The graham trade was a head scratcher but even more so was picking up joeckel, webb and sowell when you want to be a run first dominant offense. It doesn’t take a football genius to know you can’t run behind those three bums.
Uncle Si":2wsp37ct said:Sgt. Largent":2wsp37ct said:The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.
The formula was nasty young hungry cheap defense, physical ball control run game and dynamic QB that could run around and make plays when needed.
Now it's old expensive defense that isn't very hungry anymore, no run game and expensive QB that can still run around and make plays but now HAS to make plays or we lose.
So that's what Pete's doing, trying to get back to the right formula.
I agree with all except the "young and cheap" part. They were young and cheap because the team got really lucky in a few drafts.
That can't be the "formula"
MontanaHawk05":2pcmmpcf said:Agreed. Waiting for another dirt-cheap-but-all-Pro-Bowler back seven is going to leave every team waiting until the end of time. It isn't happening again. Give Wilson a decent, opportunistic defense, a kicker, and an actual run game (in other words, a complete team) and we can challenge for the big game.
MontanaHawk05":28zjksni said:Not really. Losing everything but Russell TO INJURY AND BAD FREE AGENCY MOVES and then watching Russell struggle doesn't exactly lead to the conclusion that Russell's contract was the problem.
TwistedHusky":2eyfd7n7 said:Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.
Our best offensive players? Passing game
Arguably best offensive player? QB
Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE
So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.
I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?
Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?
TwistedHusky":85r3ilko said:Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.
Our best offensive players? Passing game
Arguably best offensive player? QB
Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE
So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.
I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?
Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?
Uncle Si":olougcyr said:TwistedHusky":olougcyr said:Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.
Our best offensive players? Passing game
Arguably best offensive player? QB
Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE
So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.
I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?
Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?
You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years
Uncle Si":2kymw6l0 said:You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years
mrt144":3uj2uxwz said:Uncle Si":3uj2uxwz said:TwistedHusky":3uj2uxwz said:Except trying to a be a 'run first dominant offense' is a contradiction when contrasted with our actual roster.
Our best offensive players? Passing game
Arguably best offensive player? QB
Most dangerous threat on offense besides the QB? WR or TE
So trying to be a run first dominant offense or even a run heavy offense with this personnel group? Moronic.
I don't put it past Pete but if you are doing that, then why the hell are you paying your starting QB so much?
Do what you do well and you will win a lot more games than you lose. So focusing on doing what we don't do well? What does that do?
You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years
This is what I thought about in the Garappalo thread - what if salary isn't the full picture and a team alters their makeup to suit a specific integral player.
To wit, in what world is giving RW increasingly bad OL part of supporting RW?
.Sgt. Largent":1s1f0mrs said:Uncle Si":1s1f0mrs said:You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years
They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.
But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.
Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.
I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.
This focal point question would be a great topicSgt. Largent":2a5392bn said:Uncle Si":2a5392bn said:You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years
They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.
But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.
Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.
I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.
IndyHawk":1hr7sq50 said:This focal point question would be a great topicSgt. Largent":1hr7sq50 said:Uncle Si":1hr7sq50 said:You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years
They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.
But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.
Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.
I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.
I'd love to put my 2 cents in that.
IndyHawk":3vtq1q5j said:This focal point question would be a great topicSgt. Largent":3vtq1q5j said:Uncle Si":3vtq1q5j said:You’re not wrong. They seemed to try and adjust the roster to suit RW more than was necessary. And it has left them with no clear identity on offense the last few years
They did, but I don't think it was planned, it was out of necessity because of the terrible job they did with the O-line and RB situation.
But that's the Russell Wilson dilemma, you're paying your QB like a top 10 elite QB, but not making a concerted effort to make him the focal point of your offense. You're still trying to ground and pound.
Hell, can you even make Russell the focal point? Idk, but it certainly seems like Pete's going back to the ground and pound philosophy.............and if that's the case, is it wise to be paying your QB 20M+ a year, and way more if we extend him next year.
I have no idea how good we'll be next year, but one thing I can guarantee, it'll be interesting to see what John and Pete do with this roster.
I'd love to put my 2 cents in that.
adeltaY":3jor2mq7 said:I'm not sure how you can place any blame on the Russell Wilson contract and even the one he hopefully signs for 30M+ next year. If paying a great QB top dollar is so harmful to realizing Pete's vision, then what was the plan? Keep Wilson for four years, let him walk, and what? Draft a QB every year until we found someone who could replace him? How likely was that to happen? I don't get what the alternative is to paying a franchise QB. The hit rate on QBs of Wilson's caliber is super low, even for high first round picks. Trotting out a mediocre signal caller will lose games, especially in the playoffs. That's not a winning formula.
TwistedHusky":3r46nyl6 said:The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.
It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.
The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.
You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.
In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl
Everything I have been complaining about for some time.
And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)
You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?
Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.
Uncle Si":2kzx2yiy said:adeltaY":2kzx2yiy said:I'm not sure how you can place any blame on the Russell Wilson contract and even the one he hopefully signs for 30M+ next year. If paying a great QB top dollar is so harmful to realizing Pete's vision, then what was the plan? Keep Wilson for four years, let him walk, and what? Draft a QB every year until we found someone who could replace him? How likely was that to happen? I don't get what the alternative is to paying a franchise QB. The hit rate on QBs of Wilson's caliber is super low, even for high first round picks. Trotting out a mediocre signal caller will lose games, especially in the playoffs. That's not a winning formula.
I dont disagree..
But.. Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Nick Foles were three of the four starting qbs in the conference championship. It begs the question that regardless of how important the QB position is, at what point do you cash in on the investment and try the build team a different way
I think this is a league problem, and they will have to figure out a way to cap the QB position.