Why Russell Wilson Could Be the Seahawks... Downfall

[Basis4day]

You didn't address any of my points. The only troll here is you and perhaps you should try getting a career and move out of mommy's basement.

How does this team not resemble the 3-3 team?

I don't know, maybe 4 games in which we won the turnover battle but still lost...

Here let me help you because you are failing miserably. Good teams don't lose 4th quarter leads regardless of opponents especially when winning the turnover battle regardless of the teams record. Our offense has been obliterated in the fourth quarter when all we needed were simple first downs. These were 3rd and 3 and 4. Not long distances. The o put Wilson up for success and he hasn't responded. You simply know NOTHING period.

Again, this is about the quality of this "article" which you called "excellent". No one really needs to challenge your personal points as this thread is about the points raised by the author.

What exactly is there in this article to call it excellent?

 

[seahawk12thman]

Excellent article. It's too bad that so many posters on here can't actually read any dissenting piece without getting butt hurt. Our offense has gone from a run based offense to a passing one. In our 4 wins this year the defense hasn't given up a touchdown but in our 4 losses, we have won the turnover battle and lost all of them. So what is the quantifiable factor? Russell Wilson. Our receiving crew is the best it has ever been and our oline is doing a decent job of protecting Wilson (first time since 2012 an opposing team didn't register a sack). So basically the defense has had to shut the opponents out of the endzone to win and yet, if Wilson moves the ball with any consistency in the 4th quarter we win 3 of the 4 games we loss. The writer says that Wilson is a top ten quarterback but most people who criticized this article can't handle objective dissent and are to weak to read anything that diminishes their hero. Our defense has choked down the stretch but have gotten no help from our sorry O in spite of the fact we have veterans all across the skill positions.

Common sense isn't very common on this board!!! :34853_doh:

I put as much stock in an article from "Cheatsheet.com" as i do someone's ranting on FB. They didn't even credit an author for this "article" until it was later amended.

"No Major Personnel Changes Beyond Unger/Graham". I'd say starting a new LG, C, and RT is fairly major. As is losing a solid starting CB and having a different NC starting. Also a new starting DT. He does mention that Kam missed two games, but since there have only been 8 games that is 25% of games missed. That's a major issue and his absence was felt in those games.

The author seems to give sole credit to offensive deficiency to Wilson and Unger, yet doesn't even mention that there are three new starters at different positions on Oline and ignoring Unger missing several games last year.

There is zero references to any of Wilson's stats beyond his win loss record and sack rate and the only offensive stat mentioned is the decline in rushing numbers. How does that help evaluate Wilson's play when you also acknowledge Lynch's injury?

How exactly is this an excellent article? You can agree with the author's premise, but there is nothing of substance in the article to back up that premise.

Justin Britt was the worst right tackle in the NFL last year according to PFF. What has been the lost there? Justin Britt has also been our best lineman the last two weeks according to PFF. Has the loss of James Carpenter been that significant. The Jets have the 15th best rushing offense (but were #3 in the league in rushing last year), hardly a loss.

But we are starting a new Center this week so obviously Nowak isn't taking command of the position so center has been a massive downgrade. '

Russell Wilson was 7th in QBR rating in 2012, 10th in 2013 and 13th this year. That isn't even top 10...
Notice a trend?

 

[Basis4day]

Excellent article. It's too bad that so many posters on here can't actually read any dissenting piece without getting butt hurt. Our offense has gone from a run based offense to a passing one. In our 4 wins this year the defense hasn't given up a touchdown but in our 4 losses, we have won the turnover battle and lost all of them. So what is the quantifiable factor? Russell Wilson. Our receiving crew is the best it has ever been and our oline is doing a decent job of protecting Wilson (first time since 2012 an opposing team didn't register a sack). So basically the defense has had to shut the opponents out of the endzone to win and yet, if Wilson moves the ball with any consistency in the 4th quarter we win 3 of the 4 games we loss. The writer says that Wilson is a top ten quarterback but most people who criticized this article can't handle objective dissent and are to weak to read anything that diminishes their hero. Our defense has choked down the stretch but have gotten no help from our sorry O in spite of the fact we have veterans all across the skill positions.

Common sense isn't very common on this board!!! :34853_doh:

I put as much stock in an article from "Cheatsheet.com" as i do someone's ranting on FB. They didn't even credit an author for this "article" until it was later amended.

"No Major Personnel Changes Beyond Unger/Graham". I'd say starting a new LG, C, and RT is fairly major. As is losing a solid starting CB and having a different NC starting. Also a new starting DT. He does mention that Kam missed two games, but since there have only been 8 games that is 25% of games missed. That's a major issue and his absence was felt in those games.

The author seems to give sole credit to offensive deficiency to Wilson and Unger, yet doesn't even mention that there are three new starters at different positions on Oline and ignoring Unger missing several games last year.

There is zero references to any of Wilson's stats beyond his win loss record and sack rate and the only offensive stat mentioned is the decline in rushing numbers. How does that help evaluate Wilson's play when you also acknowledge Lynch's injury?

How exactly is this an excellent article? You can agree with the author's premise, but there is nothing of substance in the article to back up that premise.

Justin Britt was the worst right tackle in the NFL last year according to PFF. What has been the lost there? Justin Britt has also been our best lineman the last two weeks according to PFF. Has the loss of James Carpenter been that significant. The Jets have the 15th best rushing offense, hardly a loss.

But we are starting a new Center this week so obviously Nowak isn't taking command of the position so center has been a massive downgrade. '

Russell Wilson was 7th in QBR rating in 2012, 10th in 2013 and 13th this year. That isn't even top 10...
Notice a trend?

Again, this is about the article. The author says that there were no major personnel changes. Starting a new LG, C and RT while ignoring Unger's missed games are relevent points missed by the author.

And the author makes no mention of Wilson stats beyond his sack rate and win loss record.

How is this article excellent?

 

[Willyeye]

Excellent article. It's too bad that so many posters on here can't actually read any dissenting piece without getting butt hurt. Our offense has gone from a run based offense to a passing one. In our 4 wins this year the defense hasn't given up a touchdown but in our 4 losses, we have won the turnover battle and lost all of them. So what is the quantifiable factor? Russell Wilson. Our receiving crew is the best it has ever been and our oline is doing a decent job of protecting Wilson (first time since 2012 an opposing team didn't register a sack). So basically the defense has had to shut the opponents out of the endzone to win and yet, if Wilson moves the ball with any consistency in the 4th quarter we win 3 of the 4 games we loss. The writer says that Wilson is a top ten quarterback but most people who criticized this article can't handle objective dissent and are to weak to read anything that diminishes their hero. Our defense has choked down the stretch but have gotten no help from our sorry O in spite of the fact we have veterans all across the skill positions.

Common sense isn't very common on this board!!! :34853_doh:

I appreciate what you're saying, but how in the world can you claim that the offensive line has been doing a good job protecting Russ? That's not true at all. Sure it has shown imjprovement as we've gone along, but in my opinion, having new players at three spots has hindered us the most.
But through all that adversity, I think Russ will be a more versatile QB with more tools at his disposal going forward. I think in the second half of the season, the run-option and running game will be back up to speed and we'll revert somewhat back to what's been successful in the past.
Throw in an improved secondary, especially with the pending return of Lane, and I see nothing but positives ahead.

You see positives when we scored 13 points against Dallas who has been torched on D???

Dallas D
39,26,30,27,13,33 given up in their last six games..
Guess who had the 13 LOL??

Since your excuse is that he hasn't had time to throw in other games, what is your excuse for this one when he has had all offseason and 7 games prior to get on the same page with his receivers???

I agree with you on our defense but they are gonna have to be epic to carry this team to the Super Bowl....

You're seriously going to take one game against one team and use that as evidence that our offense is not comparable to other offenses? Not to mention you cherry-picked only the last 6 games because you wanted to ignore the fact that the Eagles scored only 10 points against the Boys in Week 2, right?

How about this one? The Seahawks scored 31 points against the Rams. The Rams D has given up 24, 12, 22, 24, 6, 6, 21. I suppose you would consider that to be more evidence of a failing Seattle offense, right?

How about the Bears? Since we scored 26 on them in Week 3, their D has given up 20, 17, 37, 23, 19.

Oh, and what about the Bengals? We scored 24 on them, and in the other 7 games they gave up 13, 19, 24, 21, 21, 10, 10. So what, the Dallas game is more important than the Bengals game?

And how about the Panthers? We scored 23 on them and in the other 7 games, their D allowed 9, 17, 22, 23, 16, 26, 29. You might be inclined to scream at me, "See, they gave up 26 and 29 points in the last 2 weeks...more than the Hawks 23 points". That's true, but 23 points is not far off from the Colts' 26 points and the Packers' 29 points...I would fully expect the Packers and Colts' high-powered offense to outscore the Hawks against common opponents.

The results aren't quite as impressive against the 49ers, as we only scored 20 points on them...but I do find solace given the fact that the Vikings scored only 3 and the Falcons scored only 16 and the Packers scored only 17 against them.

True, our offense struggled against the Packers, Lions and Cowboys, but this isn't the first time in NFL history that a good team had some bad games. Also, the offense relies heavily on Lynch and Wilson feeding off of each other. If you watched the games, it's obvious that Lynch has been sub-par due to injuries and the worst run-blocking O-Line the Hawks have had in at least 20 years. So of course that has an effect on Wilson's success.

And just so you know, points are not a priority for the Hawks offense since 2013. Carroll and Bevell tend to play it safe. Since 2013, it seems they have been satisfied with a 10-point lead going into the 4th quarter of many games. I assume that rather than take a lot of risks and giving up turnovers, they get a bit complacent on offense because they've trusted their defense to hold the leads. Obviously that hasn't been a very successful strategy so far this season, but to blame the offensive players, i.e. Wilson or Lynch, is humorous...it's obvious to anyone who is a serious Hawks fan that this is on the coaching staff, not on the players.

 

[Uncle Si]

You're seriously going to take one game against one team and use that as evidence that our offense is not comparable to other offenses? Not to mention you cherry-picked only the last 6 games because you wanted to ignore the fact that the Eagles scored only 10 points against the Boys in Week 2, right?

How about this one? The Seahawks scored 31 points against the Rams. The Rams D has given up 24, 12, 22, 24, 6 , 21. I suppose you would consider that to be more evidence of a failing Seattle offense, right?

How about the Bears? Since we scored 26 on them in Week 3, their D has given up 20, 17, 37, 23, 19.

Oh, and what about the Bengals? We scored 24 on them, and in the other 7 games they gave up 13, 19, 24, 21, 21, 10, 10. So what, the Dallas game is more important than the Bengals game?

And how about the Panthers? We scored 23 on them and in the other 7 games, their D allowed 9, 17, 22, 23, 16, 26, 29. You might be inclined to scream at me, "See, they gave up 26 and 29 points in the last 2 weeks...more than the Hawks 23 points". That's true, but 23 points is not far off from the Colts' 26 points and the Packers' 29 points...I would fully expect the Packers and Colts' high-powered offense to outscore the Hawks against common opponents.

The results aren't quite as impressive against the 49ers, as we only scored 20 points on them...but I do find solace given the fact that the Vikings scored only 3 and the Falcons scored only 16 and the Packers scored only 17 against them.

True, our offense struggled against the Packers, Lions and Cowboys, but this isn't the first time in NFL history that a good team had some bad games. Also, the offense relies heavily on Lynch and Wilson feeding off of each other. If you watched the games, it's obvious that Lynch has been sub-par due to injuries and the worst run-blocking O-Line the Hawks have had in at least 20 years. So of course that has an effect on Wilson's success.

And just so you know, points are not a priority for the Hawks offense since 2013. Carroll and Bevell tend to play it safe. Since 2013, it seems they have been satisfied with a 10-point lead going into the 4th quarter of many games. I assume that rather than take a lot of risks and giving up turnovers, they get a bit complacent on offense because they've trusted their defense to hold the leads. Obviously that hasn't been a very successful strategy so far this season, but to blame the offensive players, i.e. Wilson or Lynch, is humorous...it's obvious to anyone who is a serious Hawks fan that this is on the coaching staff, not on the players.

This an excellent post.

 

[Willyeye]

Excellent article. It's too bad that so many posters on here can't actually read any dissenting piece without getting butt hurt. Our offense has gone from a run based offense to a passing one. In our 4 wins this year the defense hasn't given up a touchdown but in our 4 losses, we have won the turnover battle and lost all of them. So what is the quantifiable factor? Russell Wilson. Our receiving crew is the best it has ever been and our oline is doing a decent job of protecting Wilson (first time since 2012 an opposing team didn't register a sack). So basically the defense has had to shut the opponents out of the endzone to win and yet, if Wilson moves the ball with any consistency in the 4th quarter we win 3 of the 4 games we loss. The writer says that Wilson is a top ten quarterback but most people who criticized this article can't handle objective dissent and are to weak to read anything that diminishes their hero. Our defense has choked down the stretch but have gotten no help from our sorry O in spite of the fact we have veterans all across the skill positions.

Common sense isn't very common on this board!!! :34853_doh:

seahawk12thman, you said,
"You didn't address any of my points.
How does this team not resemble the 3-3 team?

I don't know, maybe 4 games in which we won the turnover battle but still lost...

Here let me help you . Good teams don't lose 4th quarter leads regardless of opponents especially when winning the turnover battle regardless of the teams record. Our offense has been obliterated in the fourth quarter when all we needed were simple first downs. These were 3rd and 3 and 4. Not long distances. The o put Wilson up for success and he hasn't responded.



My comment was a point-by-point critique of the article that you described as "excellent". I wasn't addressing any other of your points other than the fact you think the article was excellent. So fine; I'll proceed to address some of your points.

I've been a devout Seahawk fan for over 20 years...I would be more guilty of being a bit biased in favor of the Seahawks, but never would I troll a Seahawks thread...I don't ever troll other team's blogs either. So no, not a troll!!! Regarding the basement (a typical troll degradation), I'm semi-retired and almost 60 years old...married for 38 years...I've owned the house I currently live in for 20+ years...I have 4 adult kids...ironically, my mom is dead and my 85 year-old dad has Alzheimer's, and he lives in MY basement and he is totally dependent on me and my wife for everything. My greatest joy in life is my grandchildren.

Regarding the 3-3 team and turnovers, turnovers are a poor measure of success...they can be flukey and they are not always an indicator of how well a team is playing. I love how trolls end up fabricating stats to prove their assertions. Week 2 against the Packers; they won the turnover battle 2-1 and won the game. By the way, against the Lions, we won the TO battle 3-1, and we barely won the game.

The Hawks made it to the SB last year even though they started off 3-3, and then 6-4, a record which, by the way, is quite achievable this year also. And last year, the Seahawks won the TO battle with the Chargers and still lost the game. In the Rams game, we tied the TO battle 0-0 and still lost the game.

It's like you found an article that was biased against Wilson and the Hawks offense, and you thought to yourself, "WOW... a negative article on the Seahawks...awesome, I can add my two cents and really try to make them look bad!"

The rest of your points:

"It's too bad that so many posters on here can't actually read any dissenting piece without getting butt hurt." I rarely get butt-hurt, but I draw the line at pretentious "journalist" hacks writing hit pieces.

"Our offense has gone from a run based offense to a passing one." Another fabrication...our offense has still run 52% run plays this year (granted that's less than the 55% we ran in 2014)...however, given the fact that Lynch has essentially missed 3 games this year and played hurt the other 5, is it any wonder they ran the ball less? And what effect does an injured Lynch have on Wilson's performance?

" Our receiving crew is the best it has ever been and our oline is doing a decent job of protecting Wilson (first time since 2012 an opposing team didn't register a sack)." The receiving crew is pretty much the same as last year, except Graham, Richardson (absent thus far), and I would say Baldwin had a much better season last year. I would say that the 2013 receiving crew was way better than this year's version. Not only that, but Wilson is on pace to improve all of his passing stats this year over last except TD's. Bear in mind that the teams we lost to all have highly ranked defenses in DVOA (all 4 teams are also ranked TOP 11 in points and yards allowed). Panthers #2, Rams #4, Packers #8 (ranked much higher prior to their last 2 games), and the Bengals #12. What a concept there...the Hawks offense struggled a bit against 4 of the BEST D's in the NFL. Not one peep in the article addressing the tough schedule.

"So basically the defense has had to shut the opponents out of the endzone to win and yet, if Wilson moves the ball with any consistency in the 4th quarter we win 3 of the 4 games we loss." First, Wilson had a game-winning drive against the Cowboys. And Wilson had the lead midway through the 4th quarter in all 4 losses. It was the defense that was unable to hold the lead. But most importantly, the 3 of the 4 losses came against some REALLY GOOD TEAMS. The Bengals, Packers and Panthers are all favorites to win the SB this year. The Rams ALWAYS play us tough in St. Louis. A lot of this is nothing more than a tough schedule.

"The writer says that Wilson is a top ten quarterback but most people who criticized this article can't handle objective dissent and are to weak to read anything that diminishes their hero." You obviously failed to recognize the typical passive-aggressive nature of the article. The guy sounds very wishy-washy and hypocritical. How can anyone fail to see this? The author claims that Wilson is a Top-10 QB, and yet he doesn't deserve to be paid as such. Excellent article my ass!

"Our defense has choked down the stretch but have gotten no help from our sorry O in spite of the fact we have veterans all across the skill positions. " There are plenty of reasons that the offense hasn't looked great this year...the O-Line, the chemistry between Wilson and Graham, Lynch's injuries, the schedule (3 tough road games), psychological damage from the SB loss, a predictable OC, Wilson's struggles...

So there, I addressed each of your points, and each of the points from the article. Now it's your turn...you haven't addressed any of my points, nor have you explained why you consider the article to be excellent. Although, if the schedule for the second half of the season doesn't translate to better performances by the offense, then I'll just write it off as a bad season.

 

[Willyeye]

Excellent article. It's too bad that so many posters on here can't actually read any dissenting piece without getting butt hurt. Our offense has gone from a run based offense to a passing one. In our 4 wins this year the defense hasn't given up a touchdown but in our 4 losses, we have won the turnover battle and lost all of them. So what is the quantifiable factor? Russell Wilson. Our receiving crew is the best it has ever been and our oline is doing a decent job of protecting Wilson (first time since 2012 an opposing team didn't register a sack). So basically the defense has had to shut the opponents out of the endzone to win and yet, if Wilson moves the ball with any consistency in the 4th quarter we win 3 of the 4 games we loss. The writer says that Wilson is a top ten quarterback but most people who criticized this article can't handle objective dissent and are to weak to read anything that diminishes their hero. Our defense has choked down the stretch but have gotten no help from our sorry O in spite of the fact we have veterans all across the skill positions.

Common sense isn't very common on this board!!! :34853_doh:

I put as much stock in an article from "Cheatsheet.com" as i do someone's ranting on FB. They didn't even credit an author for this "article" until it was later amended.

"No Major Personnel Changes Beyond Unger/Graham". I'd say starting a new LG, C, and RT is fairly major. As is losing a solid starting CB and having a different NC starting. Also a new starting DT. He does mention that Kam missed two games, but since there have only been 8 games that is 25% of games missed. That's a major issue and his absence was felt in those games.

The author seems to give sole credit to offensive deficiency to Wilson and Unger, yet doesn't even mention that there are three new starters at different positions on Oline and ignoring Unger missing several games last year.

There is zero references to any of Wilson's stats beyond his win loss record and sack rate and the only offensive stat mentioned is the decline in rushing numbers. How does that help evaluate Wilson's play when you also acknowledge Lynch's injury?

How exactly is this an excellent article? You can agree with the author's premise, but there is nothing of substance in the article to back up that premise.

Justin Britt was the worst right tackle in the NFL last year according to PFF. What has been the lost there? Justin Britt has also been our best lineman the last two weeks according to PFF. Has the loss of James Carpenter been that significant. The Jets have the 15th best rushing offense (but were #3 in the league in rushing last year), hardly a loss.

But we are starting a new Center this week so obviously Nowak isn't taking command of the position so center has been a massive downgrade. '

Russell Wilson was 7th in QBR rating in 2012, 10th in 2013 and 13th this year. That isn't even top 10...
Notice a trend?

My ESPN QBR rankings are different than yours:

Mine says #5 in 2012; #11 in 2013; #8 in 2014; #15 in 2015.

The things you're choosing to ignore, are that Wilson's schedule has been difficult the first 6 games and Lynch has been injured. Like I said before: Wilson and Lynch are both good for each other's game. If Lynch can stay healthy the rest of the year, Wilson's QBR's will almost certainly move up. And in answer to your question, no, I don't notice a trend...really too small of a sample size still. BTW, go back and check the history of QBR and passer rating for the HoFer's: Peyton and Brady had some tough seasons.

And do some research...the Jets have the #1 ranked O-Line right now...Carpenter has actually had a great year.

How is the Center position a massive downgrade? Unger only played in 6 games last year, and he totally sucked in SB49. Lewis will be playing Center against the Cards this Sunday and the Hawks won both games against the Cards last year with Lewis at Center.

 

[TwistedHusky]

There is a lot that is wrong about the article but turning the thread into a defense of the offense is ridiculous.

The Seahawk offense is a laughingstock.

We are 31st in total TDs per game, 32nd in RZ TD %, and our $20M QB is barely managing to pass for more than a single TD per game.

Admittedly, the offensive line is some bizarre failed experiment, but shuffling the blame off of the other offensive players is ridiculous too.

All those great scores being thrown out in that semi-eloquent defense of the offense a few posts ago? Completely full of sh*t. A lot of those scores are the result of special teams, takeaways and short fields giving us FGs. The offense is producing bottom of the barrel results at getting TDs, particularly when put in the position to win games by simply scoring a TD.

And yes, if this team is forced to pay a QB $20M a year that is barely producing much more in scoring than a bottom 20 QB would, that is going to hurt the team. Frankly, moving this team from a run oriented offense to a pass oriented offense intended to showcase the $20M man (note: He isn't making $20M this year of course...but it does jump up to that tier in the near future) is a disaster. But without the QB do we go anywhere anyway?

This team has to transition, I didn't agree this was the year to do it, but they did and I think the window for winning as the Seahawks of a few years ago did is closed accordingly. Now we have to hope that Wilson can play like his growth/projection rate - right now, he is struggling. And some of that is on him.

My personal opinion is that the gains that were a product of his rigor + work ethic are no longer there because there are too many distractions and life demands for him to be putting in those 12-15 hour days we got used to. And that kind of devotion is not sustainable long term anyway. All football players still have lives off the field.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

My personal opinion is that the gains that were a product of his rigor + work ethic are no longer there because there are too many distractions and life demands for him to be putting in those 12-15 hour days we got used to. And that kind of devotion is not sustainable long term anyway. All football players still have lives off the field.

That might be true, but it's awfully easy for us fans to say, and really hard to prove.

Personally, I think the relative absence of the Beast has been a bigger factor. We're currently seeing the long-term version of how Wilson plays without him. The running game absolutely has to start firing again vs Arizona.

 

[Anthony!]

My personal opinion is that the gains that were a product of his rigor + work ethic are no longer there because there are too many distractions and life demands for him to be putting in those 12-15 hour days we got used to. And that kind of devotion is not sustainable long term anyway. All football players still have lives off the field.

That might be true, but it's awfully easy for us fans to say, and really hard to prove.

Personally, I think the relative absence of the Beast has been a bigger factor. We're currently seeing the long-term version of how Wilson plays without him. The running game absolutely has to start firing again vs Arizona.

wrong we have seen the long term version of how Wilson plays without Lynch in a system still designed around the run game and Lynch. Till we see an offensive system built around Wilson we will not know for sure other than he has been put in a position to run the show more often than not he has succeeded.

 

[Willyeye]

There is a lot that is wrong about the article but turning the thread into a defense of the offense is ridiculous.

The Seahawk offense is a laughingstock.

We are 31st in total TDs per game, 32nd in RZ TD %, and our $20M QB is barely managing to pass for more than a single TD per game.

Admittedly, the offensive line is some bizarre failed experiment, but shuffling the blame off of the other offensive players is ridiculous too.

All those great scores being thrown out in that semi-eloquent defense of the offense a few posts ago? Completely full of sh*t. A lot of those scores are the result of special teams, takeaways and short fields giving us FGs. The offense is producing bottom of the barrel results at getting TDs, particularly when put in the position to win games by simply scoring a TD.

And yes, if this team is forced to pay a QB $20M a year that is barely producing much more in scoring than a bottom 20 QB would, that is going to hurt the team. Frankly, moving this team from a run oriented offense to a pass oriented offense intended to showcase the $20M man (note: He isn't making $20M this year of course...but it does jump up to that tier in the near future) is a disaster. But without the QB do we go anywhere anyway?

This team has to transition, I didn't agree this was the year to do it, but they did and I think the window for winning as the Seahawks of a few years ago did is closed accordingly. Now we have to hope that Wilson can play like his growth/projection rate - right now, he is struggling. And some of that is on him.

My personal opinion is that the gains that were a product of his rigor + work ethic are no longer there because there are too many distractions and life demands for him to be putting in those 12-15 hour days we got used to. And that kind of devotion is not sustainable long term anyway. All football players still have lives off the field.

Has the Hawks' offense struggled this year? Of course. Are they a laughing stock? Hell no! Given the extenuating circumstances of having had to play 4 of the TOP 11 defenses in their first 6 games, they really haven't done that badly. As I said above, the one aspect that is seriously lacking is the TD's/RZ. Also take into account the fact that Wilson seems to be running much less this year and Lynch is definitely not himself at this point in the season. Marshwan led the NFL with 17 TD's last year. At the rate Marshawn is going, he will have 4 at the end of this season. Are there issues? Absolutely! But to simply think the Seahawks we've come to be proud of are long gone is silly. They have way too much potential. If you had asked me a few years ago, "Can the Seahawks make it to 3 consecutive SB's?", I would have answered, "Absolutely not." I really don't mind them taking a year off from the SB after they went there 2 years straight. Can they make it next year? Sure! But just so you know, the 2015 offense has a much higher yards/game average than did the World Champion 2013 Seahawks.

All those great scores I threw out there are not full of sh*t. I was responding to a post that said the Hawks only had 13 points against the Boys, and look how many points all the other teams made against that same Boys D. I was just making a point, not boasting about it. The one thing you chose to ignore when you said my scores were full of sh*t, is that the Seahawks were not the only team that scored non-offense points. Every team has them. The Hawks scored 4 so far...there are teams that scored more than 4. I also want to know where all of your short fields are this year? The Seahawks average drive started at their own 25.7 yard line this year...that's 23rd in the NFL. Just like TD's, turnovers by our D are also lacking.

The Seahawks are currently running the ball 52% of the time. That's down from last year, but given the Lynch injuries, it makes sense. I also noticed that Russell seems to not be running as much...that's probably a good thing, because we ain't winning sh*t with Jackson. To say the window has closed accordingly is utterly ridiculous. Please bear in mind: the season is far from over and a lot can still happen this season. The Seahawks are good enough to still win out this year...in other words, they can still go 12-4...maybe even make the #2 seed if the Packers struggle for a few more weeks.

There is a lot to learn for a rookie QB. even for a 2nd year QB. You can't be serious if you think Russell still needs to spend 15 hours a day at work. Do you think guys like Rodgers, Brady and Peyton spend 15 hours at "work"? The answer is not even close! Truth be told, Wilson's performance this year has nothing to do with work ethic. It is far more likely that the play-calling has become predictable and this is the first time Russell has had to deal with Lynch not being up to par. Give the guy a break...he is on pace to improve all of his stats over the last few season's stats...except TD's...but hopefully they will come. Don't give up! This is still one of the best teams in the NFL!

 

[erik2690]

"The o put Wilson up for success and he hasn't responded."

What does that mean? He's not part of the offense during the part where they 'put him up for success', but is the only part when it doesn't work? That phrase just seems very odd.

 

[mrt144]

"The o put Wilson up for success and he hasn't responded."

What does that mean? He's not part of the offense during the part where they 'put him up for success', but is the only part when it doesn't work? That phrase just seems very odd.

Its a bad faith argument.