ReFo: Packers @ Seahawks, NFC Championship

The Seahawks rallied for an exciting end to the NFC Championship over the Packers and Michael Renner spotlights a few of the impact players in the game.

| 2 years ago
2014-REFO-CC-GB@SEA

ReFo: Packers @ Seahawks, NFC Championship


2014-REFO-CC-GB@SEAQuite simply one of the greatest comebacks in NFL history and one of the wildest playoff games you’ll ever see. The Seahawks were down 19-7 when they got the ball at their own their own 31 with 3:52 remaining. From then on, one team played to win while the other played not to lose and the inevitable happened as the Seahawks came all the way back for the 28-22 overtime win.

Unless you were living under a rock, you know all the craziness that went into this one ending up a Seahawks victory. So without further ado, let’s dive right into the performances that shaped the NFC title game into the epic contest that it was.

Green Bay Packers – Performances of Note

Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, S: +2.1

Breakdown: No defender was directly involved in as many big plays as Clinton-Dix was on Sunday. The safety showed off his playmaking ability for the first time with a couple of interceptions to go along with multiple plays in the run game. On the flip side he also botched his coverage on the Seahawks two-point conversion and dropped another very easy pick midway through the fourth quarter. The big play ability is a terrific sign going forward for the young safety; it’s just unfortunate that his rookie mistakes had to come when it mattered most.

Signature Play: His one-handed interception in the second quarter was a thing of beauty. It’s difficult to come away from that game and not focus on what the safety was trying to do when he horribly misplayed a jump ball to Luke Willson on the Seahawks’ successful two-point conversion late in the fourth quarter.

Josh Sitton, LG: +3.7

Breakdown: The top performer on an offensive line that put together one of the most impressive pass blocking performances you’ll ever see. As a whole, they yielded just four total pressures on the day while Sitton himself didn’t give up any. The left guard was equally superb on the ground as Packers’ running backs carried the ball 13 times in his gaps and gained 76 yards on those carries.

Signature Play: Sitton’s reach block on a slanting O’Brien Schofield was the crucial block on James Starks’ 32-yard run on the first play of the fourth quarter.

Green Bay’s Run Defense: -21.5

Breakdown: Breaking the usual mold here as no poor performance stood out above the rest, but Green Bay’s putrid run defense had to garner some mention. Mike Daniels, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, and Tramon Williams were the only Packers to grade positively, albeit barely, against the run, while nine different players had grades lower than -1.0. The Packers outside linebackers were especially victimized. They combined for seven missed tackles and once again looked lost at times defending the read-option. The most obvious was case was Mike Neal getting frozen in place on Russell Wilson’s 1-yard touchdown run late in the fourth quarter.

Signature Stat: Josh Boyd was the only member of the front seven to see snaps and not miss a tackle.

Seattle Seahawks – Performances of Note

Marshawn Lynch, RB: +4.7

Breakdown: It was the type of performance that makes you want to start tracking fourth-quarter comebacks as a stat for running backs. Russell Wilson may have won the game in overtime, but Lynch was the sole reason the Seahawks even made it that far. Lynch broke an unbelievable 15 tackles on the day and averaged 4.4 yards after contact per attempt. The amazing part was that he did it all with completely average blocking in front of him (-1.4 team run blocking grade). The run game truly was all Lynch on Sunday.

Signature Play: Lynch’s go-ahead touchdown with 1:33 in the fourth quarter was vintage Beast Mode. Three separate Packers got their hands on the running back, but none so much as slowed him down as he ripped through for the 24-yard score.

Russell Wilson, QB: -2.1

Breakdown: Seattle fans will forgive Wilson’s absolute disaster of a game because of his two perfectly thrown balls in overtime, but his grade still reflects the fact that Wilson dug them in a large hole to begin with. Two of his picks were completely inexcusable forced throws (Clinton-Dix: Q2, 9:37 and Shields: Q2, 2:00), while the other two were on target passes that took unlucky bounces off Jermaine Kearse. Wilson added another interception-worthy throw that was dropped by Clinton-Dix midway through the fourth, but from that point on he was absolutely superb in the Seahawks comeback.

Signature Play: What else but the game-winner? A 35-yard strike on a post route with Tramon Williams in Jermaine Kearse’s back pocket. The window was tiny, but Wilson found a way to sneak it in there for the win.

K.J. Wright, OLB: +4.2

Breakdown: The co-defensive MVP for this game along with Richard Sherman (+2.3). Wright played flawlessly outside of a single missed tackle. The linebacker made four stops against the run and added another in coverage. He was targeted three times on the day and allowed a single catch for five yards.

Signature Play: There are a handful of plays you can point to and say if they didn’t make that play, the Seahawks couldn’t have come back. Wright’s pass break up on third down with 5:26 left in the fourth quarter certainly qualifies as one of them.

PFF Game Ball

This one goes to Marshawn Lynch and it’s not even close.

 

Follow Mike on Twitter: @PFF_MikeRenner

| Senior Analyst

Mike is a Senior Analyst at Pro Football Focus. His work has also been featured on The Washington Post, ESPN Insider, and 120 Sports.

  • Drekkan

    Can we give an anti-game ball to Mike McCarthy for some of the most misguided decisions a coach could possibly make – including kicking FGs from the 1 yard line not once but twice! Not to mention clamming up with an ultra conservative gameplan in the second half including such gems as a rush 1 prevent defense on 3rd and 19 that would have given literally any QB enough time to find a wideout eventually.

    • Jason Williams

      A friend of mine argued that McCarthy is a bad coach which given how successful they’ve been I strongly disagreed with but then you think about it, the 4th and Goals that they laid down and took FGs, that 3rd down play with only one pass rusher and no one really trying and I’m starting to see it.

      • eYeDEF

        It’s really a judgement call. Should they go for it on 4th and goal when they were already stuffed twice in a row? They’d have great field position if they failed yet again but at the expense of 3 points. He played the conservative route there to bag the sure points, at least there was something to show for it. That wasn’t as egregious as play calling not to lose instead of to win the entire 2nd half.

        • Jason Williams

          The entire game was played too conservatively by the Packers and they know it. McCarthy said so after the game.

          I’ve been watching football for something like 30 years now. I’m no expert – I’m just a guy who loves watching the games.

          But if there’s one thing I’ve noticed about road playoff upsets is that the road team scores touchdowns instead of FG’s and that they don’t let up or get conservative in the second half. I’m thinking of Jacksonville’s upset of Denver in the 90s (?) where Jimmy Smith caught a bomb from Brunell late in the second half that effectively sealed the win. Coughlin played to win, don’t play not to lose.

          That play by Burnett was emblematic of why the Packers lost but also I feel THE key turning point in that game. If he flips the field by gaining ten yards, I just don’t think there is enough time left for Seattle to come back, especially the way they had been throwing the ball (poorly) at that point. But 4 plays later, the Packers punt poorly and Seattle gets the ball at their 30. Now they have life – can’t let them have that if you’re the Packers and that was all set up by Burnett sliding.

          • eYeDEF

            Okay but it doesn’t change the fact that on the ensuing offensive drive after the Burnett interception the Packers just handed the ball off to Lacy to burn clock to the grand result of -4 net yards on the drive before punting 30 yards which the Seahawks then drove 69 yards from on own 31 on 7 plays for the touchdown with 3:52 remaining. Burnett ran it back 4 yards to his own 44. If he gains another 10 only they’d still have to punt because the ensuing drive they half asses for -4 yards on the drive.

          • Jason Williams

            you’re totally right but I think and I realize that I’m being a bit insane about this but I think if Burnett gains 20 yards on the return that the Packers get away with all of the sins that followed and squeak out a win.

          • mutzki

            I don’t know if i can fault a guy for losing the game in which he had a FR, INT, 2 Sacks and something in the neighborhood of 10 tackles.

          • Jason Williams

            Good counterpoint. Still think they win if he doesn’t slide. :)

        • Drekkan

          But that’s an indictment. You’re 8.5 point dogs on the road in Seattle for a conference title. That’s the time to break out David strategies and go all out to win no matter what.

          Statistically it was the wrong call, and from a big-picture strategic point of view it was also the wrong call. The Packers got bailed out with a fluke of a turnover… and then could only come away with another field goal.

          Further, as discussed, the rest of the game calling was ridiculously conservative – in ways that sabotaged his own team. The only thing more preposterous than that was the Colts deciding to punt any time in the second half. What’s the purpose of that? To lose by fewer points? Why not just take a knee the rest of the game?

          • eYeDEF

            I agree, when you’re underdogs you want to take more risks and ideally increase variance. Strategically it was the wrong call. I just didn’t think it was as harmful as the conservative playcalling not to lose in the 2nd half. And yes, the Colts punting was a head scratcher. But I never thought much for Pagano as much of a strategic mind either.

        • atyler2011

          Agreed. Everybody is an arm-chair qb after the fact. When you are on the road, you’ll take all the points first, especially early in the game. They might have played “not to lose” but the fact of the matter is, after the 4th int, Seattle had a 3% winning probability and you’d take that at anytime. I believe it was a first win when a team had 5+ turnovers in 33 games (I’d not take the odds at 1 out of 32 if you are a betting man) I am a Hawks fan and I can tell you, GB outplayed us and should had won the game.

          It was an improbable win for our Hawks, we made the plays when needed, and luck was on our side yesterday. If I were GB and saw how the Hawks had played throughout the first 55 minutes, I’d had made the same decision. If GB was more “aggressive” and made some mistakes and let the Hawks back to the game, then the same people would came out and said why you were so “aggressive” in losing the game.

          • eYeDEF

            Excellent points. It’s hard to fault McCarthy too much when the Packers had a win probability of 96.1% with 4 minutes left. It would have been a lot higher if they had 27 points instead of 19 points, but it could have also been 20 points if they only got one touchdown, or even worse they could have only had 13 points and been behind if they went for it both times and got denied. Lots of other variables play into it too I’m not accounting for like the pinning back deep on field position if they failed to convert a touchdown that could have affected the score but taking the sure points wasn’t a terrible strategy, it was just the safer one. They were looking at go ahead points at that point in the game anyway, they weren’t playing from behind.

            And you’re right, at a 96.1% win probability if any one of a cascading sequence of of poor plays don’t happen then GB wraps up the victory. It just seemed to snowball because of a distinctly overly conservative strategy in the 2nd half.

          • atyler2011

            Yes, that is true but you would never imagine, before the game, that you will score 27+ points against Seattle at our place. I guess it came down to execution when it mattered most- on-side kick, two points conversion etc. If GB has made those plays instead then we probably are not having this conversation. I know it is tough for GB fans to “swallow” this loss but MM and the coaching staff did not lose the game. GB was a better team yesterday but we found a way to win. If the situation was reversed, I’d feel very confident to say GB fans would say what a clutch win in enemy’s territory. Sometimes that is how it goes and we don’t account other “factors” because we can’t quantify them but luck is certainly on Seattle’s side yesterday. Great game.

  • Jason Williams

    5 minutes left in the game and Morgan Burnett breaks beautifully in front of a Russell Wilson pass for the pick. He’s got 20 yards of field turf in front of him, a 12 point lead and a chance to break the Seahawks’ necks.

    A 10 yard return and the Packers can pin the Seahawks inside the 10 on their next possession.

    A 20 yard return and the Packers need one checkdown pass to put the game out of reach with a FG.

    Who knows – maybe he picks up a block and goes the distance?

    But instead, he lays down on the turf, giving himself, and in the process the Packers hopes of winning that game, up.

    • atyler2011

      It is much easier to second guess after the fact. When an opponent seemed “dead” at the time and you tried to make a play and turned it over then everybody would had asked “why were you so “aggressive” in trying to make a play when there was no need to make the “play”? Seattle was dead in the water at that time w/ a 3% winning probability. You made decisions based on the flow of the game. I guess it is fitting to say sometimes it is better be lucky than good. That was the case in point yesterday and I am a Hawks fan.

      • Jason Williams

        You guys are damned near invincible in that building. That game was alternately exciting and then brutal for a Seahawks hater like myself to watch.

