"Being Young Isn't a Valid Excuse Anymore"

[Fade]

I don't buy the premise. It feels like Dr P did a bunch of research, found no correlation, so he had to draw a conclusion to make his video. The last 3 SB winners isn't statistically relevant to all data from the cap era. He completely ignored the Patriot dynasty that actually disproves his entire point. Belichick (and Chiefs) did the exact opposite of Bucs and Rams and (in my unqualified opinion) is the method JS is following. -trade overvalued assets, build through the draft, fill in holes with journeyman FAs (not splashy), create a team culture around winning. The Chiefs trading Hill didn't feel like an "all in" move to me either...not like the Rams or Bucs picking up huge FA contracts and mortgaging futute picks. It comes down to Pats, Chiefs (and hopefully Seahawks) trading over valued players while the Bucs, Rams (maybe Jets) bringing in high priced FA QBs for a one-year run. Following Dr Ps formula as presented, the Broncos would have won the SB last year. To me, the video shows young aggressive coaches go all in to win and then have to rebuild (Saleh?, Hackett, McVay...). Old coaches that survive rely on a winning culture and (when they're true to it) win consistently. RCW interrupted Seattle's dynasty but it's on its way back.

Dr P wasn't born until the cap era so much of this information seems intuitive to me, and I'd guess to the other old farts here on .net.

Also, "young teams" do exist in the NFL but (of course) the average age of every team is close because of the cap. A young team has young leaders and young players in central roles, regardless of average age, age/snap or vet QB. There's simply no question, in my mind, that the 22 Seahawks was a "Young Team" compared to the 21 Seahawks. My opinion, not trying to convince anyone. BWagz leaving and Geno being a rookie starter even though he's an old guy just changed the team. It's not worth arguing about so we could use a different term if that's the goal. ...say "youthful" or "inexperienced" ...

Relative to the Seahawks, I think everyone's in agreement that we have more talent than we've had in a while. That should lead to more wins.

I, personally, think franchise QBs are overvalued too. That's probably because I like the idea of a dynasty and not a one hit wonder. Best case scenario is a QB making less than he's worth. I think the Seahawks are headed in the right direction and am optimistic. No one's yet convinced me otherwise.

Show me a team who dumped their Franchise QB so they could save money to keep their existing roster mostly intact? You speak of fantasy.

QB's don't account for 50% of the salary cap. They usually account around 15%. Moving off of him, his replacement is going to eat into that. Leaving you with about $20M in additional space to go get a really good player, but not a top flight player at the more valuable non-QB positions. As They go for $30M+.

Personal preferences are one thing, the actual data is another.

The data is clear, it's up to you if you choose to ignore it or not.

It's impossible to build a dynasty in the modern NFL, NFL rosters turnover 80% every 3 years. However, Franchise QBs are one of the few ways you can actually consistently win, as the most valuable piece on the chess board that can be a 15 yr mainstay, keeping that player intact, while moving the parts around him is the way to go. Not dumping him to save a measly 5-15% on the cap depending on the direction you go with his replacement.

According to your logic, the Chiefs were fools for paying Mahomes and should've moved off of him instead.

Belichick put out the blue-print with Brady, constantly remaking the team around him. And Brady's discounts over his career were highly exaggerated. Between Russell Wilson signing his first extension in 2015 through 2019. The Patriots won 2 more Super Bowls, while Brady counted $15M total cap dollars more ($3M avg.) against the cap in that span than Wilson. The real key to Belichick's team building success was never over paying the other guys, while continuing to redo Brady's contract to keep his cap hits as low as they could manage. (Still costed more than Wilson 2015-2019 on avg.)

The Chiefs are executing it right now as well, moving off other expensive pieces to keep their QB and it's working. They will extend Mahomes in the not too distant future, (probably next off-season) to lower his cap number, and keep pushing.

 

[Fade]

Young team = low payroll thus allowing to get top fa’s to fill in the gaps. If a few of those young players are really good, right off the bat, you are likely going to be a very good team.

Yes, and that's when you pounce. Gotta strike while the iron is hot. Not sitback and hope further incubation gets the job done.

 

[Jville]

Well bully for DR P.

Does he really think he is providing any new insight for the rest of us?

Poor guy is struggling to keep up.

 

[morgulon1]

What?

2022: I said age isn't an excuse.

2023: I said age isn't an excuse.

Last year I said the Seahawks would be younger in '23, but with higher expecations so the "their young" excuse would age like milk. Here we are.

I see what Fade is saying even if people on here don't like the way he's saying it.

The way these teams are built , you only have a window of 3-4 years until your team ages out and guys get scooped up, the guys staying want paid . The model now is get a good QB, nail the draft and
Get on it. The years of having all the same players for 10+ years are over.

Seattle has an opportunity now. They're built to compete for an owl this year.

Look at what the 9ers are looking at. It's going to be hard for them beyond this season because it's pay the piper time .
the Rams are dealing with it now .

 

[themunn]

What?

2022: I said age isn't an excuse.

2023: I said age isn't an excuse.

Last year I said the Seahawks would be younger in '23, but with higher expecations so the "their young" excuse would age like milk. Here we are.

It takes around 2-3 years at a minimum to turn around a roster and get rid of old contracts, upgrade players at skill positions and also get your young players that come in to be experienced enough to win.

Case in point 2010 through 2013 is about as swiftly as you can do it from a team that was really just awful at every single position - from the 2009 team I believe only Red Bryant, Mebane, Olindo Mare and Jon Ryan were part of the superbowl winning squad - so just 2 defensive players, a long snapper and kicker.

With that said, I agree that 2023 age is no longer an excuse. We went from 12-4 team in 2020 to a 7-10 squad in 2021. The team never needed a full makeover, but there were definitely areas where age and inexperience were showing up. Last year was the first year of the refresh, and so a lot of new players in new positions and inexperience. This year feels a lot like 2012 (where, incidentally we also failed to make it past the divisional round, which I'm sure would be an absolute travesty in your eyes), but I agree that there needs to be clear and visible progress made this year vs last.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Damn, you guys are on fire. You can always use the ignore button. And Maelstrom is still the same old a**hole he always has been, so there's that. Smartest person in the room at all times, and doesn't mind telling you so.
Young Team

 

[Maelstrom787]

Damn, you guys are on fire. You can always use the ignore button. And Maelstrom is still the same old a**hole he always has been, so there's that. Smartest person in the room at all times, and doesn't mind telling you so.
Young Team

You know, I was technically defending you that time lol

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I do know. Trying to bring some chill and have fun with it.

 

[morgulon1]

I'm a firm believer that a huge amount of luck goes into winning a SB. If it can be willed through great coaching, QB play and savvy front office work then there would be top dogs that stayed top dogs. But teams go up and down faster than a hooker on a dick.

And you can't ignore injuries in the matter. Teams that stay healthy especially at key positions will have a much higher chance to progress through the playoffs.

The injury thing is about the single biggest factor in this equation.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm a firm believer that a huge amount of luck goes into winning a SB. If it can be willed through great coaching, QB play and savvy front office work then there would be top dogs that stayed top dogs. But teams go up and down faster than a hooker on a dick.

And you can't ignore injuries in the matter. Teams that stay healthy especially at key positions will have a much higher chance to progress through the playoffs.

Our youth should help with the injury bugs. Like the SB teams, half the battle is keeping your good and great players healthy through the playoffs, and there's no better way to mitigate this part of the equation than youth. Injured less, and heal faster.

I'm super excited for this year, it could be special. But I need to see the revamped front seven play before I'm all in. Still super thin IMO. That's the one area of this roster that can't have major injury issues.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I see what Fade is saying even if people on here don't like the way he's saying it.

The way these teams are built , you only have a window of 3-4 years until your team ages out and guys get scooped up, the guys staying want paid . The model now is get a good QB, nail the draft and
Get on it. The years of having all the same players for 10+ years are over.

Seattle has an opportunity now. They're built to compete for an owl this year.

Look at what the 9ers are looking at. It's going to be hard for them beyond this season because it's pay the piper time .
the Rams are dealing with it now .

What are we using youth as an excuse for? Does Fade not think we're going deep enough into the playoffs? You know, with a 10 year backup QB and complete overhaul of the defense?

Only thing I expect is for this roster is to challenge SF for the West crown and make the playoffs again, hopefully with a high enough seed to get a home game.

That's IF we don't sustain major injuries that would derail my expectations. Other than that? Idk what people mean by "no more excuses."

This all sounds like Fade and others are once again giving themselves the necessary wiggle room to bash Pete. Which is their favorite hobby.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

Show me a team who dumped their Franchise QB so they could save money to keep their existing roster mostly intact? You speak of fantasy.

QB's don't account for 50% of the salary cap. They usually account around 15%. Moving off of him, his replacement is going to eat into that. Leaving you with about $20M in additional space to go get a really good player, but not a top flight player at the more valuable non-QB positions. As They go for $30M+.

Personal preferences are one thing, the actual data is another.

The data is clear, it's up to you if you choose to ignore it or not.

It's impossible to build a dynasty in the modern NFL, NFL rosters turnover 80% every 3 years. However, Franchise QBs are one of the few ways you can actually consistently win, as the most valuable piece on the chess board that can be a 15 yr mainstay, keeping that player intact, while moving the parts around him is the way to go. Not dumping him to save a measly 5-15% on the cap depending on the direction you go with his replacement.

According to your logic, the Chiefs were fools for paying Mahomes and should've moved off of him instead.

Belichick put out the blue-print with Brady, constantly remaking the team around him. And Brady's discounts over his career were highly exaggerated. Between Russell Wilson signing his first extension in 2015 through 2019. The Patriots won 2 more Super Bowls, while Brady counted $15M total cap dollars more ($3M avg.) against the cap in that span than Wilson. The real key to Belichick's team building success was never over paying the other guys, while continuing to redo Brady's contract to keep his cap hits as low as they could manage. (Still costed more than Wilson 2015-2019 on avg.)

The Chiefs are executing it right now as well, moving off other expensive pieces to keep their QB and it's working. They will extend Mahomes in the not too distant future, (probably next off-season) to lower his cap number, and keep pushing.

Nice post. I'm generally in the 'serviceable quarterback' and blow the cap on the pieces around him - but:

You make several good points.

 

[morgulon1]

What are we using youth as an excuse for? Does Fade not think we're going deep enough into the playoffs? You know, with a 10 year backup QB and complete overhaul of the defense?

Only thing I expect is for this roster is to challenge SF for the West crown and make the playoffs again, hopefully with a high enough seed to get a home game.

That's IF we don't sustain major injuries that would derail my expectations. Other than that? Idk what people mean by "no more excuses."

This all sounds like Fade and others are once again giving themselves the necessary wiggle room to bash Pete. Which is their favorite hobby.

I respect you Largent although that's not what I got from his post. You could possibly be right , but he's actually given the Seahawks credit as of late.
I'm only guessing but I think he was speaking of people who think Seattle will be competing for the owl in a few years and with a different QB.

I obviously think they'll be ready this year. At the very least take a step forward , regroup and hopefully win next season.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I respect you Largent although that's not what I got from his post. You could possibly be right , but he's actually given the Seahawks credit as of late.
I'm only guessing but I think he was speaking of people who think Seattle will be competing for the owl in a few years and with a different QB.

I obviously think they'll be ready this year. At the very least take a step forward , regroup and hopefully win next season.

I'm the Fade whisperer, there's always an ulterior motive.

"No excuses" means if the Hawks fail this season (whatever metric you apply to that notion), means it can't be the players right? Has to once again, be the coaches fault.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

All the things are Pete's fault.........including the weather, gas prices, all losses, etc.

 

[Fade]

Experience at key position groups matter. Average age of the 53-man roster does not.

In today's NFL it matters less than ever. Guys need a yr on the O-Line & D-Line, and no one has won with a rookie QB yet, but that's about it.

It boils down to if you think a guy can play or not, and if not, can you get him there in a year? Otherwise, the roster churn is coming for them.

 

[Fade]

I'm the Fade whisperer, there's always an ulterior motive.

"No excuses" means if the Hawks fail this season (whatever metric you apply to that notion), means it can't be the players right? Has to once again, be the coaches fault.

You clearly didn't read my post. I called this season a trial run.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

 

[Sgt. Largent]

You clearly didn't read my post. I called this season a trial run.

Right, trial run to see if you can continue to blame the coaches for whatever subjective meaning you apply to your "no excuses" declaration.

So what is your Mason-Dixon line Fade as far as what that entails? What's your criteria for wins and losses, playoff run depth, etc. Let's get it out of the way now.

 

[Fade]

All the things are Pete's fault.........including the weather, gas prices, all losses, etc.

Are you objective enough to recognize, these crony DCs over the last 7 seasons have been one of the main problems for the Seahawks getting over the hump post LOB?

I only call for coaches heads that deserve it. That would be Cable, Bevell, these puppet DC years, and Pete for standing by and letting it happen for so long. The Seahawks have had a lot coaches in Pete's 14 years in Seattle, and I'm only talking about a handful.

Pete is a very good coach, but hanging on to these crap DCs (they wouldn't be a DC anywhere else, which should tell you everything.) Unfortunately, this overwrites all of the positives Pete brings. Pete needs to fix this, or retire.