the rule.

I've stayed pretty quiet on this whole topic. Because I am a huge fan of both Pete and Russ.

The thing that is odd to me, is this past year, our offensive line was the best it's been in the Russ era. I don't know if there's a stat for it, but would love to see how many sacks were after he was given 3-4 plus seconds in the pocket.

I know I was screaming for him to hit the checkdown/over the middle guys who seemed to always be open. But I'm just a fan watching the broadcast on a 75 inch tv. Sure I don't know the design of the play or really anything above what I've learned watching football my entire adult life. But it was just weird.

I just don't know.

Also how many sacks that most QBs would take did he get out of?

Also if this is just a Wilson thing how come both QBs PC had before Wilson also got hit, hurries, sacked and pressured at a really high rate

Example
2011 50 sacks top 3 in hit, hurried, sacked or pressured
2010 35 sacks PCs First year top 3 in hit, hurried, sacked or pressured

That's a lot of sacks This is not a Wilson thing it is a PC thing

 

[knownone]

Well, just a few thoughts. Either way, most franchises would swap for your QB and situation in a heartbeat. If this was Carolina and someone needs to go overboard to lighten the load, Pete is getting wet long before Wilson.

The key difference here is that Seattle is not most franchises or Carolina. The Panthers have a new owner in his 2nd year, and they just hired a new GM. In contrast, even after Paul Allen's death, Seattle has a strong and established culture to fall back on. Pete Carroll and John Schnieder have had an immense amount of success. They've won a Superbowl and built a defense with the longest reign of dominance in the salary cap era. Unlike most teams around the league, they feel like they can move on from a player of Russell's caliber.

Now, whether we agree with that sentiment or not, it's definitely worthy of consideration when it comes to the topic of trading Russell. Because if I were PC or JS, It would be hard to look at the team from 2012-2017 and think that Russell is the only reason they were successful. And if that's the case, you're going to think you can do it again without him. Perhaps it is hubris, but it's absolutely what is happening inside that building if Russ is truly unhappy and trying to make a power play.

This is hard for me as a Seahawks fan. I have zero doubt that Russ is a top 3 QB and a 1st ballot HoFer. However, I also think that Pete and JS would be successful without him. They probably wouldn't be a consistent Superbowl threat unless they landed another elite-level QB, but they are not falling off a cliff.

As always, I appreciate the outsider's perspective.

"Unlike most teams around the league, they feel like they can move on from a player of Russell's caliber. " Your proof of this?

"Pete Carroll and John Schnieder have had an immense amount of success. They've won a Superbowl and built a defense with the longest reign of dominance in the salary cap era."


And what success did they have before Wilson? NONE

There are numerous reports that Seattle explored trading Wilson in prior offseasons. The most obvious being a trade with Cleveland where they supposedly would have drafted Josh Allen #1 overall.

What success did Wilson have prior to Pete Carroll? NONE. lol. I can play that game too.

Pete Carroll had one of the most dominant stretches in college football history. He came within inches of winning 3 National Championships in a row. Before Wilson, he's coached a top 12 defense in 9 out of 12 seasons in the NFL. He also has more playoff wins without Wilson than Wilson has without the LOB.

John Schnieder's track record without Wilson should be pretty obvious. He built the LOB. He drafted Russell Wilson in the 3rd round. He was the 2nd in command with the Packers when they drafted Aaron Rodgers, and he helped turn them into a Superbowl team.

To attribute all of their success to Russ, or to assume that 4 straight #1 defenses and 6 straight top 5 defenses are somehow due to him is absurd.

 

[DarkVictory23]

Good post. I especially agree on your point about Brady. His accomplishments are so far outside of statistical probabilities that it's not even worth comparing.

Yeah, I didn't comment on this part earlier, but it is a REALLY good point. Seahawks fans, despite our problems with either Pete, Russ, or (for some) both... really have had an amazing bit of time.

I mean, from my case, I have been watching Seahawks off and on since 1989 or so but only been a hardcore/watch every game/my week is ruined if they lose type of fan since about 2003. So, since 2003, as a Seahawks fan, I have watched my team go to the playoffs 14 times, win their division 9 times, go to 3 Super Bowls and win one of them. I mean... as frustrating as this stretch of good but not good enough the last five years has been, outside of like, the Patriots and Steelers, pretty much every other NFL fan in the league would love to trade the last 17 years of their franchise for the last 17 that I've had.

I mean, we would all love to have what Brady and (to a slightly lesser degree now) the Pats have had over that time, but that's simply not realistic.

Also how many sacks that most QBs would take did he get out of?

Also if this is just a Wilson thing how come both QBs PC had before Wilson also got hit, hurries, sacked and pressured at a really high rate

Example
2011 50 sacks top 3 in hit, hurried, sacked or pressured
2010 35 sacks PCs First year top 3 in hit, hurried, sacked or pressured

That's a lot of sacks This is not a Wilson thing it is a PC thing

This is legit. Pete's abilities as a offensive coach are limited. He simply relies far too much on an RB that breaks tackles and a QB that can put together magic in the final minutes.

