Article: Do we really need Lynch?

Gametime · Jul 29, 2014

This will spark some good debate about the current Lynch hold out. While I fully expected the team to move on without Lynch as early as next year, the holdout has brought up an interesting topic. What do the Hawks look like without him NOW.

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/7366/seahawks-can-thrive-with-or-without-lynch

Hard to argue that Lynch's production didn't "carry" the team numerically but it did mean a TON.

So the question is, What's your take on the true value in terms of WINS that Lynch's absence or presence brings to this present team?

DavidSeven · Jul 29, 2014

TB; DR (Terry Blount; Didn't Read).

Sac · Jul 29, 2014

Blount sucks

Sac · Jul 29, 2014

Gametime = Blount incognito.

Gametime · Jul 29, 2014

SacHawk2.0":3ogq2tyq said:
Gametime = Blount incognito.

LOL. Well played. Well played indeed.

But forgetting the D-bag author, what DOES the team do without Lynch hypothetically? It's a reasonable idea to think about while enduring the horrid doldrums of camp.

DavidSeven · Jul 29, 2014

That analysis is so woeful. He points to the SB domination as evidence supporting his theory that Seattle could be successful without him. How about the fact that Denver was loading their defense up front to stop him, especially while playing from behind? Or the fact that he was dominant versus New Orleans and San Francisco (i.e., the reason they made it to the Super Bowl in the first place).

You want to know what our offense has looked like without Lynch? The last known example is a 6-3 loss to an awful Cleveland team. Not saying that's where the team is at now, but to quantify Lynch's impact through pure rushing numbers is flat out lazy. You ignore his impact on defenses, his impact as a receiving threat and his exceptional pass blocking. You ignore the "identity" impact he has on the field.

Sac · Jul 29, 2014

The 'Hawks will still run the ball 50+% of the time, set up play action and big shots unless for some reason they get behind, which isn't likely.

But if they do, you can count on Russ to lead a comeback.

Lynch is a beast, no doubt. But the identity of the team has been established and there are talented runners on the bench behind him.

Gametime · Jul 29, 2014

I find myself falling in between the two theories. It's hard to measure the tangible "identity" impact as you worded it (nicely done by the way DavidSeven). I wonder how Russ would fair if defenses didn't have to truly sell out to stop run first and was able to drop a guy into coverage more.

BUT....... I can certainly see them be very productive IF Harvin stays healthy. But that's still a bit scary to me to put so much on his shoulders. This team seems to have been built not on the 1 or 2 guys to always get it done. For all that was said about Sherm, Kam, ET, the D-line.....Look at Smith's playoff performances! It's not about Lynch and Lynch alone. Wasn't designed that way and that's certainly not the long term plan.

But it's so hard to imagine the offense without that Beast rushing and crushing skulls. Tough call.

WilsonMVP · Jul 30, 2014

As long as Harvin and Wilson are healthy I am not worried about this offense at all....Harvin opened up so much in the short ammount of time he played. He is a true playmaker.

TwilightError · Jul 30, 2014

The team does not "live and die" with Lynch, but I can see us getting 2-3 wins less without him. He is the type who can change results with his personal contribution.

Russ Willstrong · Jul 30, 2014

Truth is we don't know how our offense will be without Lynch. It could morph into a more balanced attack and faster offense. It could allow more versatility, unpredictable elements, improved playcalling, etc. It could lead to bigger leads or bigger losses. We wont know until we cross that bridge.
I admit it's easy to fall in love with Lynch's bruising running style. However to think that quicker runners like CMike, Turbin, Harvin, etc couldn't be as effective would be premature. After all when you can get yards without so much contact you stand to have healthier players. Granted Lynch is a rare exception how long would his health and good fortune last.
People want to credit our running game for the playoff wins but our defense was the backbone. Our ballsy third down passing was as important to our success as our dedication to the run game IMO.

Kaiser · Jul 30, 2014

TwilightError":28wt0n75 said:
The team does not "live and die" with Lynch, but I can see us getting 2-3 wins less without him. He is the type who can change results with his personal contribution.

If one of those 2-3 less wins is in the playoffs, they absolutely live and die with marshawn.

Sac · Jul 30, 2014

WPA(win probability added) for Lynch last year, was 2.5 but that number is measured against replacement level players.

Are Turbo and Michael's ceilings no higher than average bench players?

Brithawk · Jul 30, 2014

There was a good Grantland article about this the other day, sadly on tapatalk so can't link it

chris98251 · Jul 30, 2014

If you are young enough to remember John Riggins and Earl Campbell then you know what losing a runner of that style can do to a teams identity. Czonka with the Dolphins as well. You don't have the same respect for a runner that avoids a blow versus giving one and it changes your teams dynamics.

scutterhawk · Jul 30, 2014

Russ Willstrong":1rs3nf7k said:
Truth is we don't know how our offense will be without Lynch. It could morph into a more balanced attack and faster offense. It could allow more versatility, unpredictable elements, improved playcalling, etc. It could lead to bigger leads or bigger losses. We wont know until we cross that bridge.
I admit it's easy to fall in love with Lynch's bruising running style. However to think that quicker runners like CMike, Turbin, Harvin, etc couldn't be as effective would be premature. After all when you can get yards without so much contact you stand to have healthier players. Granted Lynch is a rare exception how long would his health and good fortune last.
People want to credit our running game for the playoff wins but our defense was the backbone. Our ballsy third down passing was as important to our success as our dedication to the run game IMO.

^ This ^
As I've already said in another post ,"I Love What Marshawn Does On The Battlefield", and I would hope that he stays healthy, and comes back to work, but you are 100% correct about not knowing what our Offense would be like without him.

-The Glove- · Jul 30, 2014

Do we want to have to find out?

HawkWow · Jul 30, 2014

Thus far, while good, Turbo isn't overly special and Micheal appears to be sorta' short bus special. The current state of our O line, imo, again requires a special back.

While attending OTAs, Lynch saw a sluggish Bowie and a rookie Britt. No Breno...no MRob. Last year he saw the Hawks pass on O line help to instead grab his replacement. Hard to trigger his incentives in that environment.

I'm not the least surprised or upset about Lynch's position on this. And if Lynch has leverage (?), it's the FO that gave it to him.

SoulfishHawk · Jul 30, 2014

I can't even believe this is a question. Hell yes they need Lynch. :roll:

TwilightError · Jul 30, 2014

Kaiser":yzfr2lyh said:
TwilightError":yzfr2lyh said:

The team does not "live and die" with Lynch, but I can see us getting 2-3 wins less without him. He is the type who can change results with his personal contribution.

Click to expand...

If one of those 2-3 less wins is in the playoffs, they absolutely live and die with marshawn.

True. I would only name Wilson and Thomas as individual players who are more important than Lynch for the teams success.

Article: Do we really need Lynch?

New member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads