MD5eahawks":31ldli3l said:
Although it was a little difficult to listen through their over-the-top characterized delivery, I agree with just about everything they said. They didn't really cut Russ down. They merely just gave a summary of RWs career without rose colored glasses.
UK_Seahawk":31ldli3l said:
The guy who had it good but wanted it better and made it worse.
Thats a decent take to be fair.
I liked that as well.
UK_Seahawk":31ldli3l said:
Ultimately I think it comes down to $600k versus $35m.
Right on. I think they should have mentioned this. It is a very glaring aspect of the current NFL.
I think UK pulled the meat out of the thread right here. Although, I'll just add a couple more points for the folks that want to make it about something else:
1) Pete Carroll is one of three football coaches to win both the Superbowl and NCAA championships. His last Superbowl was six years ago. The only coach to win more in that time is Belichick, whom we are 3-1 against. He coached up Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart to the highest achievement of their careers and got them the Heisman. Pete Carroll has won without Russell Wilson, but Wilson has never won without Pete Carroll. I understand being a fan is often about sticking with your favorites, but it doesn't make sense to say the guy with the proven track record is holding back the guy that's never done anything without him.
2) Criticizing Russell Wilson is not 'jealousy' or a "not black enough" indictment. Both announcers had plenty of nice things to say about both white and black QBs (including Russell Wilson) and had very specific praise for Russ. The root of their criticism was 'new' vs 'old' Russ; the latter went to the Superbowl twice and won, the former has gone 1-4 in the playoffs and pointed fingers at everyone but himself. Football is a team sport. If Russ has gone 'hollywood' or "me first" that's a legit criticism.