Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Shane Waldron Our New Offensive Coordinator

The Original Seattle Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute for Seahawks Talk, News, Rumors, Trades, and Analytics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • Spin Doctor wrote:

    He hasn't had many of those plays in the last few years. He still is pretty quick, but he doesn't have the same change of direction, and sudden burst ability. He could stop and go to full speed within a matter of a second when he was younger. Russell Wilson has more Cam Newton type of speed now, we're he has a decent top end but takes longer to ramp up. I suspect his extra weight is playing into that some.


    He hasn't had that since 2017. He used to do those backdoor pirouette Fran escapes. In 2018 they turned into sacks. He adjusted by midyear that year, and cut that move out of his bag, choosing to go front door-side step with no pirouette.

    So, yes he hasn't been, and no longer can he be the houdini cheat code he once was. But he has put up the best numbers of his career the last 3 seasons without the crazy mobility he once had. So it's just odd to me that people would point to that, when it's been this way for awhile.

    Wilson's last three years have been his best 3 years of his career. Only Mahomes has better numbers in that span, and they're actually fairly close. That's with Mahomes being in a better offensive sheme, better O-Line, and better weapons over that span.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3042
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Only work if they fire Pete
    Dallashawksfan
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 49
    Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:46 pm


  • Fade wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:

    He hasn't had many of those plays in the last few years. He still is pretty quick, but he doesn't have the same change of direction, and sudden burst ability. He could stop and go to full speed within a matter of a second when he was younger. Russell Wilson has more Cam Newton type of speed now, we're he has a decent top end but takes longer to ramp up. I suspect his extra weight is playing into that some.


    He hasn't had that since 2017. He used to do those backdoor pirouette Fran escapes. In 2018 they turned into sacks. He adjusted by midyear that year, and cut that move out of his bag, choosing to go front door-side step with no pirouette.

    So, yes he hasn't been, and no longer can he be the houdini cheat code he once was. But he has put up the best numbers of his career the last 3 seasons without the crazy mobility he once had. So it's just odd to me that people would point to that, when it's been this way for awhile.

    Wilson's last three years have been his best 3 years of his career. Only Mahomes has better numbers in that span, and they're actually fairly close. That's with Mahomes being in a better offensive sheme, better O-Line, and better weapons over that span.



    We'll see how good the O-line and talent around Mahomes is now that his cap hits start piling up. Chiefs are going from a 5M hit to 25M, 31M and 42M over the next three years.

    I'm excited about Waldron, he should bring that misdirection move the pocket layered route pattern modern style of playcalling and scheming that fits Russell's style well.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18506
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • This was such a great hire by Carroll.

    I never really know much about Rams offensive coaches and how much input they have, but McVay has always spoken highly of Waldron and it should help Carroll gain A LOT of insight into McVay's offense. That alone is probably worth this hire IMO.
    Ramfan128
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1096
    Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:46 pm


  • This feels like the first OC hire we have had that understands the modern game. We shall see.
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8415
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:20 am
    Location: Ravenna


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:We'll see how good the O-line and talent around Mahomes is now that his cap hits start piling up. Chiefs are going from a 5M hit to 25M, 31M and 42M over the next three years.

    I'm excited about Waldron, he should bring that misdirection move the pocket layered route pattern modern style of playcalling and scheming that fits Russell's style well.


    The Chiefs will be fine on offense. Andy Reid has an impeccable track record (20+ years), when it comes to drafting and developing players on offense. And developing offensive coaches for that matter. He is a guru on that side of the ball.

    Andy Reid's weak spot is defense. So Mahomes cap hits will effect that side of the ball. On offense they will keep on rollin'. Mahomes low hit's allowed them to get Frank Clark and Honey Badger. They will not have that luxury going forward. They will have to draft and develop on defense, and that is where they will most likely run into trouble.

    I'm excited for Waldron if Seattle moves to being a wide zone team, with bootaction. If they stay as a gun inside zone team featuring Wilson as a sitting duck, they just hired another "Yes" man. I am in wait and see mode. They made the right hire, I think, but it will be moot, if he is not allowed to do his job proper, with Pete continuing his ways of insanity.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3042
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:
    I'm excited for Waldron if Seattle moves to being a wide zone team, with bootaction. If they stay as a gun inside zone team featuring Wilson as a sitting duck, they just hired another "Yes" man. I am in wait and see mode. They made the right hire, I think, but it will be moot, if he is not allowed to do his job proper, with Pete continuing his ways of insanity.


    If we're being honest with knowing Pete's track record, he won't be able to keep himself from meddling with the offense if it gets away from his core run the ball three yards and cloud of dust philosophies.

    So if I had to guess, Waldron's offense will look different, but probably not different enough.

    What we have to hope is what Waldron does install is successful, protects the ball AND takes advantage of Russell to the point where Pete starts giving him more and more rope.

    Because that's how the Schotty offense came crashing down mid season last year. Pete yanked that rope after the 10 turnovers in four game fiasco, and it never recovered.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18506
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?
    Own The West
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 472
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:20 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    I'm excited for Waldron if Seattle moves to being a wide zone team, with bootaction. If they stay as a gun inside zone team featuring Wilson as a sitting duck, they just hired another "Yes" man. I am in wait and see mode. They made the right hire, I think, but it will be moot, if he is not allowed to do his job proper, with Pete continuing his ways of insanity.


    If we're being honest with knowing Pete's track record, he won't be able to keep himself from meddling with the offense if it gets away from his core run the ball three yards and cloud of dust philosophies.

    So if I had to guess, Waldron's offense will look different, but probably not different enough.