I don't hate Pete's overall philosophy (control the ball and the tempo of the game). I think the NFL/sports media's projection about how run heavy/strong defense type teams are 'obsolete' now is complete nonsense. But Pete's actual implementation puts so much pressure for individual athletes to have great performances in order to 'work'.

'Hoping' your RB will break 3 tackles every time he touches the ball or your QB will turn something into nothing when you finally let him throw on the final drive of the game isn't a strategy but it seems to be the only one Pete can manage.

 

[John63]

Well, just a few thoughts. Either way, most franchises would swap for your QB and situation in a heartbeat. If this was Carolina and someone needs to go overboard to lighten the load, Pete is getting wet long before Wilson.

The key difference here is that Seattle is not most franchises or Carolina. The Panthers have a new owner in his 2nd year, and they just hired a new GM. In contrast, even after Paul Allen's death, Seattle has a strong and established culture to fall back on. Pete Carroll and John Schnieder have had an immense amount of success. They've won a Superbowl and built a defense with the longest reign of dominance in the salary cap era. Unlike most teams around the league, they feel like they can move on from a player of Russell's caliber.

Now, whether we agree with that sentiment or not, it's definitely worthy of consideration when it comes to the topic of trading Russell. Because if I were PC or JS, It would be hard to look at the team from 2012-2017 and think that Russell is the only reason they were successful. And if that's the case, you're going to think you can do it again without him. Perhaps it is hubris, but it's absolutely what is happening inside that building if Russ is truly unhappy and trying to make a power play.

This is hard for me as a Seahawks fan. I have zero doubt that Russ is a top 3 QB and a 1st ballot HoFer. However, I also think that Pete and JS would be successful without him. They probably wouldn't be a consistent Superbowl threat unless they landed another elite-level QB, but they are not falling off a cliff.

As always, I appreciate the outsider's perspective.

"Unlike most teams around the league, they feel like they can move on from a player of Russell's caliber. " Your proof of this?

"Pete Carroll and John Schnieder have had an immense amount of success. They've won a Superbowl and built a defense with the longest reign of dominance in the salary cap era."


And what success did they have before Wilson? NONE

There are numerous reports that Seattle explored trading Wilson in prior offseasons. The most obvious being a trade with Cleveland where they supposedly would have drafted Josh Allen #1 overall.

What success did Wilson have prior to Pete Carroll? NONE. lol. I can play that game too.

Pete Carroll had one of the most dominant stretches in college football history. He came within inches of winning 3 National Championships in a row. Before Wilson, he's coached a top 12 defense in 9 out of 12 seasons in the NFL. He also has more playoff wins without Wilson than Wilson has without the LOB.

John Schnieder's track record without Wilson should be pretty obvious. He built the LOB. He drafted Russell Wilson in the 3rd round. He was the 2nd in command with the Packers when they drafted Aaron Rodgers, and he helped turn them into a Superbowl team.

To attribute all of their success to Russ, or to assume that 4 straight #1 defenses and 6 straight top 5 defenses are somehow due to him is absurd.

Ahh Wilson has been a winner every place he has been to include College. I am not attributing the defense to Wilson but to not give Wilson his credit for the success of this team is absurd as well. Especially given he had this top defense and top RB before Wilson and was 7-9. PC has a losing record in the NFL without Wilson.

 

[FresnoHawk52]

Question for the OP and Seahawks fans:

Would you take the deal for Wilson that the Panthers would have to reportedly offer for Watson? Peter King speculated on sending Christian McCaffrey, Teddy Bridgewater, Robby Anderson, its 2021 first-round and second-round picks, its 2022 first-round pick, and 2023 third-round pick.

This is quite the trade package and I would love to see Wilson back in NC. It may make me invest in Panthers PSL's.

McCaffrey is dead weight after his injury same goes for RB Barkley after injury their value plummets, it doesn’t matter if they’re still great players they have no tradeable value.

 

[FresnoHawk52]

The key difference here is that Seattle is not most franchises or Carolina. The Panthers have a new owner in his 2nd year, and they just hired a new GM. In contrast, even after Paul Allen's death, Seattle has a strong and established culture to fall back on. Pete Carroll and John Schnieder have had an immense amount of success. They've won a Superbowl and built a defense with the longest reign of dominance in the salary cap era. Unlike most teams around the league, they feel like they can move on from a player of Russell's caliber.

Now, whether we agree with that sentiment or not, it's definitely worthy of consideration when it comes to the topic of trading Russell. Because if I were PC or JS, It would be hard to look at the team from 2012-2017 and think that Russell is the only reason they were successful. And if that's the case, you're going to think you can do it again without him. Perhaps it is hubris, but it's absolutely what is happening inside that building if Russ is truly unhappy and trying to make a power play.

This is hard for me as a Seahawks fan. I have zero doubt that Russ is a top 3 QB and a 1st ballot HoFer. However, I also think that Pete and JS would be successful without him. They probably wouldn't be a consistent Superbowl threat unless they landed another elite-level QB, but they are not falling off a cliff.

As always, I appreciate the outsider's perspective.

