Cable: Marshawn Lynch and Russell Wilson need each other

“Marshawn needs Russ like Russ needs Marshawn,” Cable said. “It’s like ham and eggs or peanut butter and jelly. They’ve got to have each other for this thing to work. Neither one of them is bigger or greater than the other. And they probably wouldn’t be very good without the other one, to be quite honest with you.”


http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawk ... each-other

Another Blount article, not really worth it's own post:

"Seahawks' Legion of Boom is battling to overcome injuries"

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawk ... e-injuries

Whoa I was on board before the last sentence of your OP. Neither would be good without the other? That's kind of a weird thing to say, especially about your starting QB.

It was more directed at the running game when Cable said that neither would be good without the other. If Teams are loading the box to stop Lynch, and miss out on Wilson then Wilson can gain huge chunks just by running. If teams stack the box when Lynch is not in the backfield it's easier for them to contain Wilson so he doesn't take off, but even that sometimes is a mistake for some defenses when he scrambles for almost a minute and then throws a bomb to an open man.

They would still be good; they just might not be competing for championships every year.

Lynch had virtually identical numbers in 2011 (without Wilson) and 2013 (with Wilson): 1,200+ yards, 12 TDs, 200+ receiving yards, 70+ broken tackles.

The difference is we didn't make the playoffs in 2011, in part because of the QB situation, in part because Lynch was struggling with back problems during the first eight weeks of the season, and in part because the defense was still developing, but we won a Super Bowl in 2013.

They would be good separately, but they need each other to win championships.

hawknation2015":3ryatsu9 said:

They would still be good; they just might not be competing for championships every year.

Lynch had virtually identical numbers in 2011 (without Wilson) and 2013 (with Wilson): 1,200+ yards, 12 TDs, 200+ receiving yards, 70+ broken tackles.

The difference is we didn't make the playoffs in 2011, in part because of the QB situation, in part because Lynch was struggling with back problems during the first eight weeks of the season, and in part because the defense was still developing, but we won a Super Bowl in 2013.

They would be good separately, but they need each other to win championships.

Click to expand...

Not really the same in


the big difference was yards in passing yards 100 more in 2013

One really needs to hear the context.

There is a link to the Town Hall event here.
viewtopic.php?t=110929#p1640231

I recommend watching the entire video.

Anthony!":279098a9 said:

hawknation2015":279098a9 said:

They would still be good; they just might not be competing for championships every year.

Lynch had virtually identical numbers in 2011 (without Wilson) and 2013 (with Wilson): 1,200+ yards, 12 TDs, 200+ receiving yards, 70+ broken tackles.

The difference is we didn't make the playoffs in 2011, in part because of the QB situation, in part because Lynch was struggling with back problems during the first eight weeks of the season, and in part because the defense was still developing, but we won a Super Bowl in 2013.

They would be good separately, but they need each other to win championships.

Click to expand...

Not really the same in


the big difference was yards in passing yards 100 more in 2013

Click to expand...

A hundred fewer receiving yards isn't a significant difference, especially when you consider how little Lynch played through the first eight weeks of the season due to his back injury. Had he been healthy for those games, or played in the Cleveland game -- a brutal 3-6 loss -- he would have easily eclipsed the total yards he had in 2013. In fact, he had more receiving yards in 2011 than he had in 2012 with Wilson.

My point is Lynch would still be great (i.e. BEAST MODE) without an elite QB. And Wilson would still be great without an elite RB. But they probably would not have gone to consecutive Super Bowls without one another. Lynch forces defenses to constantly load up the box, and Wilson forces the defense to spy him and follow the read option. Together they are more than great; they are legendary.

Also in 2011 Lynch was pretty much the offense with Doug, they needed Lynch to receive more. Even though he had back issues the problem was the Seahawks were still looking for their identity, and they barely used Lynch, when they did he was able to play really good by the end of the year. What no one is factoring is the 2012 year where he had 1 less touches per game but put up huge number when combined with Wilson and the read option, they didn't need him to receive more as they thought they had WR ready to be able to handle those loads and keep Lynch fresh for the playoffs. Also remember the 3 game stretch where we dominated the Cardinals, Bills, and 49ers, our starters had to leave early because by the 3rd quarter it was over with. If Lynch was still in for those entire 3 game dominating stretch I have no doubt that he would of hit over 1700 yards. The same could be also said that Wilson could of broken Peyton Manning's TD record probably by 3-4 TD, but you know he doesn't pad his stats like other QBs. Together they are legendary, they are the best QB/running duo in the NFL and I'm glad we have them. Love Lynch and he will retire a Seahawks.

Aikman, Smith, Irvin

Montana, Rice, Craig,

Wilson, Lynch, Graham

This could be the terrible trio that teams love to give a defense to think about.

Montee Ball scored most of his college touchdowns the year he played with Wilson, and he played 4 years.

AVL":8gpsx0f8 said:

Montee Ball scored most of his college touchdowns the year he played with Wilson, and he played 4 years.

Click to expand...

Yea. Funny how some critics of Wilson said Wisconsin ' s success that year was mostly because of the running game and the behemoth O line and yet NO other player from that Wisconsin team emerged as an NFL star besides Wilson.