Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Concerning our desire for more "Traditional Play" @ QB

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • I stole this quote from another thread, which got my brain gears turning, and as I continued to ramble, I realized maybe I was off topic in the original thread so I moved to create a new thread. Hope you don't mind the quote grab Spin Doctor.

    Spin Doctor wrote:.... I really think Pete's offensive philosophy is holding Russ back as a player, and hindering his development.


    Read it all, but this is an extremely concise explanation for some of our displeasure with Wilson on occasion. For all of Pete's new age this and that, he's extremely traditional with his offensive philosophy. I think that is fine, when accompanied by a traditional QB. But he's been handed one of the most unique signal callers in NFL history...

    It was really reinforced for me when I saw our OC hire. I love that he's more vocal and will put an emphasis on technique. I worry that some "established" technique is not suited to Wilson, though. Accepted QB technique has been honed and fine tuned over the years to take one of the least explosive athletes on the field (traditionally) and make him not only relevant, but the most important player on the field. Even the rules have been designed with this in mind.

    An example: Wilson almost exclusively escapes with depth. This should not be eliminated but toned down tremendously. Not because we want one of the most athletic QBs in the NFL to climb the pocket, which at times emphasizes one of his few weaknesses (sight lines), more because we (I) would like to see what I call up/under movement. Teach the tackles to "run the DE by" and allow Wilson to hitch up and move horizontally to the LOS with shoulders parallel to be always in a "ready to throw" state. That is the big detriment to the depth escape, you cannot throw during this action. Routes are over, the defense has recovered, and now it's just a scramble drill. Wilson is a prime thrower on the run, learn how to emphasize it with design.

    Sometimes we overlook the ramifications all over the field of something as simple as this concept. When you escape deep, you play right into the training of every DE since time immemorial, to push upfield with your pass rush and "close the gate" on the pocket, nothing outside of you. The DE is still doing his job even if Wilson manages to "get outside his contain leverage if he retreats 15 yards to do it. If Wilson learns to escape "up and under" that rush, you force the DE to slow his backfield climb, which eliminates his "usually" only advantage on the Tackle. His speed and athleticism. Once the DE has to "downshift", Wilson gets to stand in a pocket only threatened by DT's and blitzers. If they counter with OL/Safety spies to allow DE to rush uninhibited, you just designed a massive hole in pass coverage that Wilson should be taught to exploit with ferocity. Similar to the effect play action exploits, that initial "hold" before dropping to coverage, except that one could create this effect even blatantly showing pass pre snap, with Wilson never having to take his eyes away from downfield to execute a play fake (the play action weakness).

    There is no QB more suited (maybe ever) to incorporate "Sprint Out" and "Mobile Pocket" concepts. The care with which Wilson avoids huge shots is amazing, and I think we've all witnessed him getting slobberknocked way more frequently from the traditional pocket than the open field.

    Rolling all this back to our new OC. My fear is he stays so standard in scheme (with added run emphasis) that Wilson ages right out of some truly unique abilities that should be "got while the gettin is good". Wilson will lose speed as he ages, but elusiveness is not a very teachable thing that will fade much slower (especially at his position vs say RB) as time marches.

    My hope is that Shotty can be very creative in allowing (Wilson to be Wilson) and instead helps him channel his talent in more productive ways... and the only reason we haven't seen it, is the quality of QB he has had as an OC to date (fingers crossed).

    P.S. I expect some of the first responses to be focused on losing half the field when moving the QB horizontally. This can be compensated for with flood concepts and other play design wizardry. Another benefit of a "moving pocket" is allowing the non playside OL to play weak, meaning you design help to the roll side because Wilsons playside movement will "run away" from any weakside defensive "escapees". This is a bonus side effect allowing for additional help to one of our historical weaknesses during Wilsons reign, OL.
    Last edited by Sgt Largent on Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 269
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


  • Sgt Largent wrote:I stole this quote from another thread, which got my brain gears turning, and as I continued to ramble, I realized maybe I was off topic in the original thread so I moved to create a new thread. Hope you don't mind the quote grab Spin Doctor.

    Spin Doctor wrote:.... I really think Pete's offensive philosophy is holding Russ back as a player, and hindering his development.


    Read it all, but this is an extremely concise explanation for some of our displeasure with Wilson on occasion. For all of Pete's new age this and that, he's extremely traditional with his offensive philosophy. I think that is fine, when accompanied by a traditional QB. But he's been handed one of the most unique signal callers in NFL history...

    It was really reinforced for me when I saw our OC hire. I love that he's more vocal and will put an emphasis on technique. I worry that some "established" technique is not suited to Wilson, though. Accepted QB technique has been honed and fine tuned over the years to take one of the least explosive athletes on the field (traditionally) and make him not only relevant, but the most important player on the field. Even the rules have been designed with this in mind.

    An example: Wilson almost exclusively escapes with depth. This should not be eliminated but toned down tremendously. Not because we want one of the most athletic QBs in the NFL to climb the pocket, which at times emphasizes one of his few weaknesses (sight lines), more because we (I) would like to see what I call up/under movement. Teach the tackles to "run the DE by" and allow Wilson to hitch up and move horizontally to the LOS with shoulders parallel to be always in a "ready to throw" state. That is the big detriment to the depth escape, you cannot throw during this action. Routes are over, the defense has recovered, and now it's just a scramble drill. Wilson is a prime thrower on the run, learn how to emphasize it with design.

    Sometimes we overlook the ramifications all over the field of something as simple as this concept. When you escape deep, you play right into the training of every DE since time immemorial, to push upfield with your pass rush and "close the gate" on the pocket, nothing outside of you. The DE is still doing his job even if Wilson manages to "get outside his contain leverage if he retreats 15 yards to do it. If Wilson learns to escape "up and under" that rush, you force the DE to slow his backfield climb, which eliminates his "usually" only advantage on the Tackle. His speed and athleticism. Once the DE has to "downshift", Wilson gets to stand in a pocket only threatened by DT's and blitzers. If they counter with OL/Safety spies to allow DE to rush uninhibited, you just designed a massive hole in pass coverage that Wilson should be taught to exploit with ferocity. Similar to the effect play action exploits, that initial "hold" before dropping to coverage, except that one could create this effect even blatantly showing pass pre snap, with Wilson never having to take his eyes away from downfield to execute a play fake (the play action weakness).

    There is no QB more suited (maybe ever) to incorporate "Sprint Out" and "Mobile Pocket" concepts. The care with which Wilson avoids huge shots is amazing, and I think we've all witnessed him getting slobberknocked way more frequently from the traditional pocket than the open field.

    Rolling all this back to our new OC. My fear is he stays so standard in scheme (with added run emphasis) that Wilson ages right out of some truly unique abilities that should be "got while the gettin is good". Wilson will lose speed as he ages, but elusiveness is not a very teachable thing that will fade much slower (especially at his position vs say RB) as time marches.

    My hope is that Shotty can be very creative in allowing (Wilson to be Wilson) and instead helps him channel his talent in more productive ways... and the only reason we haven't seen it, is the quality of QB he has had as an OC to date (fingers crossed).


    Great post, I agree, we can add that Pete has said on more than one occasion they game plan for Wilsons scramble plays. Meaning they have it in their game plan for him to do this several times a game. It is part of their gameplan, which to me is the only time I have ever heard a coach cay a QB playing backyard football is in their game plan, This is just weird, and I believe has hurt Wilson development in some ways. Makes me wonder if his marching orders is to do just that in certain situations, or if certain plays are called knowing this will happen. Perhaps it is done on certain plays to buy time for the Wr to get open. Not sure but the fact they have it in the game plan is astounding to me. That said we have seen Wilson in 2015 do a more traditional offense and know he can. The question is can he merge the 2 and will Pete and the new OC allow him to.
    Last edited by Hawk1217 on Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Great write up.

    As Wilson's career continues to develop, his speed will decline. It's simply natural that he's going to lose a step.

    With his style of play, we will see more frequently him trying to make an amazing play, and get sacked for a huge loss or get called for intentional grounding and stall the entire drive. What Wilson should be trying to improve at is simply taking the 5 yard checkdown and move on to the next play, which Schottenheimer and Carroll are trying to teach him. If Wilson continues to rely on his athleticism and freelance ability, his career will be much shorter than if he were to commit himself to being a more conventional quarterback. If he truly wants to play for 15+ seasons, he's going to have to be more comfortable with stepping up in the pocket on a more consistent basis rather than bailing out so soon.
    hawks85 wrote:Seattle played like crap today. It’s over 5-6.
    User avatar
    Jerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2578
    Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:39 am
    Location: Spokane, WA


  • Read an article talking about Schotty working on the little things with Russell, like adjusting his base to hit suddenly open throwing lanes instead of looking to get outside. I doubt he will ever be a conventional QB, some of the biggest moments came from this backyard style, but there are things I hope become a staple that utilize his athleticism in a planned way instead of reactionary. Too often it felt the offense was responding to the defense instead of going after them.

    I'm excited for the use of RB's more in the passing game, couple guys who are terrific in open space. Will also help keep drives alive when the OL goes full sieve and instead of Russell running 60 yards in the backfield to complete a 7 yard pass, there's a built in check down waiting.
    User avatar
    mistaowen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4458
    Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:54 pm


  • I agree with a lot of this except IMO, many of RW's sacks are when a totally unblocked defender has a straight path at tackling him, often within 1-2 seconds after the snap. Most NFL plays can tolerate 1 or 2 guys not doing their exact assignments perfectly, however when 1/2/3 OL guys screw up in addition to that, sacks & TO's occur. It is not possible to always climb the pocket, when there is NO pocket. Obviously, at least to me, the bottom ranked OL is the majority of this problem & hopefully improves by scheme and new coaches this season.

    RW operates extremely well in the read-pass option plays that we should see a lot more of this year, along with a vastly improved running game. Defenders will have to worry about multiple threats from the backfield, (combined with better OL play) and that should cool their jets a little and decrease RW's sack rate by quite a bit-IMO. In other words, if the OL can get their poop in a pile, the running game excels and the coaches do their jobs well - there should be a lot less of a concern about RW's sack rate. At least, that is my hope for this season. Just wait till y'all see what Rashaad Penny can and will do, coming soon...…………….

    :smilingalien:
    ------------------Rashaad Penny, the next great Seahawks RB.------------------
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1405
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


  • Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25443
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Agreed and when he does take the lid off we see incredible things. A lot of this is probably his can't win in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd mentality. Couple that with his turn over adverse nature and well there you go. Basically, he plays it close to the vest as can be until he has no choice. Or playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win. Not saying he does not want to win, but he plays conservative until he has no choice, perhaps that is a better way to say it.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Yes an up and coming OC / assistant building to a new age high powered high scoring move the QB around would have played to existing strengths

    What we got was a OC that will play to the strengths that we (PC) WANT and then subsequently drafted for.

    The HC and OC needs to be on the same page so I hope it works out but I agree on the overall assessment that the OC is not optimal for RW
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7435
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mistaowen wrote:...I doubt he will ever be a conventional QB, some of the biggest moments came from this backyard style, but there are things I hope become a staple that utilize his athleticism in a planned way instead of reactionary. Too often it felt the offense was responding to the defense instead of going after them....



    This is a pretty nice and concise summation of my rambling. We need to PLAN his movement instead of the defense dictating to us. If I'm a D Coordinator, it's immensely more profitable for me to know where the QB will be instead of gameplanning for one of a number of options. We need to put a lot more pressure on the D with scheme than we currently do, and we have a hugely unique QB to make that happen more than any other team in the league. Please show me you understand that, Mr. Schott...jingleheimersmith.
    Sgt Largent
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 269
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm


  • Sgt Largent wrote:
    mistaowen wrote:...I doubt he will ever be a conventional QB, some of the biggest moments came from this backyard style, but there are things I hope become a staple that utilize his athleticism in a planned way instead of reactionary. Too often it felt the offense was responding to the defense instead of going after them....



    This is a pretty nice and concise summation of my rambling. We need to PLAN his movement instead of the defense dictating to us. If I'm a D Coordinator, it's immensely more profitable for me to know where the QB will be instead of gameplanning for one of a number of options. We need to put a lot more pressure on the D with scheme than we currently do, and we have a hugely unique QB to make that happen more than any other team in the league. Please show me you understand that, Mr. Schott...jingleheimersmith.


    "Mr. Schott...jingleheimersmith" LOL
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Pete Carroll views his offenses as a supplemental piece to his true baby, the defense. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way. What he wants is an offense that controls the clock, and limits the time of possession for the other team. What is confusing to me is how Carroll goes about implementing this kind of offense.

    Pete seems to really value big plays on offense. Even at USC he had a thing for the deep ball, and explosive athletes. Yes the deep ball does open up running lanes, but if you're never able to connect the threat becomes hollow. As good as Russell Wilson is at throwing the deep ball -- if you see it coming every time it loses its effectiveness. The offensive ball we're trying to play looks more like the early 80s before the WCO offense really caught on, with a few modern concepts sprinkled in. We ran this same style of offense with Matt Hasselbeck at QB, a player who was an OG west coast offense disciple, and clearly not suited to this style of play.

    What solidified this view for me is the hiring of Schottenheimer. He is a practitioner of the old school Air Coryelle system. Many iterations of this offense are still in use, but Schottenheimers is still stuck a few decades behind schedule. Even his major "innovation" the wild cat was a formation from the 50s and 60s.

    Pete Carroll's offensive vision has no place in the modern NFL, especially if controlling the ball is your main goal. I'm not saying his view point is wrong, I'm saying how he is going about doing so runs contrary to the mission he is trying to accomplish on offense. We don't need to be the Patriots, but we do need to open up our passing game. The deep ball is a garnish, it isn't meant to be what an entire passing offense is predicated on.

    So, what should Carroll be doing to accomplish his goal? More short passes, and stretching the field vertically as well as horizontally. I'm talking more slants, and quick hits. Passes that are essentially like long hand offs. The only thing we had here was the bubble screen, and we were awful at designing these. We need more check downs, and hot routes. Our current system contains very little of both of these. If no one gets open, good luck Wilson, time to dance. We very rarely have an outlet. We need more misdirection plays like screens. Whenever we ran those last year we had great success. Unfortunately we rarely ran those.

    Last but not least, trust your dang QB Pete. We're still treating Russell Wilson like he is on training wheels. He does not have as much responsibility at the LOS as other QBs. In fact, it is as if it seems that Carroll and Bevell went to great lengths to not give him the opportunity to work here. Plays would always come in at the last possible moment. When Wilson did his best work he was making the line calls, and he was active at the LOS (2015). We had Patrick Lewis as our starting center because we traded away Unger. Wilson had to make all of the line calls because we put a guy in place that didn't really have a firm grasp on the system. He had a few hiccups here, but he demonstrated that he was able to do good work in this capacity.

    We're calling an offense that is only capitalizing on one element of our diverse QB's skillset (scrambling, deepball). As a result Carroll is stymieing our QB's growth. We need to set up moving pockets, and more designed throws on the run. We need to emphasize fundamentals and pocket movement for Russ. The scrambling is exciting but it also causes many missed opportunities, and leads to offense stagnation. It is that time in Russ's career that we give him the freedom to thrive. Unfortunately we will never get that under Pete, and that may be his biggest fault as head coach.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2706
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • Re: Concerning our desire for more "Traditional Play" @ QB
    I'd like to know who this subject line refers to. Is this a quote from someone? Who has this desire? Certainly not me or most Seahawks fans. In fact our desire is to take the governor off of our QB to watch his "untraditional Play" brilliance lead the team to another great season.
    User avatar
    Palmegranite
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 397
    Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:53 am


  • Sgt Largent wrote:
    mistaowen wrote:...I doubt he will ever be a conventional QB, some of the biggest moments came from this backyard style, but there are things I hope become a staple that utilize his athleticism in a planned way instead of reactionary. Too often it felt the offense was responding to the defense instead of going after them....



    This is a pretty nice and concise summation of my rambling. We need to PLAN his movement instead of the defense dictating to us. If I'm a D Coordinator, it's immensely more profitable for me to know where the QB will be instead of gameplanning for one of a number of options. We need to put a lot more pressure on the D with scheme than we currently do, and we have a hugely unique QB to make that happen more than any other team in the league. Please show me you understand that, Mr. Schott...jingleheimersmith.


    There it is in a nutshell. Completely agree and I've wondered for years why we don't. He's proven and shown over and over again his strengths, yet they rarely "go to it" unless they are forced into it and then amazing things happen. Many blamed Bevell for that, but I'm more convinced this is Pete. Help the guy out by using his strengths! Pete has been known to do that at many other positions, but irritatingly not at QB??
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5870
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • CamanoIslandJQ wrote:I agree with a lot of this except IMO, many of RW's sacks are when a totally unblocked defender has a straight path at tackling him, often within 1-2 seconds after the snap. Most NFL plays can tolerate 1 or 2 guys not doing their exact assignments perfectly, however when 1/2/3 OL guys screw up in addition to that, sacks & TO's occur. It is not possible to always climb the pocket, when there is NO pocket.


    An unblocked defender can come from a RB missing his assignment or the QB not sliding protection right, as much as it can from a bad lineman.

    I've also seen Wilson run himself into an innumerable number of sacks by getting outside his own linemen, and honestly, sometimes he scrambles without being pressured at all. He just doesn't like being in the pocket, and it's obviously because he can't see in there.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16159
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • I think I've said this before, but Wilson is the most high variance great QB I've probably ever seen.

    I think there's stil lthe chance for him to have an early 30s game retool like Ben Rapes did, but equally or more likely is that like most QBs he is who he is at this point, and trying to tinker with him or adjust him into an offense that doesn't maximize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses will just hurt his overall production.

    The league is increasingly (and finally) moving in the direction of catering offenses to QB's strengths and minimizing their weaknesses.* We clearly saw it in action with the Eagles' transition from Wentz to Foles last year, with the Texans obsessively retooling their offense around Watson, with the Saints changing their offense as Brees has aged (the Pats have done the same thing), with the Panthers losing their way by trying to make Newton into a player he's not last year, and so on.

    Long story short, Rodgers is probably the only QB in the league that I think you could drop into any offense with equal effectiveness, and even with that you'd have to tolerate some of his quirks that you'd be better off minimizing (e.g. not overly relying on force plays because of his habit of skipping past open reads, not overly-relying on only timing based plays -- he can do it, but it takes away from some of what makes him great --, etc.).

    Re; Wilson, the thing I don't think Seahawks fans will probably agree with me on is really about Bevell. Hawks fans hate Bevell, but a fair amount of what I saw from Bevell was an effort to accentuate Wilson's strengths and minimize his weaknesses. Long story short, if it was my money I wouldn't try to tinker with Wilson too much, or try to force him into being a player that he isn't. We've already seen the Hawks experiment with that a little bit, and so far it hasn't worked.





    *An example of the reverse is Kyle Shanahan, who I really like obviously, but who at this point is kind of a dinosaur depsite being young, as he makes QBs (and all offensive players, really) bend to his offense much more than he bends his offense to his QB (why he's stupidly lucky to have stumbled onto JGQ, who seems to fit what he wants to do reasonably well, but also why he ends up dramatically overpaying for guys like Beathard, McKinnon, Juice, etc.).
    User avatar
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4946
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:58 am


  • Bevell never used layered route trees, the deep and intermediate crossing and hooks, we rarely used the seam to the TE, we had the best pass catching TE in the league and would not use them. We never used motion to make the defense adjust coverage and mask routes. These are all things that would have helped big time let alone figuring out how to run a actual screen to a RB. That's hard to do granted when your lineman are flopping on the ground like beached whales but still.

    To have a "Traditional" looking QB you need to have plays that give him a chance for that look.

    If Pete has the guts to keep his nose out of the offense and let Schotty call plays and design plays that take advantage of a what a defense can't defend instead of trying to force a certain type of play down their throats when it's proven we can't run it or that a defense has it scouted and shut it down we will be much more productive.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25443
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Not sure why people think it's Pete and not Russell.

    Pete's had numerous drop back pocket QB's, both in the pros and at USC.........and all VERY successful, to tune of multiple Heisman's.

    IMO this is a Russell issue, not a Pete issue. I'm sure Pete would love for Russell to take his 3-5 step drops, go through his progressions and get the ball out on time.

    But that's not who Russell is, nor who he's ever been. He's a tempo/rhythm QB that relies on his feet to buy time and find open receivers. It's a messier style of offense that sometimes is a detriment to his line and receivers not knowing what's going on.

    So that's what you're seeing, and again IMO it's not Pete or a coordinator thing, it's a Russell thing.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • I firmly believe the Reid/Pederson style of offense would accentuate Wilson's strengths and hide his weaknesses far more than what Bev was doing.

    Throw in McVay and Shanny, though Wilson's out of pocket shenanigans might drive him insane.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • adeltaY wrote:I firmly believe the Reid/Pederson style of offense would accentuate Wilson's strengths and hide his weaknesses far more than what Bev was doing.

    Throw in McVay and Shanny, though Wilson's out of pocket shenanigans might drive him insane.


    I think this is what Pete and Schottenheimer are trying to figure out with Russell, and why we've heard from all involved that they want to get back to the pound the rock and play action..........which is what suits Russell best.

    btw, I also think that's what Bevell and Pete have been trying to do, just not successfully because our line stunk and we couldn't find a RB to replace Marshawn.

    But again, to pin this on Pete, or Pete and Bevell makes no sense to me.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    CamanoIslandJQ wrote:I agree with a lot of this except IMO, many of RW's sacks are when a totally unblocked defender has a straight path at tackling him, often within 1-2 seconds after the snap. Most NFL plays can tolerate 1 or 2 guys not doing their exact assignments perfectly, however when 1/2/3 OL guys screw up in addition to that, sacks & TO's occur. It is not possible to always climb the pocket, when there is NO pocket.


    An unblocked defender can come from a RB missing his assignment or the QB not sliding protection right, as much as it can from a bad lineman.

    I've also seen Wilson run himself into an innumerable number of sacks by getting outside his own linemen, and honestly, sometimes he scrambles without being pressured at all. He just doesn't like being in the pocket, and it's obviously because he can't see in there.


    I disagree it is not obvious he can't see in there, that is just conjecture. Also again you don't know what he is seeing, what the play call is or anything. You just know to you he is doing something he should not. However just because you don't think he should do it, does not mean he should not or your right. Until we find out all the nuances of the plays in question we will never know, and where you stand on this will depend on if you want to find a reason to complain about him and his play or if you don't. I too think at times he leaves a pocket early, but I can't say for sure because I am not seeing what he sees, and I don't know what his marching orders were. So I Tend to trust that for the most part, he is doing what he should do. Given the facts, we do know, amongst the most hit, sacked, pressured and hurried QBs in the league the very very few times he might do something you think is not right is understandable.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Not sure why people think it's Pete and not Russell.

    Pete's had numerous drop back pocket QB's, both in the pros and at USC.........and all VERY successful, to tune of multiple Heisman's.

    IMO this is a Russell issue, not a Pete issue. I'm sure Pete would love for Russell to take his 3-5 step drops, go through his progressions and get the ball out on time.

    But that's not who Russell is, nor who he's ever been. He's a tempo/rhythm QB that relies on his feet to buy time and find open receivers. It's a messier style of offense that sometimes is a detriment to his line and receivers not knowing what's going on.

    So that's what you're seeing, and again IMO it's not Pete or a coordinator thing, it's a Russell thing.



    Because Pete himself has said so, he has said you can't win in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd which means no mistakes, safe plays. This leads to QBs thinking twice and doubting, He is the HC he has provided an oline that is not even College level. As to not what Wilson ins let me remind you, 2nd half of 2015 where he did just that, or any time we have run the uptempo were again he does just that. So sorry this is indeed a Pete thing has the evidence shows.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:I firmly believe the Reid/Pederson style of offense would accentuate Wilson's strengths and hide his weaknesses far more than what Bev was doing.

    Throw in McVay and Shanny, though Wilson's out of pocket shenanigans might drive him insane.


    I think this is what Pete and Schottenheimer are trying to figure out with Russell, and why we've heard from all involved that they want to get back to the pound the rock and play action..........which is what suits Russell best.

    btw, I also think that's what Bevell and Pete have been trying to do, just not successfully because our line stunk and we couldn't find a RB to replace Marshawn.

    But again, to pin this on Pete, or Pete and Bevell makes no sense to me.


    To pin it on Wilson and give Pete and Bevel a pass makes no sense. Wilson runs what they call and what they lay out, As we have seen it rarely works without Wilson doing his thing or uptempo. You found an offense that works and you chose not to use it unless you are forced to that is indeed on Pete and then Bevel.

    It is illogical to give them a pass and instead blame the guy who made up over 95% of our Offensive TDs and over 82% of our offensive yards both NFL records. Given what both Pete and Shotty have said about how great a QB Wilson is and it is not logical to give Pete or Bevel a pass and pin it all on Wilson. sorry but to me, this is the most absurd thing I have read, and the facts just don't support it.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Hawk1217 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Not sure why people think it's Pete and not Russell.

    Pete's had numerous drop back pocket QB's, both in the pros and at USC.........and all VERY successful, to tune of multiple Heisman's.

    IMO this is a Russell issue, not a Pete issue. I'm sure Pete would love for Russell to take his 3-5 step drops, go through his progressions and get the ball out on time.

    But that's not who Russell is, nor who he's ever been. He's a tempo/rhythm QB that relies on his feet to buy time and find open receivers. It's a messier style of offense that sometimes is a detriment to his line and receivers not knowing what's going on.

    So that's what you're seeing, and again IMO it's not Pete or a coordinator thing, it's a Russell thing.



    Because Pete himself has said so, he has said you can't win in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd which means no mistakes, safe plays. This leads to QBs thinking twice and doubting, He is the HC he has provided an oline that is not even College level. As to not what Wilson ins let me remind you, 2nd half of 2015 where he did just that, or any time we have run the uptempo were again he does just that. So sorry this is indeed a Pete thing has the evidence shows.


    I don't even know what you're trying to say.

    Watch or listen to any local or national analyst talking about Russell, and you'll hear them talking about how he consistently holds the ball too long, misses seeing open receivers and needs to get into a confidence tempo/rhythm before trusting his reads.

    Sure the O-line being crap ties into that, because it causes happy feet and bailing the pocket early. But again, that's on Russell, not Pete.

    If we're assigning blame as to why our offense has been too inconsistent the past couple of years, Pete is pretty far down the list.

    1. O-line
    2. No dependable consistent RB
    3. Predictable scheme/playcalling
    4. Lack of consistent WR production other than Doug

    Pete? Not sure what to say, if he went into the offensive meeting room and yelled "ALRIGHT RUSSELL, I'M TAKING THE LEASH OFF, YOU GO ON WITH YOUR BAD SELF!"

    wth would that do? Amazing how good Russell was when we had Marshawn and a good O-line.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Hawk1217 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Not sure why people think it's Pete and not Russell.

    Pete's had numerous drop back pocket QB's, both in the pros and at USC.........and all VERY successful, to tune of multiple Heisman's.

    IMO this is a Russell issue, not a Pete issue. I'm sure Pete would love for Russell to take his 3-5 step drops, go through his progressions and get the ball out on time.

    But that's not who Russell is, nor who he's ever been. He's a tempo/rhythm QB that relies on his feet to buy time and find open receivers. It's a messier style of offense that sometimes is a detriment to his line and receivers not knowing what's going on.

    So that's what you're seeing, and again IMO it's not Pete or a coordinator thing, it's a Russell thing.



    Because Pete himself has said so, he has said you can't win in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd which means no mistakes, safe plays. This leads to QBs thinking twice and doubting, He is the HC he has provided an oline that is not even College level. As to not what Wilson ins let me remind you, 2nd half of 2015 where he did just that, or any time we have run the uptempo were again he does just that. So sorry this is indeed a Pete thing has the evidence shows.


    I don't even know what you're trying to say.

    Watch or listen to any local or national analyst talking about Russell, and you'll hear them talking about how he consistently holds the ball too long, misses seeing open receivers and needs to get into a confidence tempo/rhythm before trusting his reads.

    Sure the O-line being crap ties into that, because it causes happy feet and bailing the pocket early. But again, that's on Russell, not Pete.

    If we're assigning blame as to why our offense has been too inconsistent the past couple of years, Pete is pretty far down the list.

    1. O-line
    2. No dependable consistent RB
    3. Predictable scheme/playcalling
    4. Lack of consistent WR production other than Doug

    Pete? Not sure what to say, if he went into the offensive meeting room and yelled "ALRIGHT RUSSELL, I'M TAKING THE LEASH OFF, YOU GO ON WITH YOUR BAD SELF!"

    wth would that do? Amazing how good Russell was when we had Marshawn and a good O-line.



    1 I agree Pete is farther down on the list than some of the things you mention, Guess what so is Wilson. As to what Pete can say oh I don't know how about "okay we do great in uptempo we are running it all the time now", OR okay let's get the play into Wilson with 20 seconds left and let him decide what to do or audible. I can go on and on there are things she can do and have not.

    All that said we are not going to get anyplace, so lets agree to disagree
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Hawk1217 wrote:

    1 I agree Pete is farther down on the list than some of the things you mention, Guess what so is Wilson. As to what Pete can say oh I don't know how about "okay we do great in uptempo we are running it all the time now", OR okay let's get the play into Wilson with 20 seconds left and let him decide what to do or audible. I can go on and on there are things she can do and have not.

    All that said we are not going to get anyplace, so lets agree to disagree


    I used to agree with this sentiment. I've said during the past couple of years to unleash Russell and go up tempo offense.........but as we've seen when the run game isn't working, that's not a successful and/or consistent offense. It also lends itself to Russell being broken and half and getting hammered over and over.

    Yes you can have a game like against Houston where it looks like you just can't stop us. But it can also look like games against the Rams at home and on the road against Jacksonville where our offense can't even get a first down.

    To beat those teams, of which most in the playoffs ARE those types of nasty defenses you need to do what we did with Marshawn, pound the rock, wear them down and control the clock to keep our young exposable defense off the field.

    Worst thing you can be in the NFL is predictable, and IMO that's been our biggest problem of late. Believe me, Pete knows.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Hawk1217 wrote:

    1 I agree Pete is farther down on the list than some of the things you mention, Guess what so is Wilson. As to what Pete can say oh I don't know how about "okay we do great in uptempo we are running it all the time now", OR okay let's get the play into Wilson with 20 seconds left and let him decide what to do or audible. I can go on and on there are things she can do and have not.

    All that said we are not going to get anyplace, so lets agree to disagree


    I used to agree with this sentiment. I've said during the past couple of years to unleash Russell and go up tempo offense.........but as we've seen when the run game isn't working, that's not a successful and/or consistent offense. It also lends itself to Russell being broken and half and getting hammered over and over.

    Yes you can have a game like against Houston where it looks like you just can't stop us. But it can also look like games against the Rams at home and on the road against Jacksonville where our offense can't even get a first down.

    To beat those teams, of which most in the playoffs ARE those types of nasty defenses you need to do what we did with Marshawn, pound the rock, wear them down and control the clock to keep our young exposable defense off the field.

    Worst thing you can be in the NFL is predictable, and IMO that's been our biggest problem of late. Believe me, Pete knows.


    I agree with this last statement. I think one of our biggest issues is how late the play gets into the QB. I think if we could get it in earlier and give the QB time to make checks, and audibles things would go better. I believe Pete even said something about that when he hired Shotty. That said the main reason we struggled getting the play in fast, a lot of that was the structure of having an OC, and an oline/running coach who was the Asst HC and had to have his say in the play call. Pete also mentioned that. Perhaps just getting the play in quicker will change things, give the QB and the players time to adjust, audbile whatever. I guess we will see.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Pete and/or Bev, whatever combo, do not have close to the level of creativity of designing an offense as Reid or Peterson. Throw Cable in there too because his blocking schemes weren't that varied. The way Pederson used different blocking schemes in the run game was fascinating. There was a play in the SB where half their line pass blocked and half run blocked and the DL was stumped, resulting in a huge hole for Ajayi. When the Eagles played the Broncos they did an amazing job of scheming Von Miller out of plays by leaving him unblocked as a read player and they shredded that defense. Shanahan made mincemeat out of our cover three system twice in 2016. Pederson annihilated the #1 scoring D with Nick Foles at QB.

