(OPINION) Wilson won't sign an extension this year unless

[MontanaHawk05]

Well, there's making plays, and then there's making ridiculous plays. Very few QB's have made some of the plays that Russ has made, especially in the clutch. He's one of the best finishers in league history, already.

Anyone else find it fishy that Anthony! left at around the same time Soulfish started posting more prominently?

As if it's rare to find a Seahawks fan who vigorously defends a skilled franchise QB after what he saw in the 90s.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yeah, other than Zorn, Krieg, Hass, Moon and Russ...….mainly crap sammiches at QB. Dilfer was ok, T-Jack, meh.....

But........The Mirer (other than his rookie year) Kemp, Stouffer, Friesz and Gelbaugh Era ukeface:

 

[John63]

Well, there's making plays, and then there's making ridiculous plays. Very few QB's have made some of the plays that Russ has made, especially in the clutch. He's one of the best finishers in league history, already.

Anyone else find it fishy that Anthony! left at around the same time Soulfish started posting more prominently?

Based on grammar, punctuation, sentence-structure, and protests in Russ-related posts, our new "John" fits the genre far more.

Sorry, Tical. Soulfish is far too positive generally to fit the "Anthony"-(and reincarnations)-profile.

Please do not bring me into this whatever it is you guys have going. While I have looked back at a lot of posts in this forum, and have my own thoughts on peoples need to alienate, pick on, gang up on, or name call others, I want no part of it. As long as you are talking football, bring the facts, I don't care who you are or were. If I don't like something about what you say or how you say it, well that is what the foe is for, I am not going to engage in talking bad about people, especially when I don't know them personally, not my job to judge.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Go Hawks!

 

[tom95]

Worst thread ever

Agree

 

[Tical21]

Go Hawks! Unless you have anything critical to say. In that case it is my duty to point out that we have had some bad quarterbacks before, therefore requiring you to kneel and kiss the feet of the one that brought us a super bowl! And I must search endlessly through every thread for every critical reference and remind everyone how blessed we truly are! Because someone dare think the quarterback could improve in a few areas! Hes only the 4th best qb living, you say? Blasphemy!! How dare you!? Are you even a fan at all?

 

[KiwiHawk]

For what it's worth I agree that Wilson is amazing at making things happen out of seemingly nothing, and when the game is on the line, he tends to do it more than most.

On the other hand he takes those 27-yard sacks, sometimes makes stupid, brain-explosion throws, doesn't see open receivers, and when he's cold, he's absolutely useless. Fortunately, that's rare. I think there have only been a couple games in which he's inexplicably just stunk.

In Carroll's scheme, there are opportunities created for those big plays that kill the other team. They are often few. But it's how we capitalise on those few opportunities that often determines the outcome of the game, and that's why Seattle needs a quality gunslinger at QB even though the number-crunchers protest on the basis of percentages and stats-vs-league-average.

We don't do it the same way the rest of the league does, so stats-vs-league-average don't really mean much. It's all about what happens in the moments of opportunity, and there are very few guys out there who can make those moments count as well as Wilson can.

 

[vin.couve12]

If it's 30 mil or over just cut it off. Seattle has a SB because of defense. RW will LEAD exactly no team to a superbowl ever. He's not that guy and is almost completely useless exept for the 2 minute drill and part of the 4th quarter after digging a hole and leaving the D on the field the whole game. There's no point if we have to run the ball 55% of the time or more just to be a competent offense and have some measure of ball control.

RW has severe butt pucker every game. He can't process and would rather eat ish than pull the trigger ....after missing opportunities. He's successful when he doesn't have time to think and is in an up tempo mode. If you're a fan of his, you should probably want him coached by Chip Kelly or something where he has no time to overthink.

On that note, Mariota will likely be available...

 

[John63]

If it's 30 mil or over just cut it off. Seattle has a SB because of defense. RW will LEAD exactly no team to a superbowl ever. He's not that guy and is almost completely useless exept for the 2 minute drill and part of the 4th quarter after digging a hole and leaving the D on the field the whole game. There's no point if we have to run the ball 55% of the time or more just to be a competent offense and have some measure of ball control.

RW has severe butt pucker every game. He can't process and would rather eat ish than pull the trigger ....after missing opportunities. He's successful when he doesn't have time to think and is in an up tempo mode. If you're a fan of his, you should probably want him coached by Chip Kelly or something where he has no time to overthink.

On that note, Mariota will likely be available...

Spoken like a person that just hates the guy, not a person basing his opinion on facts. I am glad you are not running our or any team. The FACTS show everything you said that is not based on the future which has not happened is wrong. I will foe you as you are bringing nothing but hate to this board. Goodbye

 

[vin.couve12]

If it's 30 mil or over just cut it off. Seattle has a SB because of defense. RW will LEAD exactly no team to a superbowl ever. He's not that guy and is almost completely useless exept for the 2 minute drill and part of the 4th quarter after digging a hole and leaving the D on the field the whole game. There's no point if we have to run the ball 55% of the time or more just to be a competent offense and have some measure of ball control.

RW has severe butt pucker every game. He can't process and would rather eat ish than pull the trigger ....after missing opportunities. He's successful when he doesn't have time to think and is in an up tempo mode. If you're a fan of his, you should probably want him coached by Chip Kelly or something where he has no time to overthink.

On that note, Mariota will likely be available...

Spoken like a person that just hates the guy, not a person basing his opinion on facts. I am glad you are not running our or any team. The FACTS show everything you said that is not based on the future which has not happened is wrong. I will foe you as you are bringing nothing but hate to this board. Goodbye

Lmao! Hate? I'm sort of indifferent to a point. ROI and use case is at play. His play is elevated by an effective power running game. Not the other way around. Outside of that, you can't go pass heavy around him and he's just good enough to get your team over the hump on an outstanding overall team. Other than that glorious 7 games out of 100 or whatever that people always site as proof that one year, as if that remotely holds weight as a ratio of games, there is no reason to think he'll magically turn into that guy that carries the team to that one goal. He can be a part of it, but he won't lead it.

So, in a salary cap, is that the QB that you pay more than all others? I get the sliding scale of contracts, but he's not worth that. That's not your cliche hate claim. Thats just putting a value on a player and it's a bad business deal.

 

[Tical21]

I think I might cry.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Comic gold.

 

[chris98251]

If it's 30 mil or over just cut it off. Seattle has a SB because of defense. RW will LEAD exactly no team to a superbowl ever. He's not that guy and is almost completely useless exept for the 2 minute drill and part of the 4th quarter after digging a hole and leaving the D on the field the whole game. There's no point if we have to run the ball 55% of the time or more just to be a competent offense and have some measure of ball control.

RW has severe butt pucker every game. He can't process and would rather eat ish than pull the trigger ....after missing opportunities. He's successful when he doesn't have time to think and is in an up tempo mode. If you're a fan of his, you should probably want him coached by Chip Kelly or something where he has no time to overthink.

On that note, Mariota will likely be available...

Spoken like a person that just hates the guy, not a person basing his opinion on facts. I am glad you are not running our or any team. The FACTS show everything you said that is not based on the future which has not happened is wrong. I will foe you as you are bringing nothing but hate to this board. Goodbye

Lmao! Hate? I'm sort of indifferent to a point. ROI and use case is at play. His play is elevated by an effective power running game. Not the other way around. Outside of that, you can't go pass heavy around him and he's just good enough to get your team over the hump on an outstanding overall team. Other than that glorious 7 games out of 100 or whatever that people always site as proof that one year, as if that remotely holds weight as a ratio of games, there is no reason to think he'll magically turn into that guy that carries the team to that one goal. He can be a part of it, but he won't lead it.

So, in a salary cap, is that the QB that you pay more than all others? I get the sliding scale of contracts, but he's not worth that. That's not your cliche hate claim. Thats just putting a value on a player and it's a bad business deal.

And every passing QB is elevated by his receivers but their running game sucks on most teams. It comes down to philosophy and how good your OC is at using talent. Better to have a QB that has a running game that can elevate when asked then a passing QB that if they get shut down has no other options, Ask Peyton Manning.... A good defense is needed in both situations to win it all also. So saying Wilson was carried by a defense doesn't work either, most Super Bowls are won with a team with a very good defense as well.

 

[Uncle Si]

If it's 30 mil or over just cut it off. Seattle has a SB because of defense. RW will LEAD exactly no team to a superbowl ever. He's not that guy and is almost completely useless exept for the 2 minute drill and part of the 4th quarter after digging a hole and leaving the D on the field the whole game. There's no point if we have to run the ball 55% of the time or more just to be a competent offense and have some measure of ball control.

RW has severe butt pucker every game. He can't process and would rather eat ish than pull the trigger ....after missing opportunities. He's successful when he doesn't have time to think and is in an up tempo mode. If you're a fan of his, you should probably want him coached by Chip Kelly or something where he has no time to overthink.

On that note, Mariota will likely be available...

Spoken like a person that just hates the guy, not a person basing his opinion on facts. I am glad you are not running our or any team. The FACTS show everything you said that is not based on the future which has not happened is wrong. I will foe you as you are bringing nothing but hate to this board. Goodbye

Lmao! Hate? I'm sort of indifferent to a point. ROI and use case is at play. His play is elevated by an effective power running game. Not the other way around. Outside of that, you can't go pass heavy around him and he's just good enough to get your team over the hump on an outstanding overall team. Other than that glorious 7 games out of 100 or whatever that people always site as proof that one year, as if that remotely holds weight as a ratio of games, there is no reason to think he'll magically turn into that guy that carries the team to that one goal. He can be a part of it, but he won't lead it.

So, in a salary cap, is that the QB that you pay more than all others? I get the sliding scale of contracts, but he's not worth that. That's not your cliche hate claim. Thats just putting a value on a player and it's a bad business deal.

And every passing QB is elevated by his receivers but their running game sucks on most teams. It comes down to philosophy and how good your OC is at using talent. Better to have a QB that has a running game that can elevate when asked then a passing QB that if they get shut down has no other options, Ask Peyton Manning.... A good defense is needed in both situations to win it all also. So saying Wilson was carried by a defense doesn't work either, most Super Bowls are won with a team with a very good defense as well.

Well said Chris.

Just look at the last two Super Bowl winners. Both sides of the ball contributed massively to the playoff successes and then both needed to step up in big moments in the championship game

 

[whidbeast]

Mariota is an injury machine behind a good O line. He would've died if he had to take Russ hits.

 

[vin.couve12]

Spoken like a person that just hates the guy, not a person basing his opinion on facts. I am glad you are not running our or any team. The FACTS show everything you said that is not based on the future which has not happened is wrong. I will foe you as you are bringing nothing but hate to this board. Goodbye

Lmao! Hate? I'm sort of indifferent to a point. ROI and use case is at play. His play is elevated by an effective power running game. Not the other way around. Outside of that, you can't go pass heavy around him and he's just good enough to get your team over the hump on an outstanding overall team. Other than that glorious 7 games out of 100 or whatever that people always site as proof that one year, as if that remotely holds weight as a ratio of games, there is no reason to think he'll magically turn into that guy that carries the team to that one goal. He can be a part of it, but he won't lead it.

So, in a salary cap, is that the QB that you pay more than all others? I get the sliding scale of contracts, but he's not worth that. That's not your cliche hate claim. Thats just putting a value on a player and it's a bad business deal.

And every passing QB is elevated by his receivers but their running game sucks on most teams. It comes down to philosophy and how good your OC is at using talent. Better to have a QB that has a running game that can elevate when asked then a passing QB that if they get shut down has no other options, Ask Peyton Manning.... A good defense is needed in both situations to win it all also. So saying Wilson was carried by a defense doesn't work either, most Super Bowls are won with a team with a very good defense as well.

Well said Chris.

Just look at the last two Super Bowl winners. Both sides of the ball contributed massively to the playoff successes and then both needed to step up in big moments in the championship game

"Most superbowls" are won by the Patriots that have no name players and you can also win the superbowl with a backup QB who's had multiple playoff games that are better than any of RWs playoff games. Still not an argument to break your team financially for one player.

 

[quadsas]

If it's 30 mil or over just cut it off. Seattle has a SB because of defense. RW will LEAD exactly no team to a superbowl ever. He's not that guy and is almost completely useless exept for the 2 minute drill and part of the 4th quarter after digging a hole and leaving the D on the field the whole game. There's no point if we have to run the ball 55% of the time or more just to be a competent offense and have some measure of ball control.

RW has severe butt pucker every game. He can't process and would rather eat ish than pull the trigger ....after missing opportunities. He's successful when he doesn't have time to think and is in an up tempo mode. If you're a fan of his, you should probably want him coached by Chip Kelly or something where he has no time to overthink.

On that note, Mariota will likely be available...

I wonder how many people will fall for this

 

[chris98251]

Lmao! Hate? I'm sort of indifferent to a point. ROI and use case is at play. His play is elevated by an effective power running game. Not the other way around. Outside of that, you can't go pass heavy around him and he's just good enough to get your team over the hump on an outstanding overall team. Other than that glorious 7 games out of 100 or whatever that people always site as proof that one year, as if that remotely holds weight as a ratio of games, there is no reason to think he'll magically turn into that guy that carries the team to that one goal. He can be a part of it, but he won't lead it.

So, in a salary cap, is that the QB that you pay more than all others? I get the sliding scale of contracts, but he's not worth that. That's not your cliche hate claim. Thats just putting a value on a player and it's a bad business deal.

And every passing QB is elevated by his receivers but their running game sucks on most teams. It comes down to philosophy and how good your OC is at using talent. Better to have a QB that has a running game that can elevate when asked then a passing QB that if they get shut down has no other options, Ask Peyton Manning.... A good defense is needed in both situations to win it all also. So saying Wilson was carried by a defense doesn't work either, most Super Bowls are won with a team with a very good defense as well.

Well said Chris.

Just look at the last two Super Bowl winners. Both sides of the ball contributed massively to the playoff successes and then both needed to step up in big moments in the championship game

"Most superbowls" are won by the Patriots that have no name players and you can also win the superbowl with a backup QB who's had multiple playoff games that are better than any of RWs playoff games. Still not an argument to break your team financially for one player.

Yeah and where was Foles again last year? On the bench when Wentz was healthy, yes he plays with guts and heart and the team believed in him, but if the coaches really believed in him he would be a Eagle not a Jaguar.

Those types of things happen, Dilfer, Morrall with the Dolphins until the Super Bowl and Greise was back in etc.

No name guys on the Patriots, you mean like Brady, Gronk, Patrick Chung, Julian Edelman, Dont'a Hightower, Sony Michel, Josh Gordon.

 

[Uncle Si]

Lmao! Hate? I'm sort of indifferent to a point. ROI and use case is at play. His play is elevated by an effective power running game. Not the other way around. Outside of that, you can't go pass heavy around him and he's just good enough to get your team over the hump on an outstanding overall team. Other than that glorious 7 games out of 100 or whatever that people always site as proof that one year, as if that remotely holds weight as a ratio of games, there is no reason to think he'll magically turn into that guy that carries the team to that one goal. He can be a part of it, but he won't lead it.

So, in a salary cap, is that the QB that you pay more than all others? I get the sliding scale of contracts, but he's not worth that. That's not your cliche hate claim. Thats just putting a value on a player and it's a bad business deal.

And every passing QB is elevated by his receivers but their running game sucks on most teams. It comes down to philosophy and how good your OC is at using talent. Better to have a QB that has a running game that can elevate when asked then a passing QB that if they get shut down has no other options, Ask Peyton Manning.... A good defense is needed in both situations to win it all also. So saying Wilson was carried by a defense doesn't work either, most Super Bowls are won with a team with a very good defense as well.

Well said Chris.

Just look at the last two Super Bowl winners. Both sides of the ball contributed massively to the playoff successes and then both needed to step up in big moments in the championship game

"Most superbowls" are won by the Patriots that have no name players and you can also win the superbowl with a backup QB who's had multiple playoff games that are better than any of RWs playoff games. Still not an argument to break your team financially for one player.

No names?

They win super bowls because they pay their best player peanuts so they can pay a bunch of other all stars and HoFers.

Read the names. Their rosters are great.

That said, i dont disagree with your premise, but a team has to be willing to pay a qb to win consistently. No team has cycled through cheap qbs and played great d on the other side and won consistently

 

[Tical21]

And every passing QB is elevated by his receivers but their running game sucks on most teams. It comes down to philosophy and how good your OC is at using talent. Better to have a QB that has a running game that can elevate when asked then a passing QB that if they get shut down has no other options, Ask Peyton Manning.... A good defense is needed in both situations to win it all also. So saying Wilson was carried by a defense doesn't work either, most Super Bowls are won with a team with a very good defense as well.

Well said Chris.

Just look at the last two Super Bowl winners. Both sides of the ball contributed massively to the playoff successes and then both needed to step up in big moments in the championship game

"Most superbowls" are won by the Patriots that have no name players and you can also win the superbowl with a backup QB who's had multiple playoff games that are better than any of RWs playoff games. Still not an argument to break your team financially for one player.

No names?

They win super bowls because they pay their best player peanuts so they can pay a bunch of other all stars and HoFers.

Read the names. Their rosters are great.

That said, i dont disagree with your premise, but a team has to be willing to pay a qb to win consistently. No team has cycled through cheap qbs and played great d on the other side and won consistently

I believe the biggest reason for this is that teams have long held the "if you find a good quarterback, give him a blank check" philosophy. And for a long time, it wasn't prohibitive. It is getting pushed further and further. At some point, it goes too far and starts to work against you.

How any HOFers has Brady won championships with? Gronk and.....Wilfork? McCourty? Revis for a year?