"Unlike most teams around the league, they feel like they can move on from a player of Russell's caliber. " Your proof of this?

"Pete Carroll and John Schnieder have had an immense amount of success. They've won a Superbowl and built a defense with the longest reign of dominance in the salary cap era."



And what success did they have before Wilson? NONE

There are numerous reports that Seattle explored trading Wilson in prior offseasons. The most obvious being a trade with Cleveland where they supposedly would have drafted Josh Allen #1 overall.

What success did Wilson have prior to Pete Carroll? NONE. lol. I can play that game too.

Pete Carroll had one of the most dominant stretches in college football history. He came within inches of winning 3 National Championships in a row. Before Wilson, he's coached a top 12 defense in 9 out of 12 seasons in the NFL. He also has more playoff wins without Wilson than Wilson has without the LOB.

John Schnieder's track record without Wilson should be pretty obvious. He built the LOB. He drafted Russell Wilson in the 3rd round. He was the 2nd in command with the Packers when they drafted Aaron Rodgers, and he helped turn them into a Superbowl team.


To attribute all of their success to Russ, or to assume that 4 straight #1 defenses and 6 straight top 5 defenses are somehow due to him is absurd.

Ahh Wilson has been a winner every place he has been to include College. I am not attributing the defense to Wilson but to not give Wilson his credit for the success of this team is absurd as well. Especially given he had this top defense and top RB before Wilson and was 7-9. PC has a losing record in the NFL without Wilson.

Not true! RW didn’t become a champion until he became a Seahawk!

 

[Shev]

Question for the OP and Seahawks fans:

Would you take the deal for Wilson that the Panthers would have to reportedly offer for Watson? Peter King speculated on sending Christian McCaffrey, Teddy Bridgewater, Robby Anderson, its 2021 first-round and second-round picks, its 2022 first-round pick, and 2023 third-round pick.

This is quite the trade package and I would love to see Wilson back in NC. It may make me invest in Panthers PSL's.

I would do this in a heartbeat. I'd volunteer to drive the Carolina players to Seattle myself, and make home-made gold leaf envelopes to present the picks in.

 

[knownone]

The key difference here is that Seattle is not most franchises or Carolina. The Panthers have a new owner in his 2nd year, and they just hired a new GM. In contrast, even after Paul Allen's death, Seattle has a strong and established culture to fall back on. Pete Carroll and John Schnieder have had an immense amount of success. They've won a Superbowl and built a defense with the longest reign of dominance in the salary cap era. Unlike most teams around the league, they feel like they can move on from a player of Russell's caliber.

Now, whether we agree with that sentiment or not, it's definitely worthy of consideration when it comes to the topic of trading Russell. Because if I were PC or JS, It would be hard to look at the team from 2012-2017 and think that Russell is the only reason they were successful. And if that's the case, you're going to think you can do it again without him. Perhaps it is hubris, but it's absolutely what is happening inside that building if Russ is truly unhappy and trying to make a power play.

This is hard for me as a Seahawks fan. I have zero doubt that Russ is a top 3 QB and a 1st ballot HoFer. However, I also think that Pete and JS would be successful without him. They probably wouldn't be a consistent Superbowl threat unless they landed another elite-level QB, but they are not falling off a cliff.

As always, I appreciate the outsider's perspective.

"Unlike most teams around the league, they feel like they can move on from a player of Russell's caliber. " Your proof of this?

"Pete Carroll and John Schnieder have had an immense amount of success. They've won a Superbowl and built a defense with the longest reign of dominance in the salary cap era."


And what success did they have before Wilson? NONE

There are numerous reports that Seattle explored trading Wilson in prior offseasons. The most obvious being a trade with Cleveland where they supposedly would have drafted Josh Allen #1 overall.

What success did Wilson have prior to Pete Carroll? NONE. lol. I can play that game too.

Pete Carroll had one of the most dominant stretches in college football history. He came within inches of winning 3 National Championships in a row. Before Wilson, he's coached a top 12 defense in 9 out of 12 seasons in the NFL. He also has more playoff wins without Wilson than Wilson has without the LOB.

John Schnieder's track record without Wilson should be pretty obvious. He built the LOB. He drafted Russell Wilson in the 3rd round. He was the 2nd in command with the Packers when they drafted Aaron Rodgers, and he helped turn them into a Superbowl team.

To attribute all of their success to Russ, or to assume that 4 straight #1 defenses and 6 straight top 5 defenses are somehow due to him is absurd.

Ahh Wilson has been a winner every place he has been to include College. I am not attributing the defense to Wilson but to not give Wilson his credit for the success of this team is absurd as well. Especially given he had this top defense and top RB before Wilson and was 7-9. PC has a losing record in the NFL without Wilson.

Where did I make that argument? I'm essentially saying that Pete and John have had enough success that they'd think they could rebuild without Wilson. That's why I referred to hubris because I'm not sure they'd be right if that were their assessment.

Are we really going to hold Pete accountable for not winning with Jack Trudeau, Charlie Whitehurst, and the corpse of Matt Hasselbeck? Pete has a winning record every year he's had a franchise-caliber QB.