    Those are just a couple examples. How often were we doing that? Funnily enough, our best called and executed game was against the Eagles where Bev focused on getting rid of the ball quickly with rub routes to beat the Eagles' man coverage. Even then, we relied on some Wilson magic to sustain drives. The problem is that those kinds of games were too few and far between. If you can run it down their throats, cool, but if you can't, it's time to get creative and we rarely saw that.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • adeltaY wrote:Pete and/or Bev, whatever combo, do not have close to the level of creativity of designing an offense as Reid or Peterson. Throw Cable in there too because his blocking schemes weren't that varied. The way Pederson used different blocking schemes in the run game was fascinating. There was a play in the SB where half their line pass blocked and half run blocked and the DL was stumped, resulting in a huge hole for Ajayi. When the Eagles played the Broncos they did an amazing job of scheming Von Miller out of plays by leaving him unblocked as a read player and they shredded that defense. Shanahan made mincemeat out of our cover three system twice in 2016. Pederson annihilated the #1 scoring D with Nick Foles at QB.

    Those are just a couple examples. How often were we doing that? Funnily enough, our best called and executed game was against the Eagles where Bev focused on getting rid of the ball quickly with rub routes to beat the Eagles' man coverage. Even then, we relied on some Wilson magic to sustain drives. The problem is that those kinds of games were too few and far between. If you can run it down their throats, cool, but if you can't, it's time to get creative and we rarely saw that.


    Yeah but are Solari and Schottenheimer better or worse than Bevell/Cable?

    Neither is known for their complex dynamic offensive blocking or schemes. So idk, as much as I'm glad we've turned the page on Bevell and Cable.................I'm not jumping up and down that we now have two other journeymen line coaches and coordinators.

    I'm just worried that Pete's doing some sort of last ditch effort to getting back to basics on offense, when the rest of the top teams in the league are sprinting past us with dynamic innovative scheme and playcalling.

    Very few places has this sort of mentality worked, where after down year(s) bringing in re-treads was wildly successful.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • CamanoIslandJQ wrote:I agree with a lot of this except IMO, many of RW's sacks are when a totally unblocked defender has a straight path at tackling him, often within 1-2 seconds after the snap.

    Those are the ones that stick out in the mind for sure, but at least last season they weren't nearly as common as they seemed. And at least two of the gifs that were posted here too often were the result of blitzes not picked up and hot routes not hit.
    User avatar
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3567
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Not sure why people think it's Pete and not Russell.

    Pete's had numerous drop back pocket QB's, both in the pros and at USC.........and all VERY successful, to tune of multiple Heisman's.

    IMO this is a Russell issue, not a Pete issue. I'm sure Pete would love for Russell to take his 3-5 step drops, go through his progressions and get the ball out on time.

    But that's not who Russell is, nor who he's ever been. He's a tempo/rhythm QB that relies on his feet to buy time and find open receivers. It's a messier style of offense that sometimes is a detriment to his line and receivers not knowing what's going on.

    So that's what you're seeing, and again IMO it's not Pete or a coordinator thing, it's a Russell thing.


    Yet he has jumped on Wilson for taking risks and drilling into him don't take chances with the ball since day one. Ball control and turnovers are Pete's big thing, not making them is really big.

    As far as what I was talking about.



    Does he hold the ball too long also ?
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25443
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Not sure why people think it's Pete and not Russell.

    Pete's had numerous drop back pocket QB's, both in the pros and at USC.........and all VERY successful, to tune of multiple Heisman's.

    IMO this is a Russell issue, not a Pete issue. I'm sure Pete would love for Russell to take his 3-5 step drops, go through his progressions and get the ball out on time.

    But that's not who Russell is, nor who he's ever been. He's a tempo/rhythm QB that relies on his feet to buy time and find open receivers. It's a messier style of offense that sometimes is a detriment to his line and receivers not knowing what's going on.

    So that's what you're seeing, and again IMO it's not Pete or a coordinator thing, it's a Russell thing.


    Yet he has jumped on Wilson for taking risks and drilling into him don't take chances with the ball since day one. Ball control and turnovers are Pete's big thing, not making them is really big.

    As far as what I was talking about.



    Does he hold the ball too long also ?


    I could post a video of Jeff George's pro highlights that make him look like the 2nd coming of Joe Montana.

    That doesn't prove anything. It is a valid criticism of Russell, whether you like it or not...........and btw, I'm not saying I don't like it.

    My point is people blaming Pete or Bevell for how Russell plays QB is insane to me. It's his style, you can't turn Russell into a progression pocket QB, you just can't.

    Ask Holmgren, he spend a LONG time trying to change Brett Favre.............and it won't work here either. You play to a QB's strength. Which for Russell is running the ball to keep the defense up close, then you burn them with play action and read option.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Not sure why people think it's Pete and not Russell.

    Pete's had numerous drop back pocket QB's, both in the pros and at USC.........and all VERY successful, to tune of multiple Heisman's.

    IMO this is a Russell issue, not a Pete issue. I'm sure Pete would love for Russell to take his 3-5 step drops, go through his progressions and get the ball out on time.

    But that's not who Russell is, nor who he's ever been. He's a tempo/rhythm QB that relies on his feet to buy time and find open receivers. It's a messier style of offense that sometimes is a detriment to his line and receivers not knowing what's going on.

    So that's what you're seeing, and again IMO it's not Pete or a coordinator thing, it's a Russell thing.


    Yet he has jumped on Wilson for taking risks and drilling into him don't take chances with the ball since day one. Ball control and turnovers are Pete's big thing, not making them is really big.

    As far as what I was talking about.



    Does he hold the ball too long also ?


    I could post a video of Jeff George's pro highlights that make him look like the 2nd coming of Joe Montana.

    That doesn't prove anything. It is a valid criticism of Russell, whether you like it or not...........and btw, I'm not saying I don't like it.

    My point is people blaming Pete or Bevell for how Russell plays QB is insane to me. It's his style, you can't turn Russell into a progression pocket QB, you just can't.

    Ask Holmgren, he spend a LONG time trying to change Brett Favre.............and it won't work here either. You play to a QB's strength. Which for Russell is running the ball to keep the defense up close, then you burn them with play action and read option.



    Okay so I want to understand this, the HC who controls everything, and the OC who calls and designs everything, have no blame for the maturation of a QB they have had since he was a Rookie. Just checking because that is what you are saying. Hmmm Yeah sorry, that does not pass any test at all. FYI Wilson was a pocket passer during most of 2015 where he was great. Also once again he has one of the best QB ratings, complt% in the pocket. However, you can't expect him to stay in the pocket when he has one of the worse Oline in the league and a lot of long slow developing plays. Both are things the OC and HC do have a lot of control over. FYI playing to Wilson strengths is getting him to the line with a lot of time so he can make adjustments, you know 2015 remember that. What happened as soon as Lynch came back, they went right back to the same old thing that did not work. Wilson does not call the plays, create the plays, or provide the players for the plays that is the HC and OC and as such, they deserve and rightfully so blame.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Pete is a enigma, he Coached in Minny for Bud Grant, they had a powerful defense but a pretty wide open offense as well with a guy that was considered a somewhat mobile QB at the time, why Pete doesn't take the lid off Wilson is perplexing.


    Not sure why people think it's Pete and not Russell.

    Pete's had numerous drop back pocket QB's, both in the pros and at USC.........and all VERY successful, to tune of multiple Heisman's.

    IMO this is a Russell issue, not a Pete issue. I'm sure Pete would love for Russell to take his 3-5 step drops, go through his progressions and get the ball out on time.

    But that's not who Russell is, nor who he's ever been. He's a tempo/rhythm QB that relies on his feet to buy time and find open receivers. It's a messier style of offense that sometimes is a detriment to his line and receivers not knowing what's going on.

    So that's what you're seeing, and again IMO it's not Pete or a coordinator thing, it's a Russell thing.


    Yet he has jumped on Wilson for taking risks and drilling into him don't take chances with the ball since day one. Ball control and turnovers are Pete's big thing, not making them is really big.

    As far as what I was talking about.



    Does he hold the ball too long also ?


    I could post a video of Jeff George's pro highlights that make him look like the 2nd coming of Joe Montana.

