Yahoo Article

nolachawks · Dec 8, 2014

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/it-s-up-to ... 03583.html

This article is pretty unbelievable. When did the trolls start writing articles for Yahoo Sports. I know you are not supposed to feed the trolls but I couldn't help it. For the first time I had to add a comment to a Yahoo article (which I am sure is what Charles Robinson wanted, his last 2 articles had 220 and 80 comments and this one already has at least double that)

"It was a stunning moment for Wilson against a run blitz, the stuff we got used to the past two seasons but haven't seen much this year. In a split second, he left a wild Philadelphia Eagles crowd mute, and breathed life into a flat-lining Seattle offense." :177692:

MizzouHawkGal · Dec 8, 2014

424 and counting.

ivotuk · Dec 8, 2014

He thinks Percy Harvin and Golden Tate helped in the "playoff stretch" Both were pretty much invisible except for the 2nd Half kick return for TD in the SuperB Owl. And we would have won without it anyway.

Granted, both guys helped, Golden more than Percy, but it's not like people think, as they are writing revisionist history.

Like Russell Wilson said "We'll be fine" [without Golden Tate].

I do agree about the the Richardson pick though. This team does not know how to draft wide receivers, they get too tricky thinking they are drafting someone with talents that no one else sees. Well actually they are correct, those talents aren't seen because they don't exist.

They should just draft whatever wide receiver that Mike Mayock ranks the highest, they would be much better off.

imnKOgnito · Dec 8, 2014

The rest of the league is begging these sportswriters not to call our receivers 'pedestrian'. How to make sure a defending Superbowl Champion retains the chip on the shoulder that got it there? Keep writing tripe like this.

HomerJHawk · Dec 8, 2014

Yeah, I read that this morning. Added my two cents too. But a lot more people got a lot more elaborate with their comments. The writer is getting handed a new one. But hey, it gets hits, and that's what its all about.

twisted_steel2 · Dec 8, 2014

This dude got a lot wrong. And even what he got right, 'was Harvin a mistake?' And that's no secret.

But I love that this FO swings for the fences, sometimes you're going to strike out, but you'll hit a lot of home runs too right? Better than the safe/boring route of a Ruskell type.

I like that they finally started spending draft picks on wide receivers, hopefully they'll draft some more next draft.... a 6'4'' proto-type. They have to see this as a weakness at this point. I mean I love Baldwin and Kearse, but starting 2 undrafted receivers? C'mon Schneider, c'mon Carroll.

FortWorthSeahawk · Dec 8, 2014

I stopped taking the article seriously when he said that Wilson's touchdown was off of a naked bootleg and not a read option.

Missing_Clink · Dec 8, 2014

I think that article is really misguided attempt at pointing out the numerous mistakes that have been made at the WR position by this regime, which is a fair point. There have been many mistakes.

Sgt. Largent · Dec 8, 2014

Yes our offense relies on Russell to make plays...........just like every other offense in the NFL relies on it's QB to make plays.

That's the difference between the good and bad teams in this league, teams that have QB's that can make plays, and teams that don't.

kearly · Dec 8, 2014

Plenty of mistakes in the essay, but I think his general point is decent and he is mostly fair.

Early in the season there appeared to be some structure for Wilson, but after a 3-3 start the team essentially ditched a chance for growth in favor of the old formula. All this commentary you hear about Wilson and the "random" passing attack really just means that Seattle relies on Wilson to improvise A LOT. It's not a coincidence that our team is playing best when Wilson is channeling the soul of Tim Tebow and making magic happen.

I agree with Tony Kornheiser when he said today that Wilson is one of the five most "effective" QBs in the NFL. He may not be a prototypical QB yet, but he still achieves results in a unique manner. I think it is valid to see Tebow-esque magic from Wilson and wonder if it is streaky in nature. Obviously, Wilson and Tebow are not in the same league (literally) as QBs, but they both share this common talent and dependance on improvised play. Is that something you can depend on every game?

I trust our Wilson magic offense every week, mainly because it is very good in terms of efficiency, but I can understand why outsiders would be skeptical. Even Mike Holmgren has voiced skepticism.

Also, I thought the article was very clear in its intention to honor Wilson for his talent and heroics. Yeah, he may have been using Wilson as a bludgeon to attack our FO, but the Wilson compliments seemed sincere.

The article took aim at the higher ups, and he's right. The Harvin trade was a bad move. Anyone disagree? Letting Tate walk when you could have probably kept him for Doug Baldwin money was a bad move, unless you buy into the locker room rumors.

Where he misses the mark is that he is too quick in judging Richardson who's only a 2nd round rookie. Second round rookies aren't supposed to light the world on fire with big stats, especially when they are playing on a deep WR corps. Seattle has good receivers that are simply not given the opportunity to produce. I thought Golden Tate's enormous success in Detroit would have proven that to people. The writer derped on that one.

He also forgot to mention the problems created by Darrell Bevell, and to a lesser extent, Cable and Pete. He also brushes over Lynch, who seems to be the consensus #1 most respected RB around the NFL right now.

But I think the main core of his argument is valid. Seattle has desperately needed a Brandon Marshall or Dez Bryant type of target for years and years, but hasn't been able to get one. Last year, they had a chance for Donte Moncrief and Martavis Bryant and passed on both. I think our FO is very good at finding #2 receivers, but they seem incapable of identifying a true #1.

CPHawk · Dec 8, 2014

kearly":107yf1ob said:
Plenty of mistakes in the essay, but I think his general point is decent and he is mostly fair.

Early in the season there appeared to be some structure for Wilson, but after a 3-3 start the team essentially ditched a chance for growth in favor of the old formula. All this commentary you hear about Wilson and the "random" passing attack really just means that Seattle relies on Wilson to improvise A LOT. It's not a coincidence that our team is playing best when Wilson is channeling the soul of Tim Tebow and making magic happen.

I agree with Tony Kornheiser when he said today that Wilson is one of the five most "effective" QBs in the NFL. He may not be a prototypical QB yet, but he still achieves results in a unique manner. I think it is valid to see Tebow-esque magic from Wilson and wonder if it is streaky in nature. Obviously, Wilson and Tebow are not in the same league (literally) as QBs, but they both share this common talent and dependance on improvised play. Is that something you can depend on every game?

I trust our Wilson magic offense every week, mainly because it is very good in terms of efficiency, but I can understand why outsiders would be skeptical. Even Mike Holmgren has voiced skepticism.

Also, I thought the article was very clear in its intention to honor Wilson for his talent and heroics. Yeah, he may have been using Wilson as a bludgeon to attack our FO, but the Wilson compliments seemed sincere.

The article took aim at the higher ups, and he's right. The Harvin trade was a bad move. Anyone disagree? Letting Tate walk when you could have probably kept him for Doug Baldwin money was a bad move, unless you buy into the locker room rumors.

Where he misses the mark is that he is too quick in judging Richardson who's only a 2nd round rookie. Second round rookies aren't supposed to light the world on fire with big stats, especially when they are playing on a deep WR corps. Seattle has good receivers that are simply not given the opportunity to produce. I thought Golden Tate's enormous success in Detroit would have proven that to people. The writer derped on that one.

He also forgot to mention the problems created by Darrell Bevell, and to a lesser extent, Cable and Pete. He also brushes over Lynch, who seems to be the consensus #1 most respected RB around the NFL right now.

But I think the main core of his argument is valid. Seattle has desperately needed a Brandon Marshall or Dez Bryant type of target for years and years, but hasn't been able to get one. Last year, they had a chance for Donte Moncrief and Martavis Bryant and passed on both. I think our FO is very good at finding #2 receivers, but they seem incapable of identifying a true #1.

I'd argue that like Wilson, which you said relies on "improvised play," so did Steve Young and Brett Favre.

Gametime · Dec 8, 2014

This article wasn't "biased". It was flat out inaccurate. Not much to even comment on except how did that article come into existence in the first place?

kearly · Dec 11, 2014

CPHawk":tjakg9br said:
I'd argue that like Wilson, which you said relies on "improvised play," so did Steve Young and Brett Favre.

It's a good thing to have. But we can do better than relying on it.

Favre was coached by the structural disciplinarian that was Mike Holmgren, and Holmy hated that improv side of Favre.

Yahoo Article

nolachawks

New member

MizzouHawkGal

Well-known member

ivotuk

Well-known member

imnKOgnito

Active member

HomerJHawk

Well-known member

twisted_steel2

Active member

FortWorthSeahawk

Well-known member

Missing_Clink

New member

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member

kearly

New member

CPHawk

Well-known member

Gametime

New member

kearly

New member

Similar threads

Latest posts