    What we have to hope is what Waldron does install is successful, protects the ball AND takes advantage of Russell to the point where Pete starts giving him more and more rope.

    Because that's how the Schotty offense came crashing down mid season last year. Pete yanked that rope after the 10 turnovers in four game fiasco, and it never recovered.


    The thing is even after Pete yanked the rope after the 10 turnover fiasco, they didn't necessarily run the ball more, or even run it more on early downs. If someone crunches the numbers, we will see that they weren't run heavy toward the end of the season. Carson was on a limited pitch count - like 15 carries a game.

    Also it's not just about protecting the ball, it's about protecting the QB from getting killed back there. This is why he stresses a balanced attack. How that balanced attack is implemented and executed is the question.

    That he poached offensive coaches from the Rams suggests to me that indeed he is looking for more creativity. If he just wanted a "yes" man, he would have promoted someone internally.

    Also JS signed his long term contract after Pete did, so if JS was unhappy being a "yes" man under Pete, he would have gone to another team, where he would assume more control? So the JS signing suggests to me that he is happy with their working relationship.

    But yes, we will see about this new offense, and have a better understanding of the real dynamics at play here.
    hoxrox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1733
    Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:29 pm


  • Own The West wrote:
    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?


    Because he hasn't been able to run the ball well either.

    It's not running the ball with me, it's like DK said this offenses problem was being so predictable. That can't happen in the NFL, and certainly not with a QB like Russell, and skill position players like Carson, DK and Lockett.

    Hopefully Waldron gets that balance down AND with schemes and playcalling that keeps the defense guessing, and not jumping simple screen passes in the playoffs because they saw that EXACT same play ran two weeks prior.

    That's really what IMO this hire was about, staying within the confines of Pete's philosophies but in a more dynamic layered way.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18506
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • hoxrox wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    I'm excited for Waldron if Seattle moves to being a wide zone team, with bootaction. If they stay as a gun inside zone team featuring Wilson as a sitting duck, they just hired another "Yes" man. I am in wait and see mode. They made the right hire, I think, but it will be moot, if he is not allowed to do his job proper, with Pete continuing his ways of insanity.


    If we're being honest with knowing Pete's track record, he won't be able to keep himself from meddling with the offense if it gets away from his core run the ball three yards and cloud of dust philosophies.

    So if I had to guess, Waldron's offense will look different, but probably not different enough.

    What we have to hope is what Waldron does install is successful, protects the ball AND takes advantage of Russell to the point where Pete starts giving him more and more rope.

    Because that's how the Schotty offense came crashing down mid season last year. Pete yanked that rope after the 10 turnovers in four game fiasco, and it never recovered.


    The thing is even after Pete yanked the rope after the 10 turnover fiasco, they didn't necessarily run the ball more, or even run it more on early downs. If someone crunches the numbers, we will see that they weren't run heavy toward the end of the season. Carson was on a limited pitch count - like 15 carries a game.

    Also it's not just about protecting the ball, it's about protecting the QB from getting killed back there. This is why he stresses a balanced attack. How that balanced attack is implemented and executed is the question.

    That he poached offensive coaches from the Rams suggests to me that indeed he is looking for more creativity. If he just wanted a "yes" man, he would have promoted someone internally.

    Also JS signed his long term contract after Pete did, so if JS was unhappy being a "yes" man under Pete, he would have gone to another team, where he would assume more control? So the JS signing suggests to me that he is happy with their working relationship.

    But yes, we will see about this new offense, and have a better understanding of the real dynamics at play here.



    He can poach every OC in the league and it won't matter if they are only allowed to design safe plays that are sideline or deep routes.

    Thr Run Run Run works with Lynch and or Carson guy, Cullen Bryant type also, just don't see anyone of those guys on the roster presently. Unless you change the blocking schemes and go quick hit with a passing attack, that means giving up something like running clock down to 0 seconds almost every snap. Also need hot routes and use them and YAC with crossing patterns.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 34950
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Fade wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:We'll see how good the O-line and talent around Mahomes is now that his cap hits start piling up. Chiefs are going from a 5M hit to 25M, 31M and 42M over the next three years.

    I'm excited about Waldron, he should bring that misdirection move the pocket layered route pattern modern style of playcalling and scheming that fits Russell's style well.


    The Chiefs will be fine on offense. Andy Reid has an impeccable track record (20+ years), when it comes to drafting and developing players on offense. And developing offensive coaches for that matter. He is a guru on that side of the ball.

    Andy Reid's weak spot is defense. So Mahomes cap hits will effect that side of the ball. On offense they will keep on rollin'. Mahomes low hit's allowed them to get Frank Clark and Honey Badger. They will not have that luxury going forward. They will have to draft and develop on defense, and that is where they will most likely run into trouble.

    I'm excited for Waldron if Seattle moves to being a wide zone team, with bootaction. If they stay as a gun inside zone team featuring Wilson as a sitting duck, they just hired another "Yes" man. I am in wait and see mode. They made the right hire, I think, but it will be moot, if he is not allowed to do his job proper, with Pete continuing his ways of insanity.

    This. :2thumbs:
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33445
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • hoxrox wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    I'm excited for Waldron if Seattle moves to being a wide zone team, with bootaction. If they stay as a gun inside zone team featuring Wilson as a sitting duck, they just hired another "Yes" man. I am in wait and see mode. They made the right hire, I think, but it will be moot, if he is not allowed to do his job proper, with Pete continuing his ways of insanity.


    If we're being honest with knowing Pete's track record, he won't be able to keep himself from meddling with the offense if it gets away from his core run the ball three yards and cloud of dust philosophies.

    So if I had to guess, Waldron's offense will look different, but probably not different enough.

    What we have to hope is what Waldron does install is successful, protects the ball AND takes advantage of Russell to the point where Pete starts giving him more and more rope.

    Because that's how the Schotty offense came crashing down mid season last year. Pete yanked that rope after the 10 turnovers in four game fiasco, and it never recovered.


    The thing is even after Pete yanked the rope after the 10 turnover fiasco, they didn't necessarily run the ball more, or even run it more on early downs. If someone crunches the numbers, we will see that they weren't run heavy toward the end of the season. Carson was on a limited pitch count - like 15 carries a game.

    Also it's not just about protecting the ball, it's about protecting the QB from getting killed back there. This is why he stresses a balanced attack. How that balanced attack is implemented and executed is the question.

    That he poached offensive coaches from the Rams suggests to me that indeed he is looking for more creativity. If he just wanted a "yes" man, he would have promoted someone internally.

    Also JS signed his long term contract after Pete did, so if JS was unhappy being a "yes" man under Pete, he would have gone to another team, where he would assume more control? So the JS signing suggests to me that he is happy with their working relationship.

    But yes, we will see about this new offense, and have a better understanding of the real dynamics at play here.

    It isn't about "protecting the QB", Pete's scheme never was about that. He always puts a premium on offensive lineman that are horrible pass blockers, but road grading in the run game. Carroll's offense also features a lot of 7 step drops, which put the QB at risk for taking hits. Carroll's offense never was able "protecting the QB".

    Carroll's whole offensive strategy revolves around limiting the toxic differential and trying to make the game as short as possible. He also keeps his QB on a fairly tight leash, I've seen some rookies with more agency at the LOS than Wilson has. That sort of offense is okay if you have a very strong defense, but our defense has been very bad since 2017. Furthermore this style of play is punished very hard against playoff caliber teams. Even when we "unleashed" Wilson we shifted back to this old style of passing after the first few weeks. At Wilson's best during the season we were exploiting the short passing game. Our playcalls from ATL looked straight out of the Andy Reid, Mike Holmgren playbook.

    I don't think Schottenheimer was the problem here.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3653
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:31 am


  • Spin Doctor wrote:It isn't about "protecting the QB", Pete's scheme never was about that. He always puts a premium on offensive lineman that are horrible pass blockers, but road grading in the run game. Carroll's offense also features a lot of 7 step drops, which put the QB at risk for taking hits. Carroll's offense never was able "protecting the QB".

    Carroll's whole offensive strategy revolves around limiting the toxic differential and trying to make the game as short as possible. He also keeps his QB on a fairly tight leash, I've seen some rookies with more agency at the LOS than Wilson has. That sort of offense is okay if you have a very strong defense, but our defense has been very bad since 2017. Furthermore this style of play is punished very hard against playoff caliber teams. Even when we "unleashed" Wilson we shifted back to this old style of passing after the first few weeks. At Wilson's best during the season we were exploiting the short passing game. Our playcalls from ATL looked straight out of the Andy Reid, Mike Holmgren playbook.

    I don't think Schottenheimer was the problem here.


    Well I don't mean this from a schematic standpoint. When you run the ball, you automatically eliminate QB hits and sacks. This is something that the pass-happy, fantasy football analytics crowd fail to factor into the equation. And Carroll can't be okay with Russ getting killed back there on a regular basis. Thus, the balance he seeks.

    Shotty had good games like ATL, or first half vs WFT, without a doubt. He was good in the redzone too. But when it came to a playoff game against a division team that mattered, he failed miserably. Straight drop backs, no rollouts, no double teams on Donald during pass plays? It's no wonder he went from HC candidate to passing game coordinator in a matter of months.

    We will see what kind of agency Russ and Waldron will have this coming season.
    hoxrox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1733
    Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:29 pm




  • I love this hire!
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3042
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:

    I love this hire!


    That was fantastic. Feeling really good about this hire.
    hedgehawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 736
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:37 pm


  • Liked the interview.
    HawkRiderFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1159
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:10 pm


  • Fade wrote:

    I love this hire!


    after all hard to watch new coach interviews this off season, I find his strategic approach to every question comforting.
    Danny Darko
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 426
    Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:45 pm


  • Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    Hmm we ran it 411 times, threw it 563, ur math does not add up. We were 18th in run attempts and 17th is pass. Hmm . Now that we clarified the math does not work. Let's move on to that formula that got us to the sb, u mean the one that did not work the first 2 year but then worked the next 2 years and the not again since. I mean we had the most rush att in the league in 2018, we were # 5 in 2019.and guess what no SB. So his "formula" is far from something to brag about, given it is under 50% in its results. Great coaches adapt to what he has, still waiting for PC to be great
    Last edited by John63 on Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Solid interview, and I suspect a solid hire. Really looking forward to seeing what this guy can do with the offense.
    Bring it on, it was time for a change. Now if Pete actually allows him to coach and coordinate, this will be fun to watch as the season progresses in 2021.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 17142
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • John63 wrote:
    Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    Hmm we ran it 411 times, threq it 563, ur math does not add up. We were 18th in run attempts and 17th is pass. Hmm . Now that we clarified the math does not work. Let's move that formula that got us to the sb, u mean the one they did not work thw first 2 year but then worked 2 years and the not again since. I mean we had the most rush att I. The league in 2018, we were # 5 in 2019.and guess what no SB. So his "formula" is far from something to brag about, given it is under 50% in its results. Great coaches adapt to what he has, still waiting for PC to be great


    Russ had 83 rushing attempts, second on the team behind Carson. We're not calling runs for our QB, those are failed pass attempts. As for the math:

    563 + 83 = 646 rushes
    411 - 83 = 328 passes

    646 / 328 = 1.97 or just under 2:1 pass:run.

    As far as "formula", before PC we made it to the Superbowl 1 out of 34 tries. With Pete, we've made it 2 out of 11 tries.

    Or 2.9% success versus 18.2% success if you like math.
    Own The West
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 472
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:20 pm


  • Failed pass attempts? It's more really crappy swish cheese pass blocking and people not getting open enough.
    Look at his completion percentage, when you think about how many drops there were, along with throwing the ball away? It's pretty impressive. Can he play better, absolutely. The entire team and coaching staff needed to be better. 12-4 and a division title is a solid season. Not good enough when you get bounced the first round. But this is still a really good team that needs to learn to adjust and adapt more imo.
    I would love to see them use the TE's a lot more, and more check downs. It doesn't always have to be pound the rock and huck it 50 yards.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 17142
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Own The West wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    Hmm we ran it 411 times, threq it 563, ur math does not add up. We were 18th in run attempts and 17th is pass. Hmm . Now that we clarified the math does not work. Let's move that formula that got us to the sb, u mean the one they did not work thw first 2 year but then worked 2 years and the not again since. I mean we had the most rush att I. The league in 2018, we were # 5 in 2019.and guess what no SB. So his "formula" is far from something to brag about, given it is under 50% in its results. Great coaches adapt to what he has, still waiting for PC to be great


    Russ had 83 rushing attempts, second on the team behind Carson. We're not calling runs for our QB, those are failed pass attempts. As for the math:

    563 + 83 = 646 rushes
    411 - 83 = 328 passes

    646 / 328 = 1.97 or just under 2:1 pass:run.

    As far as "formula", before PC we made it to the Superbowl 1 out of 34 tries. With Pete, we've made it 2 out of 11 tries.

    Or 2.9% success versus 18.2% success if you like math.



    Last I checked a QBs rush attempts count. I know when they list the rush attempts they include the whole team. Does that mean Baltimore really sucks at running the ball since a huge % of their yards is the Qb? NO. Doesn't the QB rush attempts also impact the defense and help? Yes SO if they call and RO and Wilson keeps it that does not count as a rush attempt but a pass? That sneak he did this year does not count as a rush? OF course they do. so sorry they count to. I am glad you can use selective math to help your case but in the end it is listed as a rush attempt not pass. If you want to play that game then 60 of the pass attempts were under 5 yards which is like a run so that means 563 - 60=503 and 411+60 = 471 so its almost 50/50 you see I can do selective math to.Also, if we say what you say is true that means PC great scheme is in reality not as in 2013 Wilson was our 2nd leading rusher and if you remove his number guess what you don't get 2-1 run to pass not even close. Same in 2014. So you can't selectively take out QB rushes and then use them when you want. Either way you look at it the 2-1 thing you seem to use as your matrix for PC system is wrong. Also, you are forgetting the one other part of PC great equation, a historic defense something we don't have.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Failed pass attempts? It's more really crappy swish cheese pass blocking and people not getting open enough.
    Look at his completion percentage, when you think about how many drops there were, along with throwing the ball away? It's pretty impressive. Can he play better, absolutely. The entire team and coaching staff needed to be better. 12-4 and a division title is a solid season. Not good enough when you get bounced the first round. But this is still a really good team that needs to learn to adjust and adapt more imo.
    I would love to see them use the TE's a lot more, and more check downs. It doesn't always have to be pound the rock and huck it 50 yards.



    Yeah we were top 5 in drops at 27.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?


    because we no longer have Marshawn Lynch or the Legion of Boom. We are paying Russell a ton of money which hurts the rest of our roster. We need to maximize that investment.
    irfuben32
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 170
    Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:07 am


  • Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.
    WmHBonney
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1838
    Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:11 pm


  • WmHBonney wrote:
    Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.


    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 34950
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:
    WmHBonney wrote:
    Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.


    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.



    Agreed on Ravens problem is even back when we won the SB we needed Wilson to do more than just not loose it. He had to do his DangerRuss thing in the 4th qtrs a lot.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:
    WmHBonney wrote:
    Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.


    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.


    That ain't gonna work in todays NFL. A decent passing attack is a prerequisite for success.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4474
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    WmHBonney wrote:
    Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.


    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.


    That ain't gonna work in todays NFL. A decent passing attack is a prerequisite for success.


    This hasn't come up yet but this is why I don't buy "going back to the formula that won" in 2013/14. That's a fair amount of time ago. What worked then isn't necessarily going to work now.
    HawkRiderFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1159
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:10 pm


  • HawkRiderFan wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    WmHBonney wrote:

    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.


    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.


    That ain't gonna work in todays NFL. A decent passing attack is a prerequisite for success.


    This hasn't come up yet but this is why I don't buy "going back to the formula that won" in 2013/14. That's a fair amount of time ago. What worked then isn't necessarily going to work now.

    We also had a historically good defense during that era. That isn't happening again with the QB taking up such a huge percentage of the cap. We had all of our guys on rookie deals which allowed us to make some aggressive free agent signings. Bennett, Tony McDaniel, Zach Miller and Cliff Avril all came from the free agency. All of those players were extremely huge for us.

    Seattle was extremely aggressive the the free agency in those years. That team was also surprisingly good at wide receiver/TE. Tate and Baldwin were a really good combo looking back on things. Both went on to become 1000 yard receivers, and Miller was considered one of the better pass catching TE's in the NFL before we signed him.

    Our offense also had Marshawn Lynch, who was one of the best backs of that generation. He had a really good track record of staying healthy during that time. Despite this our offense still had some struggles. Thinking back on it we under-performed our talent level on that side of the ball.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3653
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:31 am


  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    HawkRiderFan wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.


    That ain't gonna work in todays NFL. A decent passing attack is a prerequisite for success.


    This hasn't come up yet but this is why I don't buy "going back to the formula that won" in 2013/14. That's a fair amount of time ago. What worked then isn't necessarily going to work now.

    We also had a historically good defense during that era. That isn't happening again with the QB taking up such a huge percentage of the cap. We had all of our guys on rookie deals which allowed us to make some aggressive free agent signings. Bennett, Tony McDaniel, Zach Miller and Cliff Avril all came from the free agency. All of those players were extremely huge for us.

    Seattle was extremely aggressive the the free agency in those years. That team was also surprisingly good at wide receiver/TE. Tate and Baldwin were a really good combo looking back on things. Both went on to become 1000 yard receivers, and Miller was considered one of the better pass catching TE's in the NFL before we signed him.

    Our offense also had Marshawn Lynch, who was one of the best backs of that generation. He had a really good track record of staying healthy during that time. Despite this our offense still had some struggles. Thinking back on it we under-performed our talent level on that side of the ball.


    And I will go back and state it was a by product of the system and philosophy,
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    HawkRiderFan wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.


    That ain't gonna work in todays NFL. A decent passing attack is a prerequisite for success.


    This hasn't come up yet but this is why I don't buy "going back to the formula that won" in 2013/14. That's a fair amount of time ago. What worked then isn't necessarily going to work now.

    We also had a historically good defense during that era. That isn't happening again with the QB taking up such a huge percentage of the cap. We had all of our guys on rookie deals which allowed us to make some aggressive free agent signings. Bennett, Tony McDaniel, Zach Miller and Cliff Avril all came from the free agency. All of those players were extremely huge for us.

    Seattle was extremely aggressive the the free agency in those years. That team was also surprisingly good at wide receiver/TE. Tate and Baldwin were a really good combo looking back on things. Both went on to become 1000 yard receivers, and Miller was considered one of the better pass catching TE's in the NFL before we signed him.

    Our offense also had Marshawn Lynch, who was one of the best backs of that generation. He had a really good track record of staying healthy during that time. Despite this our offense still had some struggles. Thinking back on it we under-performed our talent level on that side of the ball.


    It took a series of insanely improbably amazing moves, too.

    In just 3 drafts, Seattle picked two of the best safeties to ever play, a hall of fame cornerback, a hall of fame middle linebacker, a top-10 LT, a productive hybrid in Irvin, a consistently great OLB in Wright, a Pro Bowler in Golden Tate, and hit an absurd amount of late picks that contributed like Lane, Thurmond, McCoy, Maxwell, and Sweezy... not to mention a sure-fire hall of fame QB in the 3rd round. They also traded for one of the most talented running backs we've ever seen in Lynch, hit on free agency moves like Rice and Avril, and found unknown talent and maximized it in Baldwin, Browner, and Giacomini.

    It was quite possibly the most incredible string of offseasons to ever happen in the modern NFL. It just can't be reproduced.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4474
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    WmHBonney wrote:
    Own The West wrote:It’s so weird to keep hearing the run, run, run, punt saw. We’ve not been a run first team since Lynch left, nor have we made a playoff run. Last year we threw it twice as often as we ran and got our one-dimentional asses bounced as soon as the games counted. Did Marino ever win anything? Did Breeze w/o a solid running game? No.

    So when Pete says he wants to get back to the formula that got us to the superbowl TWICE, why is there all this hand wringing?



    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.


    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.


    That ain't gonna work in todays NFL. A decent passing attack is a prerequisite for success.


    Been hearing this since Elway and Marino came into the league, Still waiting for a passing attack offense to dominate year after year in the Super Bowl, outliers from time to time yes, but at least a mid to upper tier Running game is a must to get you there through the playoffs, good teams with defenses can take away one dimensional teams to easy.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 34950
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    WmHBonney wrote:

    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.


    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.


    That ain't gonna work in todays NFL. A decent passing attack is a prerequisite for success.


    Been hearing this since Elway and Marino came into the league, Still waiting for a passing attack offense to dominate year after year in the Super Bowl, outliers from time to time yes, but at least a mid to upper tier Running game is a must to get you there through the playoffs, good teams with defenses can take away one dimensional teams to easy.



    I agree you need to be able to run. But there is a difference between being able to run and being a run first team. Example Baltimore and Tenn were the top 2 teams by yards. Neither got to the big dance. In fact Tampa and Kc were 28th and 16th respectively. However there were 1 and 2 in passing yards.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    WmHBonney wrote:

    The problem with this approach is the current lack of a stellar defense. Peteball doesn't work in the playoffs without an absolutely dominant defense.


    Which is how the Ravens won it with Dilfer, out of the world defense and a great run game, Dilfer just had one job, don't lose it for them.


    That ain't gonna work in todays NFL. A decent passing attack is a prerequisite for success.


    Been hearing this since Elway and Marino came into the league, Still waiting for a passing attack offense to dominate year after year in the Super Bowl, outliers from time to time yes, but at least a mid to upper tier Running game is a must to get you there through the playoffs, good teams with defenses can take away one dimensional teams to easy.


    Sure, an effective rushing game is certainly helpful. One-dimensional offenses don't go far. But a one-dimensional rushing offense is worse than the one-dimensional passing offense.

    The decent passing attack remains a prerequisite, though. No team will be able to move the ball effectively enough to get to the big dance without an effective air game in this league as it stands.

    The two teams that got there this year both have prolific passing attacks. They rode them to the bowl. Same as the Chiefs last year. The Niners got there with a fantastic rushing attack, but they also did just enough in the passing game to cruise in. Obviously, we saw that the failure to execute through the air ended up being their death knell, too.

    This is why I love Waldron and Dickerson coming in. Two guys with a proven record when it comes to working on steady zone-run style ground attacks that tend to succeed even with mediocre personnel. Said zone run branches out into play action, roll outs, and supplements a west coast passing scheme that'll finally take some pressure of Russ. An offense that works only when Russ is completing about 10% more passes than his expected completion isn't sustainable, and that's not the type of stuff Waldron has been shown to develop.

    I'm sticking with my tweet from before he was hired.

    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4474
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:This is why I love Waldron and Dickerson coming in. Two guys with a proven record when it comes to working on steady zone-run style ground attacks that tend to succeed even with mediocre personnel. Said zone run branches out into play action, roll outs, and supplements a west coast passing scheme that'll finally take some pressure of Russ. An offense that works only when Russ is completing about 10% more passes than his expected completion isn't sustainable, and that's not the type of stuff Waldron has been shown to develop.

    I'm sticking with my tweet from before he was hired.



    Agreed. I think we'll be getting back to "point guard" Russ, supported by punishing run game.
    Own The West
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 472
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:20 pm


  • Own The West wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:This is why I love Waldron and Dickerson coming in. Two guys with a proven record when it comes to working on steady zone-run style ground attacks that tend to succeed even with mediocre personnel. Said zone run branches out into play action, roll outs, and supplements a west coast passing scheme that'll finally take some pressure of Russ. An offense that works only when Russ is completing about 10% more passes than his expected completion isn't sustainable, and that's not the type of stuff Waldron has been shown to develop.

    I'm sticking with my tweet from before he was hired.



    Agreed. I think we'll be getting back to "point guard" Russ, supported by punishing run game.



    then we will not make the playoffs. We need more than point guard Russ. We need a scoring point guard.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    Own The West wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:This is why I love Waldron and Dickerson coming in. Two guys with a proven record when it comes to working on steady zone-run style ground attacks that tend to succeed even with mediocre personnel. Said zone run branches out into play action, roll outs, and supplements a west coast passing scheme that'll finally take some pressure of Russ. An offense that works only when Russ is completing about 10% more passes than his expected completion isn't sustainable, and that's not the type of stuff Waldron has been shown to develop.

    I'm sticking with my tweet from before he was hired.



    Agreed. I think we'll be getting back to "point guard" Russ, supported by punishing run game.



    then we will not make the playoffs. We need more than point guard Russ. We need a scoring point guard.


    You JUST watched Seattle get bounced by a team that had a mediocre quarterback doing an impression of a point guard, coached by the same guys Pete just hired to run the offense. In what way does any of that forecast playoff failure?
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4474
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Own The West wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:This is why I love Waldron and Dickerson coming in. Two guys with a proven record when it comes to working on steady zone-run style ground attacks that tend to succeed even with mediocre personnel. Said zone run branches out into play action, roll outs, and supplements a west coast passing scheme that'll finally take some pressure of Russ. An offense that works only when Russ is completing about 10% more passes than his expected completion isn't sustainable, and that's not the type of stuff Waldron has been shown to develop.

    I'm sticking with my tweet from before he was hired.



    Agreed. I think we'll be getting back to "point guard" Russ, supported by punishing run game.



    then we will not make the playoffs. We need more than point guard Russ. We need a scoring point guard.


    You JUST watched Seattle get bounced by a team that had a mediocre quarterback doing an impression of a point guard, coached by the same guys Pete just hired to run the offense. In what way does any of that forecast playoff failure?



    I just watched us get bounced by a team with a top defense. Something we don't have. If we did than point t guard Russ might be enough. Problem is even back when we won the SB he had to do a lot more than a point guard QB can do. S9 no we need more than PG Russ.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Own The West wrote:
    Agreed. I think we'll be getting back to "point guard" Russ, supported by punishing run game.



    then we will not make the playoffs. We need more than point guard Russ. We need a scoring point guard.


    You JUST watched Seattle get bounced by a team that had a mediocre quarterback doing an impression of a point guard, coached by the same guys Pete just hired to run the offense. In what way does any of that forecast playoff failure?



    I just watched us get bounced by a team with a top defense. Something we don't have. If we did than point t guard Russ might be enough. Problem is even back when we won the SB he had to do a lot more than a point guard QB can do. S9 no we need more than PG Russ.


    I think you're confusing point guard with game manager. That, or I've always just thought of "point guard QB" differently, which honestly may be the case. To me, point guard quarterback doesn't necessarily mean limited game manager. In fact, I think of limited game managing quarterbacks as the opposite of effective PG QBs. A point guard QB is a QB that sees the whole field and gets the ball into the hands of his playmakers reliably. They can make all the throws. That's what Russ needs to be.

    Point guard quarterbacks are also highly adept at short passing and getting the ball out accurately and on time. They're perfect in the WCO.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4474
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:

    then we will not make the playoffs. We need more than point guard Russ. We need a scoring point guard.


    You JUST watched Seattle get bounced by a team that had a mediocre quarterback doing an impression of a point guard, coached by the same guys Pete just hired to run the offense. In what way does any of that forecast playoff failure?



    I just watched us get bounced by a team with a top defense. Something we don't have. If we did than point t guard Russ might be enough. Problem is even back when we won the SB he had to do a lot more than a point guard QB can do. S9 no we need more than PG Russ.


    I think you're confusing point guard with game manager. That, or I've always just thought of "point guard QB" differently, which honestly may be the case. To me, point guard quarterback doesn't necessarily mean limited game manager. In fact, I think of limited game managing quarterbacks as the opposite of effective PG QBs. A point guard QB is a QB that sees the whole field and gets the ball into the hands of his playmakers reliably. They can make all the throws. That's what Russ needs to be.

    Point guard quarterbacks are also highly adept at short passing and getting the ball out accurately and on time. They're perfect in the WCO.


    Here's a few links from Russell's early career that refer to him as a point guard as a bit of a refresher.

    https://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-analysis/2013/1/10/3862054/russell-wilson-nfl-playoffs-seahawks-falcons-ron-jaworski

    https://www.espn.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/114941/russell-wilson-9th-seahawk-on-top-100-list

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2013-nfl-season-preview-seattle-seahawks/
    Own The West
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 472
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:20 pm


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:

    then we will not make the playoffs. We need more than point guard Russ. We need a scoring point guard.


    You JUST watched Seattle get bounced by a team that had a mediocre quarterback doing an impression of a point guard, coached by the same guys Pete just hired to run the offense. In what way does any of that forecast playoff failure?



    I just watched us get bounced by a team with a top defense. Something we don't have. If we did than point t guard Russ might be enough. Problem is even back when we won the SB he had to do a lot more than a point guard QB can do. S9 no we need more than PG Russ.


    I think you're confusing point guard with game manager. That, or I've always just thought of "point guard QB" differently, which honestly may be the case. To me, point guard quarterback doesn't necessarily mean limited game manager. In fact, I think of limited game managing quarterbacks as the opposite of effective PG QBs. A point guard QB is a QB that sees the whole field and gets the ball into the hands of his playmakers reliably. They can make all the throws. That's what Russ needs to be.

    Point guard quarterbacks are also highly adept at short passing and getting the ball out accurately and on time. They're perfect in the WCO.


    I think you will find the prevailing opinion is point guard QB and game manager are the same thing. Wilson despite being called these things has never really been one. You think of the proto typical point guard/game manager think Trent Dilfer when Baltimore won the SB. He was never called on to do anything beyond what any avg QB can do. Wilson even the year we won the Sb was called upon to do things at the time that few Qbs could do.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    You JUST watched Seattle get bounced by a team that had a mediocre quarterback doing an impression of a point guard, coached by the same guys Pete just hired to run the offense. In what way does any of that forecast playoff failure?



    I just watched us get bounced by a team with a top defense. Something we don't have. If we did than point t guard Russ might be enough. Problem is even back when we won the SB he had to do a lot more than a point guard QB can do. S9 no we need more than PG Russ.


    I think you're confusing point guard with game manager. That, or I've always just thought of "point guard QB" differently, which honestly may be the case. To me, point guard quarterback doesn't necessarily mean limited game manager. In fact, I think of limited game managing quarterbacks as the opposite of effective PG QBs. A point guard QB is a QB that sees the whole field and gets the ball into the hands of his playmakers reliably. They can make all the throws. That's what Russ needs to be.

    Point guard quarterbacks are also highly adept at short passing and getting the ball out accurately and on time. They're perfect in the WCO.


    I think you will find the prevailing opinion is point guard QB and game manager are the same thing. Wilson despite being called these things has never really been one. You think of the proto typical point guard/game manager think Trent Dilfer when Baltimore won the SB. He was never called on to do anything beyond what any avg QB can do. Wilson even the year we won the Sb was called upon to do things at the time that few Qbs could do.


    In that case, I concede the point and agree with you in this case, John. Russell's biggest strengths involve extraordinary efficiency on traditionally low-probability passes, and chaining him down won't help him. But, I think we agree that adding point-guard elements to his game through a passing offense closer to a WCO will help him shine even brighter.

    He can be the complete package if Waldron crafts a scheme that allows him to be, and I think we're on the same page as far as where we want the overall direction of the offense to go.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4474
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Own The West wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    You JUST watched Seattle get bounced by a team that had a mediocre quarterback doing an impression of a point guard, coached by the same guys Pete just hired to run the offense. In what way does any of that forecast playoff failure?



    I just watched us get bounced by a team with a top defense. Something we don't have. If we did than point t guard Russ might be enough. Problem is even back when we won the SB he had to do a lot more than a point guard QB can do. S9 no we need more than PG Russ.


    I think you're confusing point guard with game manager. That, or I've always just thought of "point guard QB" differently, which honestly may be the case. To me, point guard quarterback doesn't necessarily mean limited game manager. In fact, I think of limited game managing quarterbacks as the opposite of effective PG QBs. A point guard QB is a QB that sees the whole field and gets the ball into the hands of his playmakers reliably. They can make all the throws. That's what Russ needs to be.

    Point guard quarterbacks are also highly adept at short passing and getting the ball out accurately and on time. They're perfect in the WCO.


    Here's a few links from Russell's early career that refer to him as a point guard as a bit of a refresher.

    https://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-analysis/2013/1/10/3862054/russell-wilson-nfl-playoffs-seahawks-falcons-ron-jaworski

    https://www.espn.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/114941/russell-wilson-9th-seahawk-on-top-100-list

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2013-nfl-season-preview-seattle-seahawks/


    Thanks for this - I was having trouble finding these links. I guess I had a different idea of the term than the common usage, and that'll be good to know going forward. Probably made me look silly in some conversations a few years back when the term was so popular.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4474
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    John63 wrote:

    I just watched us get bounced by a team with a top defense. Something we don't have. If we did than point t guard Russ might be enough. Problem is even back when we won the SB he had to do a lot more than a point guard QB can do. S9 no we need more than PG Russ.


    I think you're confusing point guard with game manager. That, or I've always just thought of "point guard QB" differently, which honestly may be the case. To me, point guard quarterback doesn't necessarily mean limited game manager. In fact, I think of limited game managing quarterbacks as the opposite of effective PG QBs. A point guard QB is a QB that sees the whole field and gets the ball into the hands of his playmakers reliably. They can make all the throws. That's what Russ needs to be.

    Point guard quarterbacks are also highly adept at short passing and getting the ball out accurately and on time. They're perfect in the WCO.


    I think you will find the prevailing opinion is point guard QB and game manager are the same thing. Wilson despite being called these things has never really been one. You think of the proto typical point guard/game manager think Trent Dilfer when Baltimore won the SB. He was never called on to do anything beyond what any avg QB can do. Wilson even the year we won the Sb was called upon to do things at the time that few Qbs could do.


    In that case, I concede the point and agree with you in this case, John. Russell's biggest strengths involve extraordinary efficiency on traditionally low-probability passes, and chaining him down won't help him. But, I think we agree that adding point-guard elements to his game through a passing offense closer to a WCO will help him shine even brighter.

    He can be the complete package if Waldron crafts a scheme that allows him to be, and I think we're on the same page as far as where we want the overall direction of the offense to go.


    I totaly agree with you.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • If they sign Free WR Agent Curtis Samuel it will solve lots of problems. First it will stop the “no cap space nonsense” 2022 Seahawks are ranked 5th most cap space with their Franchised QB signed = Seahawks are #1 in the NFL in cap space. Everybody knows DE Dunlap is not getting paid 14 Million and they ignore that fact so they can whine, the other fact they ignore is the large # of contracts that are in the final year in 2021, which means Seattle must decide this year what their long term plans are for players like Lockett, D. Brown etc.... signing Curtis Samuel will cost Seattle $8 to $10 million if Carolina doesn’t tag him which they might do because the Franchise Tag is going down this year = Seattle could tag CB Griffith or Chris Carson at the 2018 tag. This will force RW to throw the ball to slot WR Samuel because he’s a stud with 4.3 speed. Samuel can also play RB Gooood several plays a game reducing the work load on our RB’s. If you assume the 2022 cap will be 185 Million Seattle has 99 million cap space in 2022 with RW & BW signed. 2023 the TV contracts are signed so the NFL could jump from 2022 185 Million or more to 2023 230 million Cap Space or more. This whole cap situation is playing right into John Schneider’s hands in fact it’s down right scary how much this situation benefits John Schneider.
    FresnoHawk68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 595
    Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:27 am


  • I am with Mealstrom on the point guard debate. To me when people use that in football it means get the ball to your playmakers and let them do their thing. In Russ's case imo it means Russ not having to do it all himself. Have a running game he can rely on. And in the passing game he has 2 1000 yard receivers. Have plays designed to get the ball to them and let them do their thing vs Russ having to hold onto the ball and wait. Whether it's more plays to our TEs or add a slot receiver have that outlet guy in the middle for him to move the chains.
    HawkRiderFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1159
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:10 pm


  • HawkRiderFan wrote:I am with Mealstrom on the point guard debate. To me when people use that in football it means get the ball to your playmakers and let them do their thing. In Russ's case imo it means Russ not having to do it all himself. Have a running game he can rely on. And in the passing game he has 2 1000 yard receivers. Have plays designed to get the ball to them and let them do their thing vs Russ having to hold onto the ball and wait. Whether it's more plays to our TEs or add a slot receiver have that outlet guy in the middle for him to move the chains.


    The problem with that is then you are saying no scrambling, no magic plays, no doing anything but take what may or may not be there, even if it is not enough to keep the chains going. That would be stupid on our part not to allow Wilson to make the magic he makes when we need it. Problem is once again point guards don't do that. We need a scoring point guard. One who can take what's there when it is needed but can also make something out of nothing when needed.
    John63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4055
    Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:56 pm


  • John63 wrote:
    HawkRiderFan wrote:I am with Mealstrom on the point guard debate. To me when people use that in football it means get the ball to your playmakers and let them do their thing. In Russ's case imo it means Russ not having to do it all himself. Have a running game he can rely on. And in the passing game he has 2 1000 yard receivers. Have plays designed to get the ball to them and let them do their thing vs Russ having to hold onto the ball and wait. Whether it's more plays to our TEs or add a slot receiver have that outlet guy in the middle for him to move the chains.


    The problem with that is then you are saying no scrambling, no magic plays, no doing anything but take what may or may not be there, even if it is not enough to keep the chains going. That would be stupid on our part not to allow Wilson to make the magic he makes when we need it. Problem is once again point guards don't do that. We need a scoring point guard. One who can take what's there when it is needed but can also make something out of nothing when needed.


    That's you putting word in my mouth. There is absolutely no way that is what I want or am saying. Yeah you are going to have times were Russ uses his magic to make things happen, but that should come as an advantage. Not the main way of how to move the ball down the field. Playing point guard the way we are saying is not neutering Russ's God given ability. That's just the way you are defining point guard.
    HawkRiderFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1159
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:10 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Sun Mar 07, 2021 2:04 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information