    That doesn't prove anything. It is a valid criticism of Russell, whether you like it or not...........and btw, I'm not saying I don't like it.

    My point is people blaming Pete or Bevell for how Russell plays QB is insane to me. It's his style, you can't turn Russell into a progression pocket QB, you just can't.

    Ask Holmgren, he spend a LONG time trying to change Brett Favre.............and it won't work here either. You play to a QB's strength. Which for Russell is running the ball to keep the defense up close, then you burn them with play action and read option.




    Pete coached the DB's in Minny when Fran played, he knows exactly what kind of QB Wilson is and Minny had a explosive offense becasue of Tarkenton, you could not just rush him you had to account for his scrambles which means he holds the ball longer which means the DB's have to cover longer, which means broken plays and down field opportunities. You can set up as a pocket passer but hey if something goes sideways you have a added dimension that you don't try to restrain. Nothing kicks you in the balls harder then doing your job and then some asshole QB scrambles around and your playing hide and seek with receivers till he gets open and gets a large gain and or a Touchdown. Thats the kind of success is what Wilson can have if Pete allows him to.


    The issue is becasuse our line, OC, and Offense design all sucked thats all we saw, balance it out with a running threat and a average line at worst and Wilson won't have to scramble and roll out 70 percent of the time.

    Pete should understand that, and should take advantage of it like Grant did in Minny, why Petes over control on the offense is perplexing to me. He has seen it work and work well.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25443
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:wth would that do? Amazing how good Russell was when we had Marshawn and a good O-line.

    Wilson's numbers in the second half of 2015 blows the hell out of that theory...Marshawn didn't play a single damned game in that stretch.
    "Amazing" how good Russell did WITHOUT Beastmode eh?
    Wilson & Baldwin have pulled a lot of fat out of the fire WITHOUT A LOT OF HELP from Bevell, Cable or Pete.
    Funny how someone like Brady recognizes how "ELITE" a player Wilson has been, hell, even a scrub O-LINE was made to look better than they actually were.
    Pete hammers on "Protecting The Ball", and yet when the game seems completely out of whack, Wilson is given free rein to try and salvage it, and has often cleaned up piss poor performances by his Coaches ZERO help from his stable of RB's & crappy play by his O-Line.
    His 85 % production SCREAMS of his value to the Seahawks Offense.....9 wins with a shitty kicking, AND NO RUN game.
    Good Lord.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6603
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:Pete and/or Bev, whatever combo, do not have close to the level of creativity of designing an offense as Reid or Peterson. Throw Cable in there too because his blocking schemes weren't that varied. The way Pederson used different blocking schemes in the run game was fascinating. There was a play in the SB where half their line pass blocked and half run blocked and the DL was stumped, resulting in a huge hole for Ajayi. When the Eagles played the Broncos they did an amazing job of scheming Von Miller out of plays by leaving him unblocked as a read player and they shredded that defense. Shanahan made mincemeat out of our cover three system twice in 2016. Pederson annihilated the #1 scoring D with Nick Foles at QB.

    Those are just a couple examples. How often were we doing that? Funnily enough, our best called and executed game was against the Eagles where Bev focused on getting rid of the ball quickly with rub routes to beat the Eagles' man coverage. Even then, we relied on some Wilson magic to sustain drives. The problem is that those kinds of games were too few and far between. If you can run it down their throats, cool, but if you can't, it's time to get creative and we rarely saw that.


    Yeah but are Solari and Schottenheimer better or worse than Bevell/Cable?

    Neither is known for their complex dynamic offensive blocking or schemes. So idk, as much as I'm glad we've turned the page on Bevell and Cable.................I'm not jumping up and down that we now have two other journeymen line coaches and coordinators.

    I'm just worried that Pete's doing some sort of last ditch effort to getting back to basics on offense, when the rest of the top teams in the league are sprinting past us with dynamic innovative scheme and playcalling.

    Very few places has this sort of mentality worked, where after down year(s) bringing in re-treads was wildly successful.


    Oh man, I am super in agreement with you there. That's why the Schotty hire didn't sound good to me from the start. Solari I was less concerned about - he at least presided over a Niners OL that was very good and I'm not sure who else was available. Guys like DeFilippo and LaFleur were available for OC and we got Schotty instead. I wish him the best of luck and I like his attitude and focus on fundamentals, but the scheme and playcalling conservatism worries me.

    My point was that Bev wasn't like those guys either so I was fine with moving on from him. I'm disappointed that Pete doesn't seem to want to embrace the new direction successful offenses are taken, but it shouldn't have surprised me.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • adeltaY wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:Pete and/or Bev, whatever combo, do not have close to the level of creativity of designing an offense as Reid or Peterson. Throw Cable in there too because his blocking schemes weren't that varied. The way Pederson used different blocking schemes in the run game was fascinating. There was a play in the SB where half their line pass blocked and half run blocked and the DL was stumped, resulting in a huge hole for Ajayi. When the Eagles played the Broncos they did an amazing job of scheming Von Miller out of plays by leaving him unblocked as a read player and they shredded that defense. Shanahan made mincemeat out of our cover three system twice in 2016. Pederson annihilated the #1 scoring D with Nick Foles at QB.

    Those are just a couple examples. How often were we doing that? Funnily enough, our best called and executed game was against the Eagles where Bev focused on getting rid of the ball quickly with rub routes to beat the Eagles' man coverage. Even then, we relied on some Wilson magic to sustain drives. The problem is that those kinds of games were too few and far between. If you can run it down their throats, cool, but if you can't, it's time to get creative and we rarely saw that.


    Yeah but are Solari and Schottenheimer better or worse than Bevell/Cable?

    Neither is known for their complex dynamic offensive blocking or schemes. So idk, as much as I'm glad we've turned the page on Bevell and Cable.................I'm not jumping up and down that we now have two other journeymen line coaches and coordinators.

    I'm just worried that Pete's doing some sort of last ditch effort to getting back to basics on offense, when the rest of the top teams in the league are sprinting past us with dynamic innovative scheme and playcalling.

    Very few places has this sort of mentality worked, where after down year(s) bringing in re-treads was wildly successful.


    Oh man, I am super in agreement with you there. That's why the Schotty hire didn't sound good to me from the start. Solari I was less concerned about - he at least presided over a Niners OL that was very good and I'm not sure who else was available. Guys like DeFilippo and LaFleur were available for OC and we got Schotty instead. I wish him the best of luck and I like his attitude and focus on fundamentals, but the scheme and playcalling conservatism worries me.

    My point was that Bev wasn't like those guys either so I was fine with moving on from him. I'm disappointed that Pete doesn't seem to want to embrace the new direction successful offenses are taken, but it shouldn't have surprised me.


    You copy what everyone else is doing you get what everyone else has, no Super Bowl, It people that make other teams think and have to adapt that win. people that are runners up are the ones that try to copy what the successful teams do.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25443
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Some of these posts got me like:
    Image

    The only real problem you can levy at Wilson from the pocket is his lack of ability to step up in the pocket. That will never change, he is 5'10'', and like Brees the interior line has to hold their ground and give their diminutive signal caller the space to throw, or he has to escape. That is his only option at 5'10''. If I were running the team this would've already been addressed many seasons ago. By drafting guys like Joel Bitonio, Gabe Jackson, and in this yrs draft I wanted Will Hernandez. I keep wishing for the Hawks to draft some interior studs, but they keep ignoring it. RW's minor handicap is easily made up for with his ability to escape, and actually won't come up very often if the interior line doesn't get pushed back into his lap, or they whiff, placing defenders right in his face.

    Wilson is fine from the pocket, and has proved it many times. 2015 proved my theory already on what the problem was. The gameplanning. The Seahawks had pretty much the same gameplan every week since Russ was a rookie. Then the team started slow in 2015, Lynch was hurt, they had just paid Russ a big contract extension, his numbers weren't that great, they were 2-4.

    Pete probably wanting to see if Wilson could really carry it on his own, and having an even worse O-Line. (It got worse every year under Cable.) finally switched things up. They went with a West Coast/Spread hybrid attack, and finally gameplanned differently. It caught teams off guard and Russ went on a historical tear, and did most of his damage from the pocket in the final 10 games that had never been seen before in league history.

    The problem was teams eventually adjusted to what Seattle was doing, and Pete went back to what he knew. Run the ball, play conservative, chuck it deep. Here we are 3 yrs later hoping things have finally changed.

    Look at RW's #s against AFC opponents vs NFC opponents. (Familiarity extremes.)

    The AFC doesn't know the Hawks that well let us look at RW's numbers.

    CAREER AGAINST AFC --> 110.5 Passer rating w/ a 9.32 AYPA. Sacked every 12.77 pass attempts
    CAREER AGAINST NFC --> 94.7 w/ a 7.64 AYPA. Sacked every 11.02 pass attempts.

    The more the same team sees Pete's offense = It becomes much easier to prepare for, thus play against due to how simple their scheme is. I always look forward to AFC opponents because of this. The Rams weren't that much better than the Hawks player wise, coaching wise they were light years ahead, that is why Pete fired his staff, he was getting out schemed every week. Schotty is being brought in to refresh the O, and help Pete get the running game going, his primary concern. Pete knows if he can run the ball, Russ can take care of the passing game = Offense fixed.

    My final point is this. Look up Russell's historic numbers in the 4th qtr last season. If he wasn't that good in the pocket he wouldn't be able to put those crazy numbers up behind a wretched O-Line & no run game w/teams specifically gameplanning to stop RW every week.

    The difference between Russ in the 4th qtr last yr vs. 1st-3rd qtr. was the --> Game Plan <-- They would chuck it in the trashcan, abandon it, and finally play to Russ' strengths by letting Russ off the leash. The sacks were significantly down in the 4th qtr. as well. Literally every thing points to terrible gameplanning.

    RW's 4th Qtr #s in 2017

    67.63% -- 18 TDs -- 1 INT -- 134.1 Passer Rating -- 9.4 YPA -- Sacked???..... 3 Times. That is it... just 3 times.

    Does this describe a player that isn't very good from the pocket to any of you? Running into sacks? Can't see?

    Wrong on all accounts, or he would've been sacked many more times in the 4th, and his numbers would be way WAY worse. Those numbers are freaking ridiculous, but he can't see, and is not good from the pocket? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

    1st-3rd qtr he was sacked 39 times. Just look at that disparity and think long and hard about what changed in the 4th qtr.

    Just for the hell of it for some context.


    Brady's 4th Qtr #s in 2017

    63.20% -- 6 TDs -- 1 INT -- 97.6 Passer Rating -- 7.2 YPA -- Sacked 9 times.


    Cousin's 4th Qtr #s in 2017

    65.03% -- 8 TDs -- 5 INT -- 91.0 Passer Rating -- 7.4 YPA -- Sacked 14 times.



    These are just passing statistics, when you add on rushing it is insane how far ahead RW is. He is a monster.
    Anyone want to trade RW for these guys?

    Russell's pocket ability isn't the problem. Bad gameplanning/philosophy is the problem. RW has been bailing out their failed staff for years.
    2017 4th qtr #s prove it, Thx for the laughs guys.
    Image
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1962
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Pete wants balance of run and pass whenever possible because it is harder on the defense to face a team that can both pass and run effectively. That balance doesn’t necessarily have to be contained within one game either. In 2006, USC beat Nebraska by running up and down the field. A week later they dominated Wazzu with the passing game. They could do both. Balance.

    “You can’t win it in the first quarter...” doesn’t mean don’t score then. Pete has repeatedly said that. It means a team needs to be good at finishing and never give up. It’s about competing for the entire game. Every coach in football preaches finishing. This is simply Pete’s way of doing so.
    Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
    http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com
    User avatar
    sc85sis
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6870
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


  • chris98251 wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:Pete and/or Bev, whatever combo, do not have close to the level of creativity of designing an offense as Reid or Peterson. Throw Cable in there too because his blocking schemes weren't that varied. The way Pederson used different blocking schemes in the run game was fascinating. There was a play in the SB where half their line pass blocked and half run blocked and the DL was stumped, resulting in a huge hole for Ajayi. When the Eagles played the Broncos they did an amazing job of scheming Von Miller out of plays by leaving him unblocked as a read player and they shredded that defense. Shanahan made mincemeat out of our cover three system twice in 2016. Pederson annihilated the #1 scoring D with Nick Foles at QB.

    Those are just a couple examples. How often were we doing that? Funnily enough, our best called and executed game was against the Eagles where Bev focused on getting rid of the ball quickly with rub routes to beat the Eagles' man coverage. Even then, we relied on some Wilson magic to sustain drives. The problem is that those kinds of games were too few and far between. If you can run it down their throats, cool, but if you can't, it's time to get creative and we rarely saw that.


    Yeah but are Solari and Schottenheimer better or worse than Bevell/Cable?

    Neither is known for their complex dynamic offensive blocking or schemes. So idk, as much as I'm glad we've turned the page on Bevell and Cable.................I'm not jumping up and down that we now have two other journeymen line coaches and coordinators.

    I'm just worried that Pete's doing some sort of last ditch effort to getting back to basics on offense, when the rest of the top teams in the league are sprinting past us with dynamic innovative scheme and playcalling.

    Very few places has this sort of mentality worked, where after down year(s) bringing in re-treads was wildly successful.


    Oh man, I am super in agreement with you there. That's why the Schotty hire didn't sound good to me from the start. Solari I was less concerned about - he at least presided over a Niners OL that was very good and I'm not sure who else was available. Guys like DeFilippo and LaFleur were available for OC and we got Schotty instead. I wish him the best of luck and I like his attitude and focus on fundamentals, but the scheme and playcalling conservatism worries me.

    My point was that Bev wasn't like those guys either so I was fine with moving on from him. I'm disappointed that Pete doesn't seem to want to embrace the new direction successful offenses are taken, but it shouldn't have surprised me.


    You copy what everyone else is doing you get what everyone else has, no Super Bowl, It people that make other teams think and have to adapt that win. people that are runners up are the ones that try to copy what the successful teams do.


    I'm not saying copy them. They are moving forward and I want us to as well. Evolution is necessary, especially when you no longer have the personnel to play like you used to. We don't have Money and a historic defense so the feasibility of playing like the 2012-2014 Hawks is low. When you have less talent, you win with scheme.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Hawk1217 wrote:

    Okay so I want to understand this, the HC who controls everything, and the OC who calls and designs everything, have no blame for the maturation of a QB they have had since he was a Rookie. Just checking because that is what you are saying. Hmmm Yeah sorry, that does not pass any test at all. FYI Wilson was a pocket passer during most of 2015 where he was great. Also once again he has one of the best QB ratings, complt% in the pocket. However, you can't expect him to stay in the pocket when he has one of the worse Oline in the league and a lot of long slow developing plays. Both are things the OC and HC do have a lot of control over. FYI playing to Wilson strengths is getting him to the line with a lot of time so he can make adjustments, you know 2015 remember that. What happened as soon as Lynch came back, they went right back to the same old thing that did not work. Wilson does not call the plays, create the plays, or provide the players for the plays that is the HC and OC and as such, they deserve and rightfully so blame.


    I didn't say NO blame, I said to think Russell's issues are because of Pete or the combo of Pete and Bevell is false.

    The past two years by default because of how terrible the line is and our running game Russell HAS thrown the ball all over the place, and that's resulted in missing the playoffs.

    It's just not a good consistent way for this offense to operate, depending on Russell for 90% of the production. You can be any sort of offense you want in the NFL, but you can't be predictable.

    btw, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. We have a top 5 QB, a QB that 28 teams would kill for.........so to nitpick on Pete for hampering Russell's growth in some way because of how he runs the offense is about item #38 on my list of worries for the 2018 season.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13850
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Interesting reading. The premise is excellent but Pete is no planner. His success at every level has relied on out personneling and out executing the base principles. While no Shotty is known for thinking outside the box conceptually there is history of meticulous game planning and strategizing. It’s a long shot but hopefully some one brings these ideas to his attention.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4179
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Hawk1217 wrote:

    Okay so I want to understand this, the HC who controls everything, and the OC who calls and designs everything, have no blame for the maturation of a QB they have had since he was a Rookie. Just checking because that is what you are saying. Hmmm Yeah sorry, that does not pass any test at all. FYI Wilson was a pocket passer during most of 2015 where he was great. Also once again he has one of the best QB ratings, complt% in the pocket. However, you can't expect him to stay in the pocket when he has one of the worse Oline in the league and a lot of long slow developing plays. Both are things the OC and HC do have a lot of control over. FYI playing to Wilson strengths is getting him to the line with a lot of time so he can make adjustments, you know 2015 remember that. What happened as soon as Lynch came back, they went right back to the same old thing that did not work. Wilson does not call the plays, create the plays, or provide the players for the plays that is the HC and OC and as such, they deserve and rightfully so blame.


    I didn't say NO blame, I said to think Russell's issues are because of Pete or the combo of Pete and Bevell is false.

    The past two years by default because of how terrible the line is and our running game Russell HAS thrown the ball all over the place, and that's resulted in missing the playoffs.

    It's just not a good consistent way for this offense to operate, depending on Russell for 90% of the production. You can be any sort of offense you want in the NFL, but you can't be predictable.

    btw, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. We have a top 5 QB, a QB that 28 teams would kill for.........so to nitpick on Pete for hampering Russell's growth in some way because of how he runs the offense is about item #38 on my list of worries for the 2018 season.


    Pete and Bevell are a contributing factor to these issues and for the issues in part on them. As to the reason we missed the playoff the last 2 years as you put it, (FYI we missed only 1 year ) is that Wilson is throwing the ball all over the place is false. There were a lot more reasons than that, no run game, a hurting defense, a really bad kicker, etc etc.

    btw I agree I am not sure why we are arguing, I think we are saying the same thing, just in different ways LOL
    Last edited by Hawk1217 on Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • I'll just leave this here for people to peruse if they are interested in reading it, or to pass over if their goal is to promote their opinions instead of having a discussion.

    http://www.neontommy.com/news/2014/12/seahawks-are-flying-not-necessarily-through-air

    It's a 2015 analysis of some problems we had on offense specifically relating to Wilson's performance.

    There are a couple of interesting items in there that I believe are extremely relevant to this conversation:

    1: The OL was built for run blocking, not pass blocking. This is to do with Carroll's run-first mentality. The fact that Wilson had to carry the offense behind an ill-suited OL last year was more a function of the successive injuries to running backs, and the ineffectiveness of other running backs we expected more from. The former is bad luck; the latter is bad planning.

    2: When Wilson throws quickly (under 2.5 seconds), his QB rating is 112 and his completion percentage is 73.9%. I think this negates the argument that Wilson can't see over the line, because if he is delivering the ball in 2.5 seconds or less, he's in the pocket. We need to take greater advantage of Wilson's effectiveness in this area.

    3: Keep in mind that when this article was written, the Seahawks were 12-4 and rolling toward a Super Bowl repeat. This isn't a criticism of a team with its wheels falling off. This is a genuine look at an area that had some real question marks even when we were rolling as a team. As it turned out, the failures in the NFCCG and the Super Bowl largely came down to the passing game (4 INTs vs Green Bay, and ineffective passing vs New England until we inserted Chris Matthews and took advantage of his height, and then the obvious game-killing play.

    4: I'll quote this directly from the article:
    When something happens on an NFL football field, there usually isn't only one reason for it, and this is no different. The Seahawks passing game problems are the result of a combinations of things, like poor pass protection, questionable play at times from Russell Wilson, chemistry issues, and how the Seahawks are coached.


    My takeaway from this is that Wilson is a phenomenal talent who needs a more balanced offensive line instead of one only built for run-blocking, but does still have room to grow as a QB both in his reads and in his confidence.

    And this just in from the pages of DUH! magazine: There is enough blame to go around for everyone, so no one gets singled out as THE failure here.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2191
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • I know people say as Wilson ages his elusiveness will decline because of speed. And I agree to some extent. But I think at worst he would become more Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Big Ben-esque in terms of escapability. I don't think that aspect of his game will ever disappear.

    That said, what all 3 QBs have in common I guess is an injury history
    User avatar
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


  • KiwiHawk wrote:I'll just leave this here for people to peruse if they are interested in reading it, or to pass over if their goal is to promote their opinions instead of having a discussion.

    http://www.neontommy.com/news/2014/12/seahawks-are-flying-not-necessarily-through-air

    It's a 2015 analysis of some problems we had on offense specifically relating to Wilson's performance.

    There are a couple of interesting items in there that I believe are extremely relevant to this conversation:

    1: The OL was built for run blocking, not pass blocking. This is to do with Carroll's run-first mentality. The fact that Wilson had to carry the offense behind an ill-suited OL last year was more a function of the successive injuries to running backs, and the ineffectiveness of other running backs we expected more from. The former is bad luck; the latter is bad planning.

    2: When Wilson throws quickly (under 2.5 seconds), his QB rating is 112 and his completion percentage is 73.9%. I think this negates the argument that Wilson can't see over the line, because if he is delivering the ball in 2.5 seconds or less, he's in the pocket. We need to take greater advantage of Wilson's effectiveness in this area.

    3: Keep in mind that when this article was written, the Seahawks were 12-4 and rolling toward a Super Bowl repeat. This isn't a criticism of a team with its wheels falling off. This is a genuine look at an area that had some real question marks even when we were rolling as a team. As it turned out, the failures in the NFCCG and the Super Bowl largely came down to the passing game (4 INTs vs Green Bay, and ineffective passing vs New England until we inserted Chris Matthews and took advantage of his height, and then the obvious game-killing play.

    4: I'll quote this directly from the article:
    When something happens on an NFL football field, there usually isn't only one reason for it, and this is no different. The Seahawks passing game problems are the result of a combinations of things, like poor pass protection, questionable play at times from Russell Wilson, chemistry issues, and how the Seahawks are coached.


    My takeaway from this is that Wilson is a phenomenal talent who needs a more balanced offensive line instead of one only built for run-blocking, but does still have room to grow as a QB both in his reads and in his confidence.

    And this just in from the pages of DUH! magazine: There is enough blame to go around for everyone, so no one gets singled out as THE failure here.



    GREAT POST!!!!
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • Scorpion05 wrote:I know people say as Wilson ages his elusiveness will decline because of speed. And I agree to some extent. But I think at worst he would become more Tony Romo, Aaron Rodgers, Big Ben-esque in terms of escapability. I don't think that aspect of his game will ever disappear.

    That said, what all 3 QBs have in common I guess is an injury history

    Wouldn't say that, one injury could completely change Wilson's dynamic as a scrambler. One injury could be the difference between best scrambler in the NFL and "just another guy" in this area. Wilson relies on being able to reach full speed very quickly, and being able to start and stop on a dime. If he was a running back he would be Barry Sanders. The speed at which he can reach full speed, and stop at the drop of a hate is rare athletic talent. Despite clocking in only at 4.5 he has a deceptively quick second gear that he can turn on instantly. Even DB's can struggle to keep up with him when he turns that second gear up. Any kind of injuries to the knee could really affect his ability to do Russell like things.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2706
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • Last years line couldn’t run block either.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4179
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


  • He already had a knee injury and he didn't seem much slower this year
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • adeltaY wrote:He already had a knee injury and he didn't seem much slower this year


    exactly and 1 shoulder injury and any QB could not be able to throw. The fact is we have seen him produce and thrive as a pocket passer, we have seen him on the move, he can do both and do both well, so this insane narrative that if he loses his mobility he is through is insane. He is doing what he has to help us win. IF the time comes again (alla 2015) were he can do it mostly form the pocket he will. But that depends on the offense run and the oline. Also since we are playing the what if game, what if he does lose some mobility but in doing so starts manipulating the pocket like Brady then what? The answer once again he is good to go. The what if game, is great but you need to realize what if can go both ways. Also, Tarkenton was able to scramble till his late 30s no reason Wilson cant too.
    User avatar
    Hawk1217
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 135
    Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:37 am


  • adeltaY wrote:He already had a knee injury and he didn't seem much slower this year

    His knee injury was pretty benign, it was an MCL sprain. Players can play on that injury, or are out for a max of two weeks. It isn't a game breaker as far as injuries are concerned. Now, knee ligament tears, Achilles tears, and certain ankle injuries are a different story.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2706
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Next


It is currently Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:34 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online