Do we win SBXL with Wilson as the QB?

HawkFan72

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
16,570
Reaction score
1
Location
Bay Area, CA
I know Russell would not have let his emotions overwhelm him like Matt did. Matt let the refs frustrate him into mistakes, including the costly INT that he received the penalty on.

I love Hass, but Wilson does not let himself become frustrated like Hass did. He would have played much more calmly in XL and it may have been the difference...refs screwing us or not.
 

CANHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
12,041
Reaction score
0
Location
PoCompton, BC Canada
Sure, and if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. Means about as much at this point. It's in the past, time to let it go.
 

HawKnPeppa

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
4,733
Reaction score
0
CANHawk":2mq6pf9l said:
Sure, and if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. Means about as much at this point. It's in the past, time to let it go.

The thread topic is a 'what if' scenario, so if you don't want to play, urinals are for peeing in.

I feel Russell would have at least made that game a nail-biter. It's what he has done all of reg/post season.
Russell has the ability to elevate the play of his team mates. Consistent with this position, is one of the comments Larry Fitzgerald made after playing with Russell for the FIRST time in his career. He said that the other guys on that Pro Bowl team "gravitated" to Russell. That's a powerful statement when you consider Fitz is a seasoned vet, along with quite a few others in that squad.
 

400WattHPSHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Washington
CANHawk":264ojvad said:
Sure, and if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. Means about as much at this point. It's in the past, time to let it go.
HawKnPeppa":264ojvad said:
The thread topic is a 'what if' scenario, so if you don't want to play, urinals are for peeing in.

Umm...he's a squatter. But i get your point. :mrgreen:

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but didn't Russell have a better statistical year his rookie year than Matt had in any of his years?
 

olyfan63

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
5,651
Reaction score
1,684
Of course we win with Wilson at QB in Super Bowl XL. Mostly because of the retarded pick Hasselbeck threw after the phantom holding penalty. Wilson would not have made that kind of mistake.
And it's like others have said. Down 11 in 4Q, with Wilson, we BELIEVE. He influences everyone to elevate their play. And can you imagine Wilson with an O-Line that can protect him, and he can find receivers instead of always scrambling for his life? We rack up at least 28 points with Wilson at QB, and win by 2 TD's.
 

ProckHawks

New member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Location
Vancouver WA and Kennewick Wa
The better question is. Do we won that Superbowl with the 2012 Seahawk team? That answer is YES. We streamroll the STEALERS and beat down Bettis and his hollywood movie ending worse then childrapist in prison.
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
463
hawkfan68":3gzp0jxu said:
I don't believe questionable QB play was an issue in SBXL. There were other factors that led to losing that game. As much as I like Russell, with those circumstances I don't believe he would led the Seahawks to a win. He doesn't control penalties and poor defensive play.

Questionable QB play wasn't an issue - I agree - but Matt didn't "tilt the field" that day, but do you think - given 49 attempts as Hasselbeck did (not to mention 20 rushing attempts by Alexander) that we'd only put 10 points on the board?

The people that are saying nobody could have overcome the refs that day - compare the calls in that game to the calls in Chicago earlier this year (a game Russell didn't panic in and still won).

I know the calls in XL were bad, but some of the ones in that Bears game were ridiculous, I don't see any difference in the two
 

Seahawk Sailor

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
22,963
Reaction score
1
Location
California via Negros Occidental, Philippines
Wilson has already shown he doesn't let the fact that everything going against him get him unfocused and defeated, and that is a major difference between this team and that. But it's not just the quarterbacks. That infectious attitude carries over to all the other players too.

I think Wilson alone would give us a shot to win it, but this team versus that team has a better shot too. Remember, it was reportedly Flynn who was pumping everyone up on the sidelines, telling the team we were still in the Atlanta game.
 

RichNhansom

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
4,256
Reaction score
3
Threads like this are kind of dangerous because they bring out some pretty bad information and bias is 100% the most important component in the decision process.

Wilson would have never thrown the pick? Really? Because if the Bear's DB's could catch a football we would never have had that comeback. Wilson is great but he isn't a robot. Receivers and QB's have communication breakdowns and if Wilson throws the ball 49 times then you can reasonably expect it might happen.

Panic in the 4th. I put most of that on Holmgren. He was absolutely freaking out on the sidelines and did as much to take his team out of it as the officiating.

The Pylon pass to Djack: That pass is one of the reasons I don't have fond memories of Jackson. All the talent in the world but constant brain farts and that pass was his biggest one. I have watched it to many times and the pass was amazing. Put where only Djack could get it from the 39 yard line and dropped into his hands perfectly. Djack caught the ball in bounds over his left shoulder with his leading right foot inside the line. All he had to do was drag his left foot and it would have been first and goal at the one yard line but Djack pulled another Djack and carried his left foot and actually stepped on the out of bounds line. Any decent receiver would have made that a catch. Now that being said does anyone believe the officials or even booth review would have called it a catch? Based on everything else in that game, I don't know how you could.

Would Holmgren have run the option? I doubt it. Would Shanahan have RGIII running it so Carroll would have known how to copy it? Well since RGIII wasn't in the NFL, I doubt it and if you remove the option from Wilson's play book and force him to be strictly a pocket passer, does his stats really look the same?

Questions like the one the OP is posting remind me of Tarvarus's fan club. They are so blatantly bias toward the favored QB they induce delusions of grandeur and completely ignore anything needed to see what they want. It invokes taking sides and ignores what the real cause of that SBXL result was.

I guess it is fair to ask, if Eric Pruit replaced Earl Thomas this year, would we still have won 11 games?
 

loafoftatupu

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
11
Location
Lake Tapps, WA
I don't think so.

Hass was actually on in that game, every time something good happened, it would get thwarted by a "timely" penalty.

The Hawks were the least penalized team in the league that year. Yet in the SB, Locklear was called for holding a guy that even Mike Pussyieria, head of officiating acknowledges was offsides. Even then, it wasn't a hold. The Hawks had more calls go against them in that one game, than literally 3 of their other games that year combined. The Steelers had THREE.. Count them THREE go against them, two of them being in the first half for 5 yard, pre-snap procedure calls that are mandatory.

No matter what anyone says or feels, the NFL had a lot of money to lose if the Seahawks win that game. Just on licensing alone. Does that mean it was fixed? No, but we are talking about millions and millions of dollars, not to mention the ridiculous supply of merchandise that had to be pre-made in order to fulfill the world-wide Steeler fan base in the event of a Steeler win.

It does bring a question though, with Russell Wilson getting SO much love from EVERYONE, could it have outmatched the heart-warming story of an overweight, aging and ineffective RB coming home to play his last game?

I don't think it would have mattered, but I bet Wilson would have had a great game no matter how he was played.

None of that matters anymore, Wilson is forcing the league and the East Coast to give attention. The guy is their dream icon and can flat out play football.
 

hawkfan68

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
9,951
Reaction score
1,615
Location
Sammamish, WA
scutterhawk":2b6grddr said:
rastahawk":2b6grddr said:
Yeah yeah I know but its the off season so what the heck.

Wilson has a quality that I have never seen in any other Seahawk QB and that is his uncanny ability to keep us believing that we have a chance to win the game no matter the circumstances. People just don't vacate the stands if we're down by 3 scores in the 4th quarter. That's when the little maestro takes over. This is not aimed at bashing Matt (and I love Matt) but I have always felt that if we were in a critical rally point in a game I am NOT overly surprised if Matt throws an interception, takes an incorrect option, or gets sacked. In those situations Wilson has much more upside. He is a better "Closer". In SBXL we came out and laid an egg in the 4th qtr. I don't think that happens with Wilson.
I know there are a LOT of folks here that will say no, and I believe they would be wrong.
Here we finally get a brightly glowing star, that is being touted by the > MEDIA<, and critics are nowhere to be found, EVERYBODY wants Russell Wilson to succeed.
You can't just ignore RW, because there are too many waiting for someone/anyone to step aside for just one second, so they can jump in to grease the wheels on the Wilson bandwagon.
His kind of character demands that the officiating be 100% fair, and at it's very best.
Only reason RW couldn't do the job then, is because he's just too damned short for Holmgrens liking.quote]

Holmgren drafted Seneca Wallace who is about the same height as RW. So I don't think height would have been a factor. Which player that Holmgren kept on the bench that should have been playing over someone else? I think Holmgren would have played RW, if he had him. RW earned his playing time by what he did. I think Holmgren would have respected that and would have no qualms about playing him if he would have given the best chance to win. You don't take three teams to the Superbowl without having a clue of what your doing. The demise of the Seahawks happened because Holmgren and Ruskell were in a power struggle. Fortunately, now the coach and GM are on the same page.
 

CANHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
12,041
Reaction score
0
Location
PoCompton, BC Canada
HawKnPeppa":31r75h4l said:
CANHawk":31r75h4l said:
Sure, and if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. Means about as much at this point. It's in the past, time to let it go.

The thread topic is a 'what if' scenario, so if you don't want to play, urinals are for peeing in.

I feel Russell would have at least made that game a nail-biter. It's what he has done all of reg/post season.
Russell has the ability to elevate the play of his team mates. Consistent with this position, is one of the comments Larry Fitzgerald made after playing with Russell for the FIRST time in his career. He said that the other guys on that Pro Bowl team "gravitated" to Russell. That's a powerful statement when you consider Fitz is a seasoned vet, along with quite a few others in that squad.

Because it's a useless exersice that doesn't really accomplish anything. Sure you could magically parachute Russell into that game, but the offense at that time was geared toward Hass's skillset... so let's imagine that we're going to parachute Bevel in as well. But that's a whole new offense, so let's pretend everyone had a season to work with Russell and Bevel... oh but Robbie Tobek won't be used to Russell's calls so let's trade out Tobek for Unger.... etc. etc. etc.

Before you know it, we're exchanging the entire offensive line for a pair of Cat bulldozers and giving all the wide recievers rocket boots. Sure, If I litterally had bulldozers blocking for me and WR's with rocket boots we would probably beat the 2005 Steelers. But what if the Steelers could trade Joey Porter for a Silverback Gorilla on a skateboard...

One off what if's are dumb. At least make it team for team. Could the `12 Hawks in their entirety beat the `05 Steelers? Abso-frakkin-lutely.
 

Seahawkscrazy

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
993
Reaction score
0
Location
Dallas, TX
Ok, OP. I'll play.

I believe we do win that game with Russ. There's one thing that Russ does for this team that Hass never could. He can make them focus, and re-focus again, if needed. Hass couldn't stop the meltdown once it started, but Russ? Would have stopped that ish with the quickness!
 

RichNhansom

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
4,256
Reaction score
3
CANHawk":1pa3jz0v said:
HawKnPeppa":1pa3jz0v said:
CANHawk":1pa3jz0v said:
Sure, and if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. Means about as much at this point. It's in the past, time to let it go.

The thread topic is a 'what if' scenario, so if you don't want to play, urinals are for peeing in.

I feel Russell would have at least made that game a nail-biter. It's what he has done all of reg/post season.
Russell has the ability to elevate the play of his team mates. Consistent with this position, is one of the comments Larry Fitzgerald made after playing with Russell for the FIRST time in his career. He said that the other guys on that Pro Bowl team "gravitated" to Russell. That's a powerful statement when you consider Fitz is a seasoned vet, along with quite a few others in that squad.

Because it's a useless exersice that doesn't really accomplish anything. Sure you could magically parachute Russell into that game, but the offense at that time was geared toward Hass's skillset... so let's imagine that we're going to parachute Bevel in as well. But that's a whole new offense, so let's pretend everyone had a season to work with Russell and Bevel... oh but Robbie Tobek won't be used to Russell's calls so let's trade out Tobek for Unger.... etc. etc. etc.

Before you know it, we're exchanging the entire offensive line for a pair of Cat bulldozers and giving all the wide recievers rocket boots. Sure, If I litterally had bulldozers blocking for me and WR's with rocket boots we would probably beat the 2005 Steelers. But what if the Steelers could trade Joey Porter for a Silverback Gorilla on a skateboard...

One off what if's are dumb. At least make it team for team. Could the `12 Hawks in their entirety beat the `05 Steelers? Abso-frakkin-lutely.


Good post Can and while I agree in general, I'm not sure there was any way we were going to be allowed to win that game, Sorry, I know it's conspiratorial but nothing will ever change my mind that the winner of that game was decided before the first kickoff. But I do agree with your post.

Maybe the better question is, would the officials have had to work even harder?
 

HawkWow

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
0
Location
The 5-0
Odd that nobody has referenced the difference between Hass' and Wilsons running, scrambling ability. Hass definitely made plays with his legs..as in, he could move the chains when called upon. RW, OTOH, keeps plays alive and also runs for 1st downs AND touchdowns.

Loved Hass (still sport the #8 jersey) but IMO, RW is clearly the more omni-dimensional QB. Much harder to game plan for and with Strong, Walt and Hutch in front of him, I think RW would have gashed shittsburgh for 80 yards on about 5 carries. This also would have made SA more of a threat.

I think with RW, we win that game. I also think the 2012 team would have won that game. We did'nt, water under the bridge, but a good topic none-the-less.
 

strohmin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
1,863
Reaction score
1,011
Lets be serious.... With Holmgren coaching, Seneca Wallace would have been starting or we would not be running the offense with his strengths. Its hard to tell because there are too many variables.
 
Top