        Let’s recap the magic that happened :
        1) Burnett doesn’t return a pick. Seahawks get the ball on their next drive at the 30 and score.
        2) A Packer who is supposed to be catching Seahawks instead of bouncing balls makes the mental mistake of a lifetime cutting off Jordy Nelson to give the ball back to Seattle
        3) Russell Wilson who can’t find a receiver to save his life is left ALL ALONE to scramble for 20 yards. Seriously!
        4) Beast Mode does his thing. No luck needed there.
        5) Ha Ha Clinton-Dix (despite playing the game of his life to that point) has an aneurysm or something, failing to even jump for the ball when he was in perfect position to knock it away, giving Seattle a 3 point lead.
        6) Russell Wilson, despite posting a ZERO passer rating in the first half, suddenly morphs into Joe Freaking Montana at the end of the game to lead the Seahawks to the win.

        THAT is some really special mojo you guys got going on there.

        • Chris

          #5 is ridiculous. That prayer Wilson threw up should have been knocked down.

          • mutzki

            I couldn’t believe it. The rookie showed there. He had a meltdown. I hope he learns from this and he and the Packers use it as fuel.

        • mutzki

          I’m still hurting from this loss. In order for the Seahawks to win pretty much anything had to go right past that 5 minute point and it’s exactly what happened.

          • Jason Williams

            I’m a Bear fan and I’m hurting from this loss – how insane is THAT?

          • mutzki

            Maybe yesterday you were less of a Bears fan and more of a football fan. That game was a beauty if you like defensive football as both defenses were suffocating.

          • Jason Williams

            I also love to watch Aaron Rodgers when he’s not playing against the Bears. And you’re right – when that game started my only thought was how in the world is GB’s swiss cheese defense going to slow down the Seattle offense? And then for 55 minutes they just put it ON the Seahawks, right up to that Morgan Burnett pick :)

          • mutzki

            I feel for Aaron. I want this guy to get his second ring and yesterday it felt like the Packers were going to play in Glendale for 55 minutes.

          • 12

            lol it only shows how irrational your Seahawks obsession is.

        • eYeDEF

          My understanding is that the Packers coaches were motioning for Morgan Burnett to get down after that pick. So that wasn’t his decision to go soft, it was management’s.

          • Chris

            Not surprising, since they went conservative in every other facet of their gameplan in the 2nd half.

          • Jason Williams

            that honestly makes it worse.

          • ATM

            It was supposedly Julius Peppers who was motioning for Burnett to go down. If so I think both are idiots.Until this season Morgan Burnett had 6 interceptions returned for a total of 1 yd.
            How is that even possible for a safety?

          • eYeDEF

            Wow, that is crazy! The only explanation I can come up with is complacency after getting picks. No killer instinct.

        • Go Hawks

          you need a tissue?

          • Real Nigga PatsFan85

            You need a tissue after that super bowl lost

    • Chris

      I thought this too when he did it. You only slide like that if it’s a scenario where your opponent can’t stop the clock. Just give yourself up so you don’t fumble and then get in the kneel-down and head to the lockerroom.

      You don’t give yourself up when you’re only up 2 scores with 5 minutes left.

      • Jason Williams

        Where’s Tim? We need to group hug this thing out…

      • joebuckster

        Sure you do. 2 scores with 5 minutes? Would you rather take a chance on a fumble like in the Dallas/Detroit game – I’m sure you had the opposite viewpoint on that one. Face it, every single thing had to go the Hawks way and it did. It was the luckiest, most undeserved confluence of events in NFL history, a real fluke. So give up the nerdy laptop quarterback act and call it what it was – a smart play that turned out to be unlucky.

        • Will

          It wasn’t just luck.Luck was clearly part of it, coupled with huge multiple errors by GB and the opposite, great play when it counted, by Seattle.

        • HuskyFanPodcast

          The only lucky thing was the onside kick. Maybe the 2pt was lucky. Was Lynch dominating lucky? How about Seattle scoring 3 TD’s on its last 3 drives? The better team won. Green Bay pussed out and couldn’t close the deal.

        • ShaneMacG

          The Dallas/Detroit fumble was deep in Detroit territory with under two minutes on the clock and was recovered (and then fumbled) by a Dallas rookie defensive lineman with zero ball handling skills. Falling on the ball then for all three of those reasons would have been the correct move. To use this example of what Burnett should have done is a specious argument.

    • Jason Williams

      Peppers gave the slide signal. Happy Birthday Julius.

      Burnett : “I was just trying to secure the catch, I got the ball in my hand and the main thing was just gaining possession of the ball. And I got the ‘no mas’ signal, which means ‘no more, no return, get down’ and secure possession of the ball, give our offense the ball.”

      • Tim Edell

        It wouldnt of put the game out of reach with a FG – it would of made it a 15 point game

        • Chris

          And a 15 point game means the FG at the end would’ve been a game winner?

          • Izach

            There is no grantee that GB would have kicked FG especially when they didn’t move ball at all Burnett didn’t lose them that game, if anything an offense that only scores 1 TD and kicks 5FG did. Sure the conservative play calling didn’t help but it’s only conservative because they failed to make more out of it.

        • Jason Williams

          thanks for stopping by Tim – we missed you.

    • mutzki

      “When I caught it, I saw Julius Peppers look at me and give me the ‘no mas’ signal. That means get down, We were moreso concerned about securing possession of the ball and getting the offense back on the field for another possession.
      I don’t take anything back that I did. It’s easy to sit here after it happened to say you should have done this or that. If the outcome were different, we wouldn’t even be talking about it.”

      That’s from the Packers website and it’s what Burnett had to say today. I thought you might be interested.

      • Jason Williams

        saw that.

        it just makes the whole thing worse to me. That whole team was playing not to lose, not playing to win. That play is where it started biting them in the ass.

    • Go Hawks

      Morgan Burnett did the smart thing, your up by 2 scores and just intercepted the pass so you go down to not risk fumbling it back to Seattle. If he had tried to get more yards and fumbled it back to Seattle you would criticize him for that. The game was yours to win, you had 1st down, possession of the ball, with a12 point lead because of Morgan and you criticize him?
      also a field goal would not put the game out of reach it would still be a 2 score lead.
      Go through the whole game, the Packers did not lose because Morgan went down…they lost because the Seattle Defense made them kick field goals while Seattle scored touchdowns.

      • Jason Williams

        since your handle is “Go Hawks” I find it amusing that you’re defending Burnett, but that aside your analysis is consistent with playing not to lose which the Packers did (play not to lose) and didn’t (win).

      • Anonymous

        The problem is, he could have played it safe and still got more yards. There was NO ONE anywhere near him. He could have got 10-15, maybe even 20 yards before anyone got close to tackling him and then he could have slid down and not risk being tackled and fumbling.

        That point, they’re at the brink of field goal range, if not then punting and pinning them back and 3 straight runs. Not to mention, if he runs a little bit, it takes more time off the clock, which mattered because Seattle got the ball back just before the 2 minute warning after the onside kick, essentially giving them another timeout.

      • ShaneMacG

        In the same scenario, would either of Seattle’s safeties – Chancellor or Thomas – laid down with so much open field in front of them? I’m pretty sure that’s a ‘no’. They would want to get as many yards as they could and really put the pressure on the Packers. They wouldn’t lay down.

  • eYeDEF

    For 56 minutes Wilson’s performance was horrific (234 yards, 2TD, 4 INT, 1 dropped INT, 1.69 AY/A, 44.3 rate, 13.6 QBR) so the numbers appear in line with his -2.1 grade for this game. But I can’t help but point out the inconsistency with his lowest regular season grade when he scored only a tenth of a point better (-2.0) against Philedelphia (304 yards,3 TD, 2 dropped INT, 8.19 AY/A, 99.3 rate, 82.8 QBR). This is less a criticism of PFF’s grading system overall as it with the internal consistency of PFF’s weighting from game to game. As it appears at the mercy of a high variance it ends up rendering the value of a PFF grade meaningless if a -2.0 grade can be assigned from two such wildly divergent performances.

    In light of Flacco’s -2.7 grade received last week in spite of a performance that contained only one devastating flaw from his final throw and the regular controversty over QB grades more than any other position it would appear PFF either needs 1) A complete overhaul and re-think on how to make their grades for the QB position more internally consistent or 2) more transparency about the assigned values and process in how they come up with their grades for the position. Otherwise it sort of defeats the purpose of even publishing them publicly if nothing can be discerned about how the QB actually performed when assigned a PFF numeric grade since no one has any idea what that numeric grade actually means.

    • Guest

      It starts with dropped INTs being weighted the same as actual INTs on bad throws. Their isolation of the throw (QB play) is the first thing that shows that stats won’t always match up. There were a couple of bad dropped INTs in that Philly game for one, not much different from yesterday when Wilson had 4 INTs, though only two likely his fault and a third that was dropped by Clinton-Dix.

      • eYeDEF

        Right, so he had 2 dropped picks against Philly and 1 dropped pick + 2 picks that were his fault yesterday. That means he only had one more pick yesterday than against Philly yet still had about the same PFF grade.

        • Guest

          Just using that as an example, obviously other plays and throws came into play. If I recall, Wilson was charged with sacks and penalties that affected his grade and not his stats vs PHI. Yesterday his bad plays did affect his stats.

          • eYeDEF

            Yeah well he was penalized yesterday for being responsible for 3 of his own sacks and 1 hit whereas in Philly he got tagged for just 1 sack, 1 hit, and 2 hurries. So 4 pressures in each game total, though not sure if they weight each type of pressure equally. He’s also tagged for 3 penalties for -0.8 in Philly, bringing his score down to -1.2 without the penalties. Still seems like -0.9 differential between the -2.1 yesterday and -1.2 against philly is pretty small increment to explain the huge contrast in the difference in performance between yesterday and Philly. Either that or I think the markdown values for penalties appears too stiff.

    • Izach

      It’s about QB play not the result of the play, I do agree tho and say that some times they vary too much, but the more a guy plays or be more plays he has the better his grade will be simply becuSe he PFF grading it additive not averaged

    • Dohkay

      Agreed. It would be nice to have the grading available by play. We pay for the grades, why not the play by play grades as well?

      • Chris

        I 100% wish they would abandon putting ‘real stats’ next to the grades. As if those are some sort of justification for the grades. All it does is confuse people.

        I don’t want to see Wilson had a -2.3 with 200 yards, 2 TDs, and 4 INTs.

        I want to see Wilson had a -2.3 with 8 positive throws, 10 neutral throws, and 12 negative throws.

        I can look up ‘regular stats’ on another site. I want to know what a player’s grade is comprised of.

        • Dohkay

          Yeah I’d be thrilled with this if they feel like providing play by play grades is giving away too much proprietary info. It would be much easier to see why a player graded highly or poorly.

  • Chris

    Wilson deserves the grade he got – Seattle won this game in spite of him.

    Yes he had 3 nice drives at the end to win it, but he was only in position to do that because of his defense. How many other teams can turn it over 5 times and still even have a chance at winning the game at the end? How many defenses only allow 22 points to the best QB in the league (hobbled) with 5 turnovers on the other side?

    They FGs on 3 drives that started inside their own 35 yard line, plus Sherman’s INT in the end zone. That’s 19 points they took off the scoreboard in the 1st half alone. Almost any other game and it’s like 35-0 before halftime.

    Plus they made I think four 3-and-outs or 4-and-outs in the 2nd half when they needed stops.

    Yes Wilson made a nice throw to Kearse on a post against man zero, but the game ball goes to the defense.

    • eYeDEF

      I’m not sure if you’re directing your post to me but I’m not disputing his grade. Overall his performance was very poor. Actually came out to the 3rd worst playoff performance of all time going by ANY/A. I was specific in addressing the internal inconsistency that I saw in PFF grading from game to game.

      • Chris

        Not at all. I am addressing no one in particular.

        • eYeDEF

          Ah. You’re anticipating the onslaught of apologists probably. Smart. :)

          • YouBarkIBite

            If you haven’t noticed, 90% of his posts are about defending the grades on this site. I guess he got tired of waiting for someone to bring up the grades in this thread and decided to just pro-actively be argumentative.

    • Jason Williams

      The only thing I will say in Wilson’s defense is I’m not sure how many QB’s can keep their composure and play that well for 10 minutes after playing that poorly for 55 minutes. Jay Cutler sure as hell can’t.

      • Jay

        Their receivers don’t create alot of space so I assumed like everyone else that the game was over. I counted 4 perfect passes in the game by Wilson one dropped by Lynch but he fought hard and kept his composer but it’s funny to see people’s reactions to this.If this was Luck instead you would hear about how he carried his team to victory and how great he is. Instead we here about how the Seahawks won in spite of Wilson.

        • Jason Williams

          Not saying one way or the other but this discussion reminds me a lot of what people used to say about those Eagles teams – McNabb’s receivers could never get separation. I guess that proved to be true because the one year they had TO that offense couldn’t miss.

          I’m in no way comparing McNabb to Wilson.

          • Jay

            There are plenty of F.A receivers out their this season. Wilson and Lynch’s contract situations are ones to watch. And the aftermath of those signings will be if they could afford a D. Thomas or a Jeremy Maclin or a Dez Bryant (even though I think it’s unlikely he leaves Dallas)

          • eYeDEF

            Absolutely no way can they afford a Demaryus Thomas or Jeremy Maclin if they want to keep the core of their defense together and re-sign Wager and/or Irvin after the monster Wilson re-up. Absolutely no way. Their only hope at an elite WR talent is to swing a trade for an over the hill Vincent Jackson willing to re-do his contract, or the draft. No way can they afford a wide receiver in his prime like Maclin or Thomas.

        • Chris

          Disagree. Luck led a comeback last year in spite of his defense. His team had 4 turnovers (1 less than Seattle) yet his defense gave up 44 points (twice what Seattle’s allowed).

          Luck had to put up 45 points, throwing for 443 yards along the way. That was all on him.

          Wilson threw for 209 yards and put up 28 points while his defense only allowed 22.

          • Jay

            If you are talking about the KC game, the Chiefs were literally missing every pro bowler they had by the time the game was over. 3 on the defensive side of the ball including Flowers, Houston and Hali

          • Chris

            And? He still had to score 45 points by himself to overcome his terrible defense. Wilson had to score a whopping 28 points because of his own turnovers. His defense kept them in it by minimizing damage, holding GB to only 22 points and taking 19 points off the board themselves in the 1st half.

          • Jay

            By himself? With no pass rush and no Flowers( who held Hilton to 15 yards on 3 catches) the Chiefs had no answer for Hilton and no way to pressure Luck without the blitz leaving unfavorable match ups for the remaining DBs. And unless Luck was throwing to himself then he didn’t do it “by himself”

          • Izach

            How many bad throws and whole digging did luck do in that game as well? They weren’t down because luck was playing well the whole game you realize that right?

          • Dohkay

            Someone didn’t watch the game… Luck had 3 drives to start the game (Indy fumbled a kick return as well). He scored a TD, had one 3 and out, and got a FG. Unfortunately for him, KC scored on all 5 of their drives in then first half (4 TDs and a FG). His 4th drive, down 31-10 with under 2 minutes in the half, he threw his first INT which resulted in no points as time had almost expired. I’m not sure how any rational person could find fault with his performance in the first half. It certainly wasn’t his fault the defense gave up 31.

          • Jay

            Can’t speak for anyone else but I meant that the comeback didn’t really begin until Pro Bowl/ All Pro Defensive players started leaving the game.

        • Izach

          I agree 100% but that’s all about hype and ppl preception honestly, the colts unforutnley are in same boat as Hawks with contract for their QBs, luck will demand a lot but hasnt done enough to warrant it in postseason play

          • Dohkay

            Right… Leading his team to the postseason all 3 years, winning a game in year two, and two games in year 3. The guy has been such a disappointment, especially given the elite talent the Colts have at so many other positions. Oh wait…

          • Izach

            No hasn’t been disappoint ment but also hasn’t been 120mill worthy either. the QB position of all positions should be based on results not potential

          • Chris

            With that argument you wind up paying Flacco $120 million. Does he deserve that money because he guided great defenses through the playoffs?

            Wins are a team accomplishment. If you pay ANY position based on a team accomplishment, you wind up paying everyone too much. This is why teams see a free agent exodus after they win a super bowl – everyone thinks they were the key ingredient and deserve to get paid for it.

            You pay players based on their skills and talents, not team wins.

          • SeattleGuy

            Try and name even one winning SB team that didn’t have a good to great defense to support their good to excellent QB? The name Ronnie Lott is not foreign to those of us who watched the great Montana/Rice/Walsh era teams, for example. QBs make too much $$$, but they get too much of the blame for failure as well as too much credit for success.

          • eYeDEF

            That’s an easy one. Peyton Manning’s 2006 Colts and their 27th ranked defensive DVOA and 22.5 ppg.

          • SeattleGuy

            Peyton was at his peak then. He was one of the best ever IMHO. As great as he was/is though, you’ve got to admit, he was easy pickins for the Hawks in SB48.

            What I was implying was that we think of the SB winners as some sort of “elite” player at the position, but in most cases it is the team. I remember the Rams of all ppl, beating the 49ers almost ever year with a good pass rush designed to make Joe uncomfortable in the pocket. Other than Rothlesburger or maybe Luck, few QBs maintain their poise under a good pass rush for very long. There is way too much credit given to the Montana’s and Brady’s in the NFL and not enough to the amazing defenses that push them over the line in their championship runs.

          • Dohkay

            Their defense played well in that postseason though. They gave up 8, 6, 34 (really 20 as there were two defensive TDs in that game), and 17 points. Manning had 3 TDs and 7 INTs so they essentially won in spite of him.

          • Dohkay

            He has delivered… He doesn’t have Wilson’s defense. That’s the only thing preventing him from a ring at this point. Look at Brady, Wilson, and your guy Big Ben. They won SBs early despite contributing very little. They were able to ride their defenses to titles. Luck cannot throw for 200 yards and a TD and expect to win many games, yet those three had several games early in their careers with stats like that and yet they won.

          • Jefferson

            As always, Dohkay wants to ‘have his cake and eat it too’. With Wilson, all credit goes to other units (defense) for victories while all blame goes to the QB for losses. With Luck, the opposite is true: all credit goes to the QB, and all blame to other units (defense). Sometimes he even pretends to support this with statistical cherry picking and nonsensical correlations.

            Here is the truth: both Luck and Wilson should get substantial credit/blame but far less than Dohkay gives them or anyone else gives them, just as some very sane posters are arguing above. For example, this year Luck has benefited massively in comparison to Wilson from his superior offensive line, which gives Luck all the time in the world to throw while Wilson has a free runner coming his way half the time. Ditto for the receiving cores: Luck’s WRs and TEs are simply better receivers as a whole and it’s not close. So while the Seahawks do obviously have a better defense, which INDIRECTLY helps Wilson’s (apparent) individual success, Luck has a better offense, which DIRECTLY contributes to his (apparent) individual success. It’s not rocket science.

            Add to this the fact that Wilson directly and repeatedly faces more difficult pass defenses and pass rushes, in the toughest defensive division in the NFL, and one could easily argue that it’s the Colts’ QB that has the ‘Luck’ of the draw and gets disproportionate praise because of it.

            The Wilson-haters will always troll here with laughable ‘game manager’ claims and such. And they will always fail to convince any knowledgeable and rational follower of football. Meanwhile it appears that even when Wilson himself is having possibly the worst game of his career (although 2 interceptions and 1 fumble were not on him), he still manages to miraculously and I dare say (in this case) heroically overcome and SIMPLY WIN. That’s what Wilson does: WIN. With all the help and hindrances of the team around him, yes, but he is at the helm, and for his contribution he helps win like few other QBs generally and few other third year QBs ever in history.

            I have no problem saying Luck is roughly Wilson’s equal in career individual statistical terms, for whatever little that means. But Luck doesn’t ‘win’ like Wilson — in that sense of an unquantifiable but typically exaggerated QB contribution to leading and commanding team victories.

          • Dohkay

            I like how you mention WR and TE but overlook this one other position because, you know, advantage Wilson and all. If you think WR/TE favors Luck and it isn’t close than what do you think about RB? Beast Mode probably shouldn’t be mentioned with the likes of Trent Richardson, Boom Herron, and Zurlon Tipton.

            You also brush aside a defense like it doesn’t matter. Maybe you’re just spoiled as a Hawks fan given your teams back to back to back reign as scoring defense champs but it makes quite a bit of difference for the QB. Playing with a lead or a close deficit is easier on a QB than trailing. Don’t believe me? Check the split stats for Wilson or any other QB. You’ll notice his QB rating, TD %, and YPA all drop in those situations while his INT % increases. Strange phenomenon!

            It also makes winning easier, after all, you don’t need to score as many points. take yesterday for example. How fortunate for RW that he has that defense to fall back on. They limit Aaron Rodgers to 22 points despite 5 TOs and several excellent starting field positions as a result. I think it’s safe to say no other QB except one playing with Seattle’s defense gets a chance at redemption. Props for taking advantage of it but let’s at least recognize it shouldn’t have been possible which explains why no QB in the modern era has won in spite of 4 INTs.

            By the way, I don’t just go after Wilson. Read my prior comment. I pointed out Brady and Big Ben were similar to Wilson. They won without having to do much. They haven’t won since even though they are playing better than they ever have. What changed? Their defenses haven’t been top 5 units since. I love the Hawks defense and Lynch. They are the best in the NFL. The same cannot be said for Wilson.

          • Jay

            Brady and Ben began in a different Era. A physical Era in defensive football. Luck has only played under the Goodell rules.

          • Dohkay

            Agreed, different passing era. That’s not my point though. Big Ben and Brady circa 2005 relied on their elite defenses and beat teams with good to great offenses (Greatest Show on Turf). It may be a different era but defense still rules the game. You need a good QB AND an elite defense.

          • Tim Edell

            And Matt Ryan, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, and soon to be be Cam Newton are?

          • Izach

            Nope they are in same boat, if hey can’t win when their team can afford to improve how are they going to win when they’re team can’t afford to pay anyone or keep anyone, only give QBs deals after they’ve proven you can win and slowly start to transition the team to cheaper replacements

          • Dohkay

            You have a chicken and an egg problem. You are on record saying you can’t win the SB without a great defense. But if you don’t have a great defense the QB can’t win. So you advise letting go of QBs who lack the defense when they’re drafted/signed onto the team but re-signing the QBs who were fortunate enough to be on the great defense to begin with…

          • Izach

            No I advise not signing a QB to a monster deal before they’ve won, basically saying win a SB first then see if you can win another by losing defensive pieces. It’s like beating a video game on easy mode then going to normal then hard, if you can’t beat the game on easy mode, why try super hard mode and expect differently? And previously my comment wasn’t get rid of all those ppl to sign Wilson, it was slowly maybe year by year find replacements. Keep the crew together as long as possible but, striking a balance is key. After a QB has won one then see if he can do it again with slightly less help give him slightly more on his shoulders. Steelers did it with Big Ben, after his 1st Super Bowl, they got rid of 4probowlers on both Ofense and defense and they didn’t scrap the whole team but did ask him to do a bit more.

          • Dohkay

            So unless you win a SB, no mega-deals. Again, you are punishing QBs for being in situations they have no control over. If Ryan, Luck, Romo, Rivers, etc. started their careers on a team that led the league in scoring defense every year of their careers I’d venture a guess they’d have won a SB. That they didn’t doesn’t diminish their accomplishments.

            To take your analogy one step further, you’re basically saying they should just restart the game and try again. We have a QB capable of winning it but we don’t have the defense (because we didn’t do our jobs and draft/sign those players before) therefore let’s give up a key piece and hope we can build defense and then draft a good QB in a few years.

            Those GMs would be run out of town. In principle, I agree with your point, but in practicality it doesn’t make sense. The Hawks and Patriots and Steelers drafted and signed players on defense that were studs and then also nailed on the QB pick. That is obviously ideal but also REALLY, REALLY hard to replicate.

          • Izach

            Now I agree it’s harder to do in reality and that’s why guys like cutler, ryan, Dalton kapernick, rivers, stafford, romo, have mega deals, teams are more scared of rebuilding than being stuck in mediocrity.

          • Dohkay

            I think you should take it one step further though. Seattle is better off letting Wilson walk and keeping their defense. Try to bring in a veteran QB at a cost effective deal or draft the next late round QB to enable them to continue to win. Under your logic (which again I somewhat agree with), Wilson is not the key to them winning so why pay him like he is?

          • Izach

            To a degree yes, keeping that defense 100% intact would be more important than keeping Wilson, but the truth is keeping that defense 100% would cost more than keeping Wilson. The better overall option would be to keep Wilson and let a player or 2 go, basically exactly what they did last year with browner, Thurman, and Clemons, as it is easier to replace defenders to a point. The issue with luck and others hat haven’t won is the defense already wasn’t good enough, so that same strategy wouldn’t work.

          • Izach

            My oringinal point is while yes every QB needs a defense, Wilson is still better than luck in terms of in game play and on field performance when scheme isn’t taken into account. Sure Wilson has a better defense but that doesn’t make his play better it’s already that good, I don’t attribute wins solely to the QB, they are a team product and that why RW has more wins he’s on a better team, but matt schaub had more wins than Big Ben for a one year didn’t make him a better QB. Same with Brees this year and half the QBs in the league wins are team based

          • Dohkay

            What if Wilson and Luck cost the same amount? Can’t Indy just try to draft defense while keeping the other key piece of the puzzle? It makes no sense to let go of Luck simply because you think you need to draft defense first. There’s no right or wrong order to acquiring the talent. It’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

          • Izach

            That’s what they are going to try and do. And it could work, they’ll have to draft amazingly and draft almost full defense within 4years or risk losing pieces again because of luck contract. I’d do my best to talk luck down in price but too many teams just make their new QB the highest paid for the sake of it. Maybe even give luck a kapernick type deal based on performance and wins save money

          • Dohkay

            “Draft amazingly” i.e. what the Seahawks were able to do and what I’ve argued is very hard to do with consistency.

            “I’d do my best to talk luck down in price but too many teams just make their new QB the highest paid for the sake of it.” Luck isn’t just a “new” QB, he’s the best young QB in the game. He would likely start on 25-30 NFL teams and if a re-draft were held you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who would be picked ahead of him. He’ll be paid like the best because he IS one of the best.

          • Izach

            He’s one of the most talented, not one of the best,

          • Izach

            And in reality the team would be better off to save that 20 mill spend it on defense and really start building that defense. Not saying those QBs can never win a SB, just that if they haven’t yet it’ll be even less likely when the team is handicapped by almost 20% of the cap, what’s worse is the QBs deal not only limits potential to get new FAs but to keep the few drafted gems as well, steelers had to let Wallace and keenan Lewis, have also let lesser talents but good role players go and haven’t been able to fill those spot in FA as well as consistently being “over” the cap and big bend contract isn’t as bad as some of these other guys. And he’s won 2 of them muh harder to justify all that when they haven’t won yet

      • mutzki

        It’s time for the Seahawks to pay that man real money, so they can’t afford to keep everyone and maybe not get homefield advantage in the playoffs. As a fan of the Packers that’s my hope at least.

        • Jason Williams

          having him on a rookie contract has been no small part of their success.

        • SeattleGuy

          They have already resigned almost their entire defensive core, so……wtf are you talking about?

          • eYeDEF

            There are questions as to whether they’ll be able to afford to re-sign Bobby Wagner as his recent All Pro honors might have priced him out of their reach after getting Wilson re-signed. If

            Kuechly is given in the 8-10 mil range and Wagner wants the same he might be allowed to walk. Carroll has never much valued middle linebackers in his systems as much as versatile linebackers that can play every spot ala KJ Wright. He might look like an essential piece but Dave Wyman doesn’t seem to think they’ll be able to afford him.

          • Xeron Tafford

            Use increase in salary cap for 2015, or use the extra cash if M. Lynch retires early.

          • eYeDEF

            Based on the latest press reports the team wants Lynch back now if he’s not set on retiring so who knows. If they have to incorporate a top 3 running back salary at the current market rate it could make it even harder.

          • Dohkay

            You think Christine Michael is good enough to somewhat fill his shoes? Turbin seems pretty good as a change of pace back. Could they get by with them in lieu of paying Lynch top-3 money?

          • eYeDEF

            No. He has the talent but his ball security is a question mark. He wouldn’t remain buried 3rd on the depth chart and given so few minutes if they thought he wasn’t a liability. In order of importance to Carroll is 1) Ball Security 2) Ball Security 3) Ball Security, so he’ll have to compete for a job with a running back they’re sure to target in the early rounds of this year’s draft. We’ll trade him to you guys for Ebron. Sounds like you need RB help badly.

          • Dohkay

            If we don’t re-sign Suh and Lynch walks I would be all over the Lions spending the freed-up cap and signing Lynch and cutting Bush.

          • eYeDEF

            lol. Yeah I think you’d have to line up behind ten other teams if Marshawn became a FA this year and you’d probably have to outbid the niners, though I don’t think he’d player for the niners so there’s that. But I think that’s the least likely to happen because I can’t see him playing for another team. Either he retires, and all signs have been pointing to him doing so if he wins another SB, or he comes back on a sweetened deal for one more year after ripping up the last year of his current contract.

          • Dohkay

            I can dream, right? Almost like Stafford one day becoming elite…?

          • eYeDEF

            You could hope for some more statistical outliers and pin your hopes he has a career like Vinny Testeverde. He played almost 20 seasons and was a below average quarterback but had like 4 or 5 seasons scattered across the span of his playing career where he performed at a level far above replacement, a few of those years even exceeding Stafford’s 2011 by a full standard deviation. :)

            Nah that’s such a cruel fate though. I wouldn’t wish that on you. Actually I think it’s clear from the data that Stafford really is trying to improve. The decreased picks and increased sacks he’s taking demonstrates he’s really putting in the effort to make better decisions. Unfortunately, instead of making better decisions on where to throw the ball he’s taking sacks instead. But it is progress albeit limited at this point. Sacks being better than picks might be hard to get excited about but at the least it demonstrates he’s putting the effort in. Plus it seems like the natural target for the Lions in the earliest rounds of the draft would be running back and there are definitely some good ones that will be available this year. That’s why I’m sure the Seahawks take one early, but the Lions if they’re willing to spend a first round pick on a RB might end up with who they’re targeting.

          • Dohkay

            Here’s to hoping year two in Lombardi’s system helps him find a receiver instead of taking a sack.

            I’d rather grab OL and live with Bell and Bush for another year as there hasn’t been a RB that blows me away in this draft. If Suh leaves we may have to address the DT position. I don’t trust Fairley (who I think we’d re-sign) to perform over a full season.

          • eYeDEF

            Really? You haven’t seen the tape on Gurley? Dude is a once in a generation back IMO. I’m hoping with a blown ACL he’ll slide to the end of the 1st for the hawks to take him but I don’t expect he’ll last that far.

          • Dohkay

            I liked him until I saw Nick Chubb replicate his performance. That worries me.

          • eYeDEF

            Chubb is a great back too, but that doesn’t negate the greatness of Gurley. It’s not the line doing all the work of gaining those yards for them.

          • Dohkay

            Yeah I admit haven’t watched much of Georgia other than highlights so I’ll take your word that he’s a difference maker. I just don’t like seeing the next guy come in and tear it up. That’s also why I don’t trust Melvin Gordon as his predecessors haven’t amounted to much in the NFL.

          • eYeDEF

            Yeah that’ll be tough. I think there’s a higher than 50% chance right now that Suh already played his last game in Detroit. He’s poised to get close to a 100 mil contract with at least 40 mil guaranteed is my guess. Somewhere south of JJ Watt’s pile of cash, but not too far south. That would make DT a priority in the draft for the Lions. The upside is that this is looking like a promising crop of defensive linemen available in the draft. The downside is, Suh is still irreplaceable, especially with a pick from the bottom quartet where you’ll be drafting.

          • Dohkay

            Yeah I’m hopeful the teams that can throw major cash are not destinations he wants to go to. Detroit will have decent space to re-sign him and I have no issue paying him near JJ money as he’s definitely worth it. We’ll see what is most important to him, though. Can’t blame a guy for chasing money, especially at that position where injuries are common.

          • SeattleGuy

            I checked again with overthecap dot com and I stand by my statement. After ditching Harvin, the Hawks will be able to keep all of their core player intact. They have more than 25 million dollars in cap space for 2015. They still can go shopping for the oline and a #1 receiver. I know this is not good news for their competitors, but that’s the way it works out. Also, you must remember that players like playing for Pete. Many veterans will come to Seattle for a discount for an opportunity for a SB ring in the autumn of their careers. Look how that worked out for Bennett and Avril.

          • eYeDEF

            7 mil needs to be subtracted to account for paying the rookies from the draft and injury replacements next year. Did you factor in Wilson’s contract extension?

            All I’m saying is that Dave Wyman appears convinced that Wagner is the odd man out as he fancies himself some sort of amateur capologist. I’m not familiar with how he’s calculating the cap to come to this conclusion, but he repeated it again recently.

          • SeattleGuy

            It is definitely a concern, but I cannot imagine the Hawks even thinking about letting Wags slip away. The defense is not the same without him and Kam Chancellor as you know. Moreover, I imagine RW might sit down with B Wags and his own lawyers and hammer out a team-friendly contract to keep it all together, although someone said the happiest guy at the end of Sunday’s win over GB was Wilson’s agent.

          • Dohkay

            Wilson has been criminally underpaid the past 3 years. Didn’t he want to sign an extension this past offseason and Seattle refused in order to keep it low for another year? I have to think he’ll want to get paid. Brady has been willing to do that but he’s also been getting paid top-5 QB money for almost a decade. That’s a luxury Wilson doesn’t have nor should he be expected to do.

          • Bill

            Never happened, considering rookies can’t sign extensions until after their third season under the new CBA.

          • Dohkay
          • Dohkay

            Looks like my comment disappeared… anyways, here’s what I’m referring to:

            http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/20/report-russell-wilson-rep-asked-for-new-contract/

          • eYeDEF

            I would agree with you on Wags. But the decision might come down to Wags or Irvin and given how improved Irvin has been this year with the sky the limit on him due to being an athletic freak of nature, they might decide to lock him up instead since they’d get a discount for locking him up early and ideally BEFORE he earns first team All Pro honors. :

          • Chuck Foreman

            Exactly, Wilson’s rookie salary gives them the money to re-sign the entire defensive core!!!!

          • SeattleGuy

            Sorry, you are misinformed, Chuck. The Hawks can easily pay RW inline with his position and still sign Lynch after next season if they want him at that point.

            No, the Hawks have plenty of room under the current cap even paying Wilson big money. Remember, they dumped Harvin. They are in an unusual position because of the way JS and PC built the team. The defense is completely resigned with the exception of K.J. Wright, I believe. I don’t think but 3 teams have more space under the cap than Seattle.

          • mutzki

            I’m saying they probably can’t afford all this talent on their roster, if Wilson gets paid 15-20$ Million instead of a lousy 500 grand.

          • Jay

            I’m not sure of the signing rules but they can navigate some of the cap problems with Bonuses and guaranteed money.

          • mutzki

            They can distribute it over the life of the deal yeah, but i expect wilson will sign a deal worth north of 100Million. That would pretty much put his cap number at 15 millionen

      • Izach

        And that’s something the grade can’t reflect and really does affect the game, if you watch Aaron Rogers seemed almost scared the entire game and it showed even on good passes he looked more like it was a relief than expecting it.

        • Dohkay

          I saw clearly hobbled yet still playing relatively well in spite of McCarthy’s conservative play calling. FOX showed him saying “WTF Mike” when McCarthy once again chose to kick a FG rather than go for it. One would think a scared QB would be happy to get off the field, no?

          • Chris

            Easy likes on all your posts.

          • Izach

            His expression the entire game was the same look you see when you drop your phone face down and pick it up slow to see if it cracked, he wasn’t loose he wasn’t enjoying himself, you could tell RW was even after all the bad play, it’s a demeanor thing, ppl bash Cam newton and jay cutler for doin the same thing yet Rodgers gets a pass doesn’t make sense

          • Dohkay

            Jesus Christ I’ve seen some idiotic arguments on here but this one might take the cake. “He wasn’t enjoying himself”. Does he need to smile to make you happy with his performance? Wilson showed great poise even after his 4th INT and I give him credit. Then again, he was also playing with house money at that point. Pretty much any QB not names Wilson is getting blown out after 4 INTs… He was still in the game thanks to his defense and got a chance he didn’t deserve to have. Props for making it happen, but he is probably the luckiest QB on the planet to still have a chance.

          • mutzki

            Some people can’t tell the difference between scared and concentrated. I saw an edge in his eyes, a focus that said “i’m gonna carry my team to victory”. If only he had gotten one more possession….

          • Dohkay

            I agree. It’s a shame the OT rules are so bad. Rodgers deserved a chance to answer.

          • Tim Smith

            Now we are judging football player’s face expression. What has the N.F.L. fans come to these days. SMH.

    • atyler2011

      Agreed. Actually, I thought the grade was a bit “kind” and I love RW as much as any Hawks fan. Seattle won because of luck, the defense, and Beast Mode. RW might get all the “credit” by leading them to the win but the fact of the matter is we would not be in that situation if he has played up to his normal standard in the first place. Same argument about AL’s last year epic come back against KC. Whatever it is worth, I guess it is true that it is better to be lucky than good.

      • Izach

        Actually RW didn’t play as bad as the stats show or the Seattle haters think, sure he had a down game but -2 something is about what I thought he was below average for sure but half his picks were WRs fault, and a few bad throws were due to RW trusting WRs and them failing to come through for him, doesn’t show up in the grades or in the stats but the exact same type of throw where he threw a pick before Half in the endszone is the same type of throw he made to win the game. He trusts his WRs to make plays. Personally that’s why I think they need to draft a true #1 WR.

        • atyler2011

          Come on Izach. I am a Hawks fan like you are but let have some honesty here. Yes, not all the picks were on him but there were other throws or bad decisions that he made were very questionable (i.e. with an exception of last week game, he has been very “mediocre” at home compared how he played on the road) No, if you want to argue about the mechanic of “throw” before the half compared to the one that ended the game then o.k. But don’t forget the two situations are totally different. (If you listened to Brock and Salk this morning, BH explained the mechanic and pointed out those were bad throws period) The decision was correct but just a bad throw.

          One when you needed a score to have momentum and one was just a normal “play” within the context in the flow of the game (even though it was good as it was) We still have a chance if he didn’t change the play or make the throw. To me, the greatness of RW is the belief he has in his teammates. How many other qbs in the league would make that same decision when his teammate(s) were responsible for some of his “mistakes” during the game and he could have been labeled as a goat if the outcome was different? Not too many. I remembered watching some of the TB’s games and when his receivers did not make the plays, he stopped throwing to them, which was understandable. That is the clutch and greatness of RW.

          • Izach

            I’m actually a steelers fan but I try to be objective in my comments, and I’m not saying the throws were the same, but the thought process was, it was RW first read he knew he had man coverage, he knew he was going to throw it no matter what.
            Yes he had a bad throw on the pick, but the WR also ran a lazy route in start and didn’t do enough IMO to swat the ball after it was obvious he wasn’t going to catch it. some times the QB helps the WR with perfect throws, sometimes the WR needs to help the QB with a bad throw. Doesn’t change RW bad performance but I’d kearse were a more physical or bigger WR Id say in an incomplete IMO.

            Also 100% agree with you on RW greatness is believing in and trusting his teammates even after they have let him down already, kearse was the cause or at least the targeted WR on every INT yet RW doesn’t hesitate to throw to him for the game winner that to me is beyond greatness. Tom Brady, Big Ben, peyton especially Rodgers and eli manning all have suffered from not trusting WRs and its cost them a lot over the years, it may be simply they’ve gone throw more WRs than RW has or what but I’d take RW over any QB in the league right now hands down (maybe Big Ben stays).

        • SeattleGuy

          Pete said the wind played an important part of RWs interceptions. It led to under-throws.

    • mutzki

      I’m actually surprised by his grade. Watching the game it felt like he might get a -4 passing grade. He was way off on many throws and had quite a few bad reads.

    • s;dlfkj

      Wilson was bad. But he wasn’t horrid. Kearse was directly responsible for two ints. Then he completely lost position on the one to the end zone. Otherwise ti would’ve been a jump ball. The deep seam route was completely underthrown by russ and undeniably his fault. He missed some throws to the flats and other htings but there were drops all over the place from the rest of the team. WRs and TEs make plays and it looks different. Then Russ gets it together and puts together two drives with amazing plays to win the game.

      All in all he was bad. But not terrible. And that hit he got from Matthews scrambled his brain for a bit. Missed some reads the following couple of drives.

  • Mylegacy

    Hawks fan here…

    For the first 50+ minutes of the game I witnessed a nightmare.
    DangeRuss was being exposed, every negative concern you heard about him
    from the haters was coming true. He was inaccurate, he was indecisive
    and he was making seriously bad decisions. We weren’t just losing, our
    QB was being stripped of his cloak of cool. It was much more than
    disappointing, it was almost as if Wilson was being shown to be the
    short, inconsequential, 3rd round pick he was accused of being. I said
    to my wife, “He’s not just being crushed, he’s making bad decisions,
    he’s being exposed, his mystique is being torn off him… it’s like they
    were right and we were wrong…he’s not what we thought he was.”

    A tiny bit of that fear still remains. That we won the game is one
    for the ages and a gift from the gods. GB had at least 7 decisions, or
    plays, they made in the last 6(ish) minutes of the game, anyone of which
    could have won the game for them and they made the wrong choice (play)
    on each occasion. They did not deserve to lose they had to roll snake
    eyes 7 times in a row – they did, they lost. Period.

    That DangeRuss came back and played like we know he can play was
    somewhat reassuring but make no mistake – we only won because Green Bay
    blew it. Most notably was on the short kick off, they had if set up
    perfectly, everyone was to block our attackers and Jordy Nelson was to
    catch the ball, Jordy was in the perfect position, his mates ALL did
    their job perfectly – except one guy, the guy who should have blocked
    Matthews, the guy the ball was coming at, decided he knew better than
    the coach, he knew better than the play design and he jumped up and with
    Jordy standing just behind him, hands already placed to catch the ball –
    he almost single handed ended Green bay’s season.

    We have been given a chance at redemption, a chance to repeat, a
    chance to make history – BUT – a seriously good team stands in front of
    us. All the glory to us when we take this life we’ve been spared to live
    and crush them. Despite all my wringing of hands, my renting of clothes
    I still believe we can prove ourselves worthy of the magical spell
    we’ve been saved by.

    Brady be prepared – a force of nature your way comes – and you know
    Tom – it’s a waste of time to try and oppose a force of nature….

    • Baron Zbimg

      So you would have deleted three years of football because of one terrible performance ?

      Wilson played horribly the first 55 minutes of this game, but playing horribly happens to the very best, look at Manning horrible games in many playoff exits, Brady, Favre, Brees all have had terrible games in the past.

      People love to look at volume stats like yards and TDs where Wilson isn’t elite but the real stat that should matter is passer rating as it measures efficiency, and is the only one directly connected with winning or losing in the NFL.

      He has been amazing in that aspect since his rookie season, and I think it would be ludicrous to doubt him/raise questions about him at that point. Unless he regresses massively in the near future, Wilson is an elite QB in the NFL, especially in the playoffs, that’s what all the stats that matter say, and his nightmare of a game yesterday is what it was, a nightmare of a game.

      Contrary to what all the pundits and writers around say (except the Cold Hard Football Facts), Wilson, not Luck, is the best young QB in the NFL. Luck has the better arm, but Wilson is just more efficient and has just won more consistently and performed better than all QBs in the HISTORY of the game at this point in his career. Not bad …

      Now I really hope the Pats will crush the Hawks in the Super Bowl, but it should be a close game.

      • Chris

        This is 100% false. Wilson has the best record, because of his defense. He is not a better QB.

        • Shmoney

          Lol give it a rest, youre beginning to sound like a troll and a russell wilson hater, fact of the matter is he’s lead his team to b2b super bowls in only 3th year

          • Chris

            He’s also 0-6 when his defense allows more than 24 points.

          • Izach

            A lot of the great QBs have bad records when the defense gives more points than the offense that’s common sense buddy sorry for the mind blower but it’s true

          • Chris

            Bad records? Or winless records? Is Brady winless when his defense allows more than 24 points?

          • Izach

            Winless is bad, and only 6games isn’t a good indicator of wins look up the first 6games that any QB had to score more Han 24 pts to win and you’ll see a trend

          • Chris

            How about you look it up? Why should I prove your point wrong when you didn’t do absolutely any research to make it?

            6 games is a small sample size. 6 games in 3 years Wilson has seen his defense play below the NFL average of 24 points. An average QB would see 24 games over that time span. That just proves my point even harder that Wilson’s job as a game manager is so damn easy compared to what other’s are asked to do.

            How many QBs do you think go into games thinking, “Well I just gotta score 20 and we’ll win this one.”

          • Dave

            Chris, it’s really not fair to take a stat like that all by itself. In all the games that Russell Wilson has played, the Seahawks have had a chance to tie or take the lead in the 4th quarter. We may have lost all the games where the defense gives up more than 24, but the playoff game in Atlanta we scored 28 to take the lead with 45 seconds to go. Then ATL made two passes to get in field goal range to win the game. Russell’s fault? Also telling is the comeback stat they were publishing yesterday, something like a successful comeback % of (I think) 57%. Better than Rodgers.

          • Dohkay

            Rodgers puts away lesser opponents prior to the 4th quarter. The only teams that have leads in the 4th quarter on Rodgers are good teams and it’s harder to comeback against good teams than it is bad teams. Take 2013 when Wilson had 3 comebacks against Houston (2-14), Tennessee (7-9), or Tampa Bay (4-12).

            Credit to Wilson for making the comebacks but one could argue those shouldn’t have come down to a 4th quarter in the first place…

          • eYeDEF

            Rodgers also has a far lower success rate in come from behind victories regardless if it’s against superior or mediocre competition. So it’s only fair to juxtapose his ability to put away lesser opponents by the 4th quarter to his middling record when he doesn’t put away those lesser opponents by the 4th quarter.

          • Dohkay

            Which lesser opponents has he failed to put away in the 4th quarter? Other than NO this year he doesn’t have a loss against a team below .500 over the past 4 seasons (I’m on mobile so I may have missed another). His losses tend to be against good teams on the road. Now, I am more than willing to concede that he isn’t a comeback king (Benjamin Morris had a good article that noted his INT rate barely goes up in comeback situations which means he’s not taking enough risks to help them comeback) as he has plenty of failed comebacks, but those are almost always against good teams. Wilson has somewhat padded comeback stats when they come against bad teams (Stafford fits the bill here especially).

          • eYeDEF

            I remembered that wrong. The stat I was thinking of was that Rodgers has never come back from a deficit of 9 or more points in the second half ever, which is pretty insane really. And it came from the same author you cited Benjamin Morris. He’s written a series of articles with regards to Rodgers in his risk/reward calculus and how it could better serve him to aim at increasing variance when he’s behind like you mentioned. It’s a solid point that complements the gunslinger hypothesis I’ve heard passed around in advanced stat discussions for years that picks aren’t always bad in every circumstance. The theory (which appears to be solidly backed up by empirical data) being that gunslingers that get a lot of picks aren’t always to be scorned and are still preferable to game managers that won’t make risky throws. A gunslinger with a lot of picks can actually be a good quarterback if he’s judicious about when to engage in riskier throws to maximize win probability when their risks pay off and minimize the harm done to win probability when they get picked off. For instance making a risky throw deep on 3rd and long is worth the risk of getting picked off because the downside is fairly equivalent to punting and I’ve noticed that this advanced stat wisdom is finally making its way into mainstream consciousness now with the number of times I’ve heard broadcasters actually refer to it on air this year. But yeah I read a paper recently on the gunslinger vs game manager model where the author as an aside asserted Andrew Luck as the quintessential model of the ‘good gunslinger’ in spite of his high number of picks because he’s very discriminate about when to increase his risky throws, and that he plays on a team that requires him to increase his risk calculus often in order to win which explains his high turnover rate. Though I haven’t dug into the data yet it sounds plausible. Reflexive Wilson apologists try and minimize Luck by pointing to his high INT rate but the gunslinger model has enough merits that this bears further exploration. But should this theory be accurate then we should expect to see Luck’s INT rate come down considerably the better the team becomes around him.

          • Dohkay

            Agreed on all points. Rodgers is too cautious in large deficits and while it likely means they never get blown out as he doesn’t make a back-breaking INT it also means they never make a big comeback as he doesn’t take the risks necessary to do so.

            I’d be interested to see Wilson in more large deficits as he only has 1 INT out of his 26 when he’s trailing by 9+ points. Of course he’s only had 61 attempts over his 3 years (regular season only) in those situations so it’s hard to know whether it’s a small sample size or whether he really is better in large deficits. When he’s trailing by less than 8 he has 14 of his 26 INTs. So if he’s trailing, his INT rate is 3.5%. If he’s tied or ahead, it’s 1.3%. Luck has an INT rate of 3.3% when trailing and 1.4% when he’s tied or ahead. Again, the difference being Luck has almost 470 more attempts when trailing (and 90 more when ahead), not to mention he has 228 attempts when trailing by 9+ compared to 61 for Wilson. I have a feeling Wilson’s INT rate would be higher if he faced larger deficits as much as Luck.

          • Bill

            Brady has sort of been in the league for well over a decade and played with great WRs like Moss and prime Welker. Comparing them is pretty pointless. If Wilson doesn’t have any victories during games in which the opposing team scores more than 24 in 10 years time, maybe you’ll have a point. But your six-game sample size is a completely and totally bunk attempt to discredit Wilson.

          • Dohkay

            Wilson has 55 career games (postseason included). In 28 of them his defense has surrendered 13 or less on a net basis (i.e. accounting for defensive scores) and he is 27-1 in those games. Literally in over half of Wilson’s games he’s only needed to put up 14 points or less to get a win.

            On the rare occasions they give up more than 21 on a net basis (10 games or 5.5% of his games), he is 3-7. His YPA falls by a yard, his passer rating falls by 8 points, his INT rate increases compared to the games where he doesn’t need to score as much. He throws the ball 8 more times per game in those situations as the Hawks need to score more.

            The average points allowed per game for an NFL defense is 22.5. If Wilson is 3-7 in games where he needs to score more than 21 to win I wonder what it would be when it happens more often than 2 or 3 times a year.

          • Izach

            For your comment to have any merit you would have to prove Russell has never scored more than 24 pts in agame. You can’t say Wilson would have never won any game where the opposing teams score more than 24 pts. Because it hasn’t happened often. And just look at brady before 07 they were not a team that could score and win games over 24 pts either doesn’t mean brady could never win them just that the scheme wasn’t developed for them to do so

          • Chris

            No I don’t. I don’t care how he racks up points when his defense is shutting a team out and forcing 3 turnovers. I care about how he plays when his defense doesn’t show up. And through 3 years that is 0-6. Bottom line this ‘winner’ hasn’t won a game when his defense has been below average. Yesterday was no exception. They turn it over 5 times but his defense was outstanding and limited GB to just 22 points.

          • Bill

            Again with the six-game sample size. Really dumb stuff here, especially considering in two of those games Seattle’s offense scored 28 in two of those games (vs. ATL and IND, respectively). In that aforementioned game vs. Atlanta in the playoffs, he led the Seahawks back from 20 points down to 28-27 until his defense coughed up the game and allowed a game-winning FG. May be the poorest, most misguided, misleading statistic to dismiss Wilson’s success I’ve seen to date. Nice try, though. I’m sure you’re part of the same crew that thinks # of carries equates to wins.

          • 49ers>sea chokes

            Stop sucking off Wilson he is trash. lol

        • Izach

          Not true Wilson is the better QB

        • Jason Williams

          This website can answer that question better than any other.

          Show me Wilson’s passer rating on straight dropback passes where he has to be accurate from the pocket. I’m guessing the numbers aren’t great.

          Where Wilson excels is by using his legs to buy his receivers time and them making incredible throws on the run. Wilson probably throws better while his feet are moving than most QBs do setting their feet.

        • Dohkay

          If only every QB was fortunate enough to have a defense lead the league in points allowed every year of his career, right?

    • Jason Williams

      I’ll debate you on one thing – even after that 4th pick Wilson was still cool on the sidelines trying to keep guys confident, cheering on teammates. That was pretty impressive to me because at that time they were pretty much dead.

  • Riffle,Rod&Fly

    The Pack’s prevent-defense prevented them from winning.

  • Marcus

    If I’m a packers fan I’m sick today. Two lame three and outs near the end of the fourth? Playing a prevent defence when it’s 2nd and 31, then allowing a conversion on 3rd and 19! What an unbelievable choke job. You’re playing the defending super bowl champions. Play to win the game. Not lose it.

    • Riffle,Rod&Fly

      Prevent defense against a running team no less. It was really some stupid game calling.

  • Jason Williams

    So question for Packer fans – would you rather have your season end the way it did yesterday or would you rather have no shot at it at all like your neighbors to the South?

    I can make an argument for both. I suffered a lot less yesterday watching the Packers lose that game than if it had been the Bears losing that game that way.

    The Bears season was over in Week 1 when Jay Cutler drilled Kyle Williams in the gut with a 4th down throw. The Packers season ended at the end of a terrible gut punch road meltdown with a trip to the Super Bowl on the line.

    I know I’m a wuss of a fan, but I’ll take the Bears season given the choice.

    • Chris

      How come Sweezy didn’t get called for clearing Matthews off the pile after he sacked Wilson before the fake FG TD? Lang was called for the same penalty last week and it took 15 yards off the end of a run by GB, so it’s an ‘after the play’ penalty.

      That would’ve added 15 yards and likely negated the score?

      • Jason Williams

        Didn’t see that play but speaking of clearing off, if Clay Matthews was serious about ringing Wilson’s bell, he should have hit him a lot harder than that. I thought that was a stupid penalty.

        • Riffle,Rod&Fly

          It was an illegal block in that game and a “good block” that sent Studebaker to the hospital, coughing up blood in the other game. QB’s who are or will be set for life must be worth more as human beings than guys trying to make it on special teams.

          • Jason Williams

            studebaker looked ROUGHED up…

          • Riffle,Rod&Fly

            Yeah, both hits were clearly illegal blind-side blocks. Wilson’s probably looked worse because it was in the area of the head and he is a much smaller guy. It made me sick to hear Nantz or Simms (I don’t remember which), saying that was a clean block in Colts-Pats though.

          • Jason Williams

            The only thing I remember from the AFC title game was going into the TV timeout at the end of the third quarter, Nantz blurts out “and the Patriots are POURING it on…”

            ughhhhhhhhhhhhh. come on, man…

          • Izach

            The only reason it was illegal was because it was to the head same hit to the body isn’t a problem

          • Riffle,Rod&Fly

            No.

            Blind side block: A defenseless player who receives a block when the blocker is moving toward, or parallel to, his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side. – See more at: http://www.nflpenalties.com/penalty/illegal-blindside-block?year=2012#sthash.rKqq4G6J.dpuf

            The hit on Wilson was called a Blnd-Side block and had nothing to do with a shot to the head.

          • Chris

            When I first saw it I thought the exact same. I didn’t see any contact to the head, and a blindside block was called which only has to do with the direction of approach.

            I thought he hit him clean in the chest with his shoulder coming from the front. After seeing the replay I can see some helmet-to-helmet contact, but that wasn’t the call on the field.

            Just another instance in a line of many of over-protecting QBs.

          • Dave

            Last year Golden Tate hit a Cowboy Linebacker right in the chest from directly in front and got called for a blind-side block because the lb was looking back over his shoulder.

        • Izach

          It was entirely illegal never seen a more illegal block honestly, matthews make no attempt to avoid Wilsons head actually looks like he aims for it and after Wilson was already blocked WtF is that, but Clay never gets any bad press for his cheap shots like Suh does, but probably takes just as many

      • Yolo Von Swag

        He did get flagged. It was declined.

        I’m assuming because it was during the play and would’ve negated the loss of down from the sack.

        • Chris

          I know it got flagged. But it was called as ‘during the play’. Meaning GB had to either take the sack or take the penalty, and they took the sack.

          In the GB/DAL game last week, Lang was called for the exact same thing (clearing someone off a pile after a tackle). They gave GB the yards for the short pass, then took off 15 after the play for the personal foul.

          I don’t understand why it was called differently yesterday.

          • Izach

            One was just barley after the whistle the other was entirely after the play, that’s the reasoning, judgement call by refs but the right one

          • Chris

            “Entirely after the play?” Forward progress had just been whistled dead for Adams when Lang hit Hayden. Go watch the replay.

          • Yolo Von Swag

            Probably because Sweezy hit Clay while he was still sacking Wilson.

            There was a lot of wind-up and tossing with that sack, and Sweezy launched/hit Clay before the whistle blew.

          • Chris

            I’m not sure you’ve watched the replay of both.

            In the play last week, Adams was getting slung around just like Wilson was and Lang came in and peeled off Hayden from the pile. The only difference is the pile was still standing but forward progress had been blown dead.

            Yesterday Wilson is getting slung around by Wilson and he goes to the ground, and then after the whistle Sweezy peels off Matthews.

          • Yolo Von Swag

            Got the game yesterday on DVR. Don’t hear the whistle before Sweezy launches. Maybe the broadcast missed it, but I don’t see any ref hand signals either.

            Here’s a vine of the play. No whistle. Shrug.

            https://vine.co/v/OjtXArjLVtY

      • Dave

        I did think we got a break on that play. However, the ref ruled it as part of the play. I thought it could easily have been called a dead ball foul.

    • Jason Williams

      Josh Sitton gives his answer : “Packers guard Josh Sitton said he’d have rather missed the playoff than lose in that fashion.”

      • eYeDEF

        It’s mind boggling but really? You’d rather have your team be a losing laughingstock than losers of the NFCCG?

    • Packersownfagbears

      How about not being the nagging bitch of the NFC NORTH HUH BUM.

  • Barth

    How did Wilson get a better grade than Flacco did last week?

    • Riffle,Rod&Fly

      I’d say because he won. I think Wilson’s grade is high too but it appears that PFF makes grades based on the importance of the throw within the context of the game as well as just plain performance. Flacco made mistakes at key moments and Wilson made plays at key moments.

  • Chris

    Wilson is 19-0 when his defense allows 12 or less points. He is 22-13 when they allow more than 13 points. Still pretty decent.

    Wilson is 33-2 when his defense allows 17 or less points. He is just 8-11 when they allow more than 17 points. Under .500 when his defense allows more than 17?

    Wilson is 41-7 when his defense allows 24 or less points. He is 0-6 when they allow more than 24 points. 24 is about the NFL average. He is winless when they allow more than the average points?

    The only logical conclusion to draw from this is Wilson would be a winless QB if he started for a team with a below average defense.

    • Izach

      Wow pretty magic conclusion there buddy, you can pretty much say that about any QB who has played on a team with great defenses. It’s more about scheme than stats. If Wilson played on a team without a top defense he would likely have a better offense, or their scheme would be more tilted towards offense meaning they’d allow him to throw more and his stats would be more comparable to something like Brees.
      You can’t just look at that and say he be winless on worse teams haha.
      Do the same number crunching for brady his first 3 years, they weren’t a power house offense but he was a better QB.

      • Chris

        I was obviously being sarcastic but the stats don’t lie. Wilson hasn’t won a game in 6 tries when his defense is “below average”. He is under .500 when his defense allows more than 17. Any QB in the league would kill to have a defense that allows around 17 a game.

        I agree with the first thing you said. Any QB who has played with a dominant defense is going to have a higher win % than he would without it. Just like yesterday, a dominant defense can win games for you and keep you in games you aren’t supposed to be in.

        But then you went off the deep end. “If Wilson played on a team without a top defense he would likely have a better offense.” Uhh, no. No correlation at all between that. And the fact that he’s 0-6 when his defense allows more than 24 points hints the other might be true.

        “Their scheme would be more tilted towards offense meaning they’d allow him to throw more and his stats would be more comparable to something like Brees.” Comparable to Brees? LAWL. There is absolutely no data to back up that Wilson would be a ‘top tier QB’ like Brees, Brady, Rodgers etc. if he is given more throws. Just like with HBs who have fewer carries and often have inflated YPC, QBs who are used less with more playaction have more big plays per throw, simply because of the types of throws they’re asked to make.

        Wilson would put up more yardage with Brees-like attempts, but every other efficiency category would likely decrease. As it does with almost every other QB.

        Comparing Wilson to Brady is lulzy.

        • SeattleGuy

          I have to take exception to that, Chris. RW ran the West Coast offense at Wisconsin in his senior year. He set the all time passer efficiency rating in 2011 with 33 TDs and just 4 Ints. I think Brady is an outstanding QB, but to say that RW will not eclipse his records is simply foolish. Russell has already thrown for 26 TDs in his rookie year. Only Manning had that many. And, of course, Brady could never run the ball like Russell.

          RW had his worst game on Sunday and still won. He only flashed his skills for 7 minutes. I have followed the NFL for a lot longer than you have lived and I have seen all the greats have off days including Brady, Manning, and Montana. Traditional pocket passers will become a distant memory in a few years IMHO. Nothing makes a so-called elite QB more vulnerable than standing in the pocket. That’s why I believe Rodgers is easily the best in the game right now.

          Let’s just give it a little time. In another 5 to 10 years, it will not surprise me if Wilson passes almost all of Brady’s SB accomplishments. He has the defense that Brady enjoyed in his first few years and the Seahawks will most certainly build and oline and hire a couple of receivers to enhance his abilities.

          • Dohkay

            A few things. Wilson has a terrible OL, no disagreement there, but a QB can do a few things to counteract this. One option, is to scramble and make extra time in the pocket. Another option is to check to a play that allows you to get the ball out quickly. Manning routinely leads the league in time to throw and as a result he avoids sacks as it’s hard to sack someone in under 2.5 seconds. That doesn’t mean his OL is amazing, it just means they don’t have a chance to give up as many sacks. Brady and Manning, like any QB – Wilson included – struggle with pressure vs. no pressure but let’s not pretend there aren’t ways to counteract it.

            RW had his worst game on Sunday and without his defense he wouldn’t have won. He certainly made plays in the last 5 minutes and in OT but he was fortunate to even be in the game to have a chance. Most QBs do not have the luxury of spotting a team 4 INTs, especially a team led by Rodgers, and still being within 3 TDs by the end of the game. Wilson can have an off day and still win. Most QBs cannot.

            Wilson has certainly eclipsed Brady’s early career numbers but as someone else pointed out amongst the hundreds of comments on here, it’s a different era for passing. 4,000 yards and 25 TDs is commonplace in 2014. That wasn’t the case in 2004. Nevertheless, Wilson is off to a great start. The issue of it continuing, however, comes down to how much he gets paid. Brady was once paid under $1M per year. Then he won his Super Bowls and they had to pay him like one of the best. That means other players are let go which puts more pressure on the QB to carry the load.

            Brady hasn’t won since because he hasn’t had the pieces around him. If Wilson gets $15M per year (which IMO he deserves) then it becomes harder to retain the Lynches, Shermans, Thomases, Chancellors, Wrights, Irvins, etc. much less to add premium players at OL and WR. They can always draft cheap talent or make smart FA signings, but the margin for error is much smaller going forward.

          • SeattleGuy

            I agree with almost all you wrote with a few caveats. Brady won because he had a great D along with his obvious skills. Wilson will not suffer the same degradation of talent around him with some planning IMHO. JS & PC are different. The made something like 200 transactions the first year they came together in Seattle, and made competition central to who played. Pete didn’t just say that, he meant it. That’s why Wilson started and Flynn sat on the pine a few days until they could dump him for a small token.

            Going forward, every player can be replaced. The Next Man Up strategy is used by ever team, thus evaluation of talent that can be trained will be paramount for the best teams. For far too long, head coaches have been reluctant to flush marginal players to find the players who wanted to compete. Jimmy Johnson and, now, Bill Belichick understand how to build competitive teams from others’ scraps under the current salary cap structure. It is a delicate balance, but it can be done.

            The point is Seattle has taken the diamonds-in-the-rough-in-the-late-rounds strategy to a new level. Just like when the Cowboys were the first to chronicle stats and take the best athlete when they were on the clock, Seattle’s strategy is being copied throughout the league. Even Bill Belichick is rearranging the Pats to look more like Seattle, not the other way around.

            You seem to reflect the adoration of passing yards I see all too often amongst newer fans. The truth is winning is the only stat that matters. Ask Lombardi. The NFL is constantly changing and the era is no different. I think the pendulum will swing back to throttling pocket passers and the Hawks provided the blueprint in last year’s SB. What seems apparent to me is that relying on a clean pocket to work your magic is fraught with danger despite what NFL officials and fantasy football fans want. A mobile QB like Rodgers is far more difficult to defend than Brady or Manning even in their prime. My point is that with a mobile QB, passing yards are an incomplete picture of his value. For example, when you combine rushing yards with passing yards, suddenly Russell is on par with the best passing numbers you are concentrating on. Since he runs only after exploring his throwing options and tries to minimize the hard hits he takes, he is no Michael Vick. He’s a new breed and I think we’ll see more and more coming out of the college ranks in the future.

          • Dohkay

            I’m not enamored by offense. The NFL has and always will be won with defense. I love watching the Hawks because they’re one of few teams that can play any style of offense and stymie it. Power run, finesse passing, all get met with big hits and few mistakes. Couple that with a ball-control, excellent running offense still capable of making a big play and they’re very hard to beat.

            Schneider and Carroll may be the best in the business but it’s hard to nail late-round picks year after year. I’m not saying they aren’t capable but they’ve also swung and missed a few times as well, not to mention with FA signings and trades (Flynn and Harvin ring a bell?)

            If they can re-sign Wilson, Lynch, and keep the core defensive players together for the next few years while adding late-round steals at OL and WR then they deserve to be a dynasty compared to the Steelers, 49ers, and Pats of the past. The NFL has never had more parity so we’ll see if they can do it.

            I do agree to a certain extent with your QB observation. You certainly cannot be a statue anymore (Manning, Brady, Rivers, etc.), but you also don’t have to be a 4.4 speed guy. Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Luck are all passers first, runners second. Most of the top QBs being drafted now seem to be of similar build (Bridgewater for example). Then again, with the rules in place, it’s getting harder and harder to hit a QB without drawing flags so maybe the statues will return.

          • SeattleGuy

            I would also put Roethlisberger in the statue category, not Luck. He’s more athletic. If Ben were prone to injury, well…….

            The reason I think statues will fade is that they’ve been exposed in SB48. Whichever team builds a good pass rush along with a decent defensive backfield, will dominate the traditional pocket passers whether or not they can hit the QB. The QB’s fear taking a big hit (with the possible exception of Ben).

            Admit it. Didn’t you think Manning would get his 2nd ring last February? I thought there was a good chance. I never thought he’s be so ineffective. I’ve seen Brady with the exact same fear in his eyes. He’s as vulnerable as any other QB under pressure.

            I’ll withhold judgement until the offseason, but I trust in PC & JS. I do not believe the cap will be a problem this cycle.

          • Dohkay

            I wouldn’t say they were exposed per se. Manning wasn’t exactly in his prime so while you guys beat him up it doesn’t necessarily mean a younger “statue” wouldn’t be able to win. To be fair, you guys beat up statues, scramblers, anybody standing back there… your defense isn’t easily replicated as JS hit on an obscene amount of talent on that side of the ball.

            If the cap goes to 145M you’ll have about 25M in space. I assume Wilson’s cap number will be about 15M though maybe that can be reduced somewhat by backloading it. Marshawn’s hit is 8.5M right now so re-signing him will probably only bump it up a few million. That leaves about 8-10M in cap space for rookies and plenty of FAs (Carpenter, K Williams, Maxwell, M Smith, and Kearse) plus any players that need to be extended (Irvin and Wagner have 1 year left).

            Certainly doable but it will leave some tough decisions.

          • eYeDEF

            Seattle would be lucky if Wilson settled for Andy Dalton money. I just don’t see it happening.

          • Dohkay

            No way. Didn’t he try to negotiate a long-term deal last offseason? He’s made like $2M at this point in his career when he arguably should have made $20M+ based on his performances. He is going to get paid (deservedly). Maybe in 5-10 years after he’s made $100M+ he’ll go the Brady route and give a discount to win. He certainly seems the type.

          • eYeDEF

            I agree. Just saw that you brought up the 15M a year figure which is why I thought you were suggesting he was going to get Dalton money.

          • Dohkay

            I was talking in terms of cap hit for 2015 as the Hawks can backload the deal to ensure they have room for Lynch and draft picks next season. His salary and signing bonus will likely put him top 5 in the NFL IMO.

          • D wins champ.

            the best thing about seattle is there core players are either under contract for at least 3+ years or there is room to sign them. Most all there def except Maxwell is signed. wagner will be done after SB. there d line has had a rotation of 5-6 guys that have changed the last two years. some free agents and some draftees. so the good thing is there D should be good for the next 3-4 yrs baring major injuries. There offense is not as important. there oline could all make the min and have the same impact, so if they get good drafts then they can only improve. no real need to spend money on them. WR are all scrappy players that play with short man syndrome, which is what makes them good. similar to NE. Russell Wilson will never leave. whether he is top tier or not(I think he is on his way) he is the face of the franchise. he will get 20+mil because that’s the market. It won’t kill the hawks, salary cap is growing like crazy and he will make it team friendly. Marshawn will be the one worry this off season. he has one more year on contract but I think after this year of seeing him still getting better the hawks will make it happen, again the Wilson friendly contract. Wilson made around 650 this year so they had a steel that allowed for some D line free agents including Bennett and Avril who have 2 more years or so. Kevin Williams was the vet they signed who has seemed like a steal now with other injuries. He could be part of that rotating free agent, draftee group that will be cheaper. Over all they are in excellent position for a 3-4 more years of the same core team. Great D and functioning O. either side of the ball could have a slight rise or fall in production but not a huge drop. Marshawn is the one unknown. then we find out how good RW really is. The biggest advantage for the Hawks have been the first team to really take advantage of is the rookie contracts rule. Now you can try out a player for 3-4 years and see if he is any good. Before a lot of teams got burned by the college hype of first rounders’ who made more than proven vets. seattle has seemed to stock pile a few D line and D backs that sit a year or two on the roster for cheap and get acclimated to the NFL while the rent a player for a year or two. Red Bryant, Clemens, Mcdonald were huge for seattle last year, but it was there time to get paid and seattle had cheaper options waiting that have filled in. Haven’t seen other teams do this as much yet, maybe they have but it seems to be the way to go. And good for the NFL. fewer Jamarcus Russels to deal with

          • eYeDEF

            I see more evidence to support the idea that the new breed of mobile quarterbacks will go extinct before your idea that traditional pocket passers will ever become a “distant memory”. If you’ve been following the league for awhile, which you say you have, then we’ve seen this all before. When Donovan McNabb, Dante Culpepper, and Akili Smith came into the league they were hyped the same way; as the new paradigm of mobile quarterback following Randall Cunningham that would eventually replace traditional pocket passers. Except it really didn’t work out that way. Mobile quarterbacks don’t have as long of careers because their mobility exposes them to a higher risk of injury, and good mobile quarterbacks remain a rare breed. Not to mention, great mobile quarterbacks like Elway and Steve Young, transformed into elite pocket passers in order to extend their careers and take their game to the next level. Similarly, guys like Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck default in the pocket and only use their mobility as a last resort to avoid the rush. So instead of traditional pocket passing becoming a distant memory, the demand for competent pocket passing has remained as high as it always has been. The theory that they’ll ever become a “distant memory” in a few years is actually pretty laughable.

          • SeattleGuy

            The players you have cited are not mobile by today’s standards. Moreover, I’m talking about the likes of Russell Wilson and Marcus Mariota. When Seattle set up their defense to defeat the NFL’s pass-focused offenses, they did so by building a superior pass rush along with a great secondary. Any team can mimic what Seattle does. They just need to place more emphasis on the defensive side of the ball and get a little lucky as well. Without the excellence at each position, the results will not be the same.

            RW looks to pass first. Your characterization of him as similar to Steve Young is wrong. The same is true of Cunningham. He was never a complete QB. I am not talking about a pass-last mentality. Rodgers is a lot like Wilson. He is a little less mobile, but he can run when he needs to. Both of these guys get down to avoid the career-threatening big hits. That was certainly not true of Young and Vick which is why defenses punished them for running.

            Mariota has 4.48 speed. He was a 2-sport athlete; track and football in high school. The team that drafts him will probably take full advantage of that fact. They can either waste their time and money trying to mold him into another pocket passer or build an offense around his unique skill set. Look at the college game and how it has changed in the last few decades. Woody Hayes famously said and I paraphrase that passing was too dangerous because “4 things can happen and 3 of them were bad” which is why he ran almost every down. Many of the top college teams run plays that would never work for long in the NFL according to conventional wisdom. I think that’s changing now. As athletes get bigger, stronger and faster, a sports version of Freakonomics is coming.

          • eYeDEF

            Sorry but you’ll have to point out where I ever mentioned Wilson in my post. I didn’t, so I’m not sure why you would think I’m comparing him to Steve Young? Wilson is in a class of his own because of his ability to avoid the big hit when he runs. My contention is with your idea that traditional pocket passers will be a “distant memory” in a few years, because it’s just so far out there. There’s only one Wilson, one Rodgers, and assuming Mariota develops the awareness to avoid hits, only one Mariota. They are very rare in their combination of quarterbacking skill and athleticism. The way a mobile quarterback can survive and thrive in the NFL has evolved and Wilson has become the the new paradigm for that. Cunningham was the first so of course he wasn’t going to be refined as the next generation. McNabb, Culpepper, and Vick all had various degrees of success but experienced significant injuries from the way they would run for yardage like a running back. Rodgers, Wilson, even Mariota should he prove himself might be of a different class of quarterback distinguished by their mobility and smarts, but in the end they are only three guys that have that combination of quarterbacking IQ and mobility. There is a distinct scarcity in their skill and talent available to ever make traditional passers a “distant memory”.

          • SeattleGuy

            I couldn’t agree with that statement, more. I guess I was being a bit overdramatic with “distant memory”. There aren’t enough of the dual threats to staff all 32 teams just yet. It may take a while. I’m just glad the Hawks are set for a decade or so.

      • Dohkay

        Oddly enough Brady hasn’t won a SB without a top 5 scoring defense. He’s a great QB but hasn’t won the big one again despite clearly being better than his first five years in the league. Obviously he has come close but can you imagine if he didn’t have those defenses early on? We may be talking about him in the same manner as Peyton Manning. Regular season stud, playoff dud.

        • Izach

          Exactly my point no QB has won anything last decade without their Defense so why would taking RWs away make him less a QB?

          • Dohkay

            Be consistent. You say Luck hasn’t done enough and then you admit you need a great defense to win a Super Bowl. If Wilson doesn’t have his number 1 defense all three years do you think he even makes it to one SB, much less win one? Would you be as critical of him as you are of Luck?

          • SeattleGuy

            I doubt Joe Montana would have won a SB without Ronnie Lott and their outstanding defense, nor Bradshaw without the Steeler Curtain. While I think Montana was extremely good, he was no different than most in that he would panic if you hit him a few times in the 1st quarter. Your observation though, is true almost every time.

          • Dohkay

            Agreed on Montana. He won with the top ranked scoring defense or top 3 at worst. Never won when the defense didn’t rank lower than 3rd I believe.

          • Izach

            What I’m saying is the colts don’t have a good defense when luck is at a bargain price, why would they get better when he cost almost 20% of the cap? They need to spend on Defense not on luck. No QB no matter how good they are can win by themselves, they need to help their team improve and make those around hem better RW does that, luck doesn’t. Luck had great talent and has potential to be a great Player, but he isn’t yet why sacrifice the future for the now, when the now isn’t good enough yet either?

          • Dohkay

            QB is the most important position in the NFL. Luck is not even in his prime yet and has improved each year. Why would they let him go? He has been playing at a bargain price but his GM has failed to take advantage. That’s not Luck’s fault. How does Wilson impact his defense? That’s the key factor as you point out. Does he inspire them to play better? I fail to see how Luck makes his defense worse.

          • Izach

            If you can’t tell what I’m talking about there is no reason to explain it, there is a difference between being a great talent in a good scheme and being a great player. So far luck has only shown to be a great talent with potential, he deserves to get paid in nt saying he doesn’t he was playing on 5mill year, he deserves at least double that and probably 12-15mill a year but don’t go 22+ Like the colts likely would. In the long run that hurts the team more than losing luck would.

          • Dohkay

            I think I get your point and agree with it to a certain extent. Tell me if this is what you’re saying: in order to win a SB a team needs a great defense and only an above average QB (doesn’t need to be elite). Therefore Indy is better served letting Luck go and spending the 20M on defense. Is that it?

            If so, I agree that defense is much more important. It’s why Manning and Brady have one SB between them over the past decade despite being hands down the 2 best QBs in the league for most of that time. You can add Rodgers to that list and they have 2 combined. Meanwhile guys like Eli, Big Ben, Flacco, Wilson, etc. have more rings because of their defense. Some of that of course comes down to them costing their teams less than Brady and Manning which enables more spending on the defense or running game.

            That being said, Indy has almost no young talent on their roster. Luck, TY, and I suppose Allen and Fleener although those two are far from top 10 talents. On defense they have… Nobody that I’d ranked very good under the age of 30. Luck is their best shot at contending. The contract will hamstring them but a great QB will at least get you to the playoffs each year but maybe can’t take you all the way.

            By that token, you would recommend Seattle let Wilson walk if he commands 15M+ correct? Earl Thomas, Richard Sherman, Bruce Irvin, KJ Wright, Cam Chancellor are all more valuable and can be kept if they don’t commit 15-20M to the QB position, which I’m sure Wilson will be gunning for give how criminally underpaid he has been the past 3 years.

          • Izach

            Exactly my point. I will say after you win a SB as a QB a team can now trust inyou more and possibly choose you over a defender or 2, I would say keep Wilson let go of the whole LOB, Lynch, and Wagner and Irvin, but if one or 2 of them ask for huge deals Wilson is not important, you can replace/sacrifice 1 or 2guys for an great QB, you can’t expect to win with no defense. I’ll also say it isn’t RWs fault the colts haven’t put a defense around Luck they became starters same year.

          • Izach

            Now I’ll also go a step further and say RW on colts colts would be the exact same as they are a +10win team that maybe wins a game or 2 in playoffs, but luck on Hawks id say theybdont win it last year and aren’t in it this year. It not a knock on luck as much as it is saying. RW is that good even with his mistakes. Personally I think luck will have career like rivers has. Great individual performances but as a team they can’t get it down

          • Dohkay

            What? You think it’s an equal trade in Indy but for some reason Luck is worse in Seattle? Luck has never lost s game when his defense gives up 17 or less. He’d arguably go undefeated in Seattle…

          • Jay

            They have a worse Oline (from a pass blocking perspective) and they play pressure defenses and Andrew Luck isn’t great against pressure. Wilson going to Indy gives him a better Oline and better recievers and their run game would benefit from Wilson’s ability to run the read option which would lead to more open lanes for RBs.

            Luck gets a better RB, A better Defense and a better Oline (run blocking wise)

            Some swaps but I believe The Colts get more from Wilson just my opinion.

          • Dohkay

            Luck has never lost a game where his defense surrenders 17 or less (Wilson has lost 2 such games). Wilson has never won when his defense surrenders 24+ (Luck has won several such games including a 40+ point game). Yet you think Luck will not be able to replicate Wilson’s success on a team where the defense rarely gives up more than 17 and has never given up 30+ in the 54 career games Wilson has played in. Further, you think Wilson would outperform Luck when he has yet to prove he’s capable of winning a shoutout.

            Sorry but that’s a stretch.

          • Izach

            Like I said that does not matter, Wilson “didnt” lose hose games the offense did, and probably because of scheme they weren’t in position to win, what you should look at is games where luck was down by17 and games where RW was down by17 not when defenses allow 17 or more, that doesn’t equate to offense at all. That’s about defense

          • Dohkay

            You lost me again. Wilson leads the offense so I’m not sure why the blame shifts to the offense as a whole when they lose high scoring games but with Luck it’s his fault when the Colts lose high scoring games… Also, the Hawks average under 16 points allowed per game so RW has maybe played a game or two where he trails by more than 17. That’s not necessarily because of anything he does given the fact that they rarely give up more than 17 in an entire game.

          • eYeDEF

            I recognize that point but I think a large part has to do with the fact that the offense isn’t designed to score a bunch of points, it’s a run first ball control offense. The focal point is Marshawn. So yeah, you put the hawks offense against the worst D in the league and I’m not sure they drop 40 points because that’s not their game. Their offensive philosophy is to control time of possession and wear defenses down by attrition, not to score as many points in as little time as possible like a Chip Kelly offense. As a result the cost savings is the offensive line and a pedestrian wide receiver group since those position groups aren’t essential to executing the offensive philosophy. But having receivers with speed that can create separation is. But that’s not to say Wilson wouldn’t thrive passing in a different offense.

            Put him in Chip Kelly’s offense and I bet he could easily eclipse Foles’ yardage totals from last year while staying injury free. I’m sure his passing stats would look really gaudy if he had guys like Maclin and DJax as true vertical receiving threats as Foles had.

          • Dohkay

            No doubt about the Eagles comment. If Kelly can make Sanchez look serviceable I have no doubt he’d make Wilson look like the greatest QB in NFL history, especially given his fit in that particular offense. My comment was geared more towards Indy where Wilson would be in a weaker rushing offense (though he would obv help that given his ability) and would have to throw more, especially without a defense that give up under 16 PPG.

            I think Luck could function just fine in Seattle as he’s proven capable of winning low scoring games. He hasn’t lost when the defense has given up 17 or less and he’s proven he can win when they give up a ton of points like against KC last year. I don’t think it’s fair to argue that Wilson would make Indy better while Luck would fail to make Seattle better.

          • eYeDEF

            Yeah it’s a tough call. I’m a big admirer of Luck’s play. He’s an outstanding QB. Some sensitive homers are going to to denigrate Luck’s accomplishments or try and minimize his talents because of the tendency of most of the media to hold Luck in higher regard because of how his performance reflects in traditional passing metrics, which I think is pretty ridiculous. Luck without a doubt makes the entire offense around him better and elevates the play of his receivers, certainly more so than Wilson does in his run centric offense. But I’m sure Luck doesn’t positively affect his running game quite like Wilson does with the read option either. And if you add in Wilson’s rushing yards and touchdowns his drive efficiency is comparable and in some cases exceeds the elites in the game. But I’m sure Luck could probably do just as well in Seattle’s offense, even though any good coaching staff is going to try and build that offense to the strengths of the quarterback so it’s not a very practical question as to whether he could be as effective in Seattle in its present composition suited to Wilson’s strengths. Nor can I say Wilson would make Indy better. There would be some severe trade offs for each going into the other’s system. About 1/3 of Wilson’s drop backs are designed rollouts/bootlegs or improvised scrambles. While Luck is a good QB out of the pocket when forced to scramble, there are no designed rollouts in Indy’s offense. Indy would need to incorporate the read option and bootlegs into their offense to get the most out of Wilson. To expect him to be as effective as a traditional pocket passer at this stage in his career is probably unrealistic, although he’ll eventually have to learn to be one if he wants to have a long career. But having a big time receiver like Reggie Wayne before he tore up his knee or TY Hilton would unquestionably help his passing numbers too in a pass centric offense, as well as having some tall targets for once like the 6-6 Fleener.

            Marshawn might not be as effective without Wilson a threat on read option runs, though it’s hard to say if and how much the drop off would be. Seeing how good he is at breaking tackles I’m not ready to say he’d have any significant drop in performance. But being able to stand tall and deliver in the pocket could do wonders for the offensive line and would probably be a boon to the receivers. Baldwin would probably be a 1k receiver easy. But IMO Kearse would still be pretty mediocre. Richardson would have better numbers this year and Norwood would probably have had a bigger role in the offense. It’s about a wash, with the possibility that Luck could elevate Seattle’s offense more depending on whether Marshawn could play just as well with Luck.

          • Dohkay

            Yeah I know it sounds bad but at this point Wilson is a system QB. Not taking anything away from the guy but if he was drafted by a team that couldn’t incorporate the read-option he’d likely have a different start to his career (not to mention lacking the best defense each of the past 3 years). I think Mariota is similar to Wilson in that he can make all the throws but his play is elevated in a read-option. I like Winston over Mariota for the same reason I like Luck over Wilson. Those guys can run a pro-style offense that isn’t reliant on an entire system devoted to them. Not that Wilson or Mariota wouldn’t still be successful but Luck/Winston can easier adapt to the styles of all 32 teams while Wilson/Mariota likely couldn’t (at least at this point in their careers as you point out).

            Side note, Lynch is an absolute monster. I agree that Wilson makes him better especially when they run the read-option as Wilson can hold the DE or OLB from crashing inside which means one less person for Beast Mode to beat. That being said, Wilson/Lynch undoubtedly face more loaded boxes than Luck/Lynch would given the run-threat they pose. That could mean better opportunities in the run game for Lynch when opponents have to respect the pass more than normal. I’m not sure which has a greater impact and given his penchant for running over guys I’m not sure it matters. He’s a great RB regardless.

            Indy’s RBs are a different story. I’m sure Wilson could elevate their play with the read-option but that would also mean more loaded boxes to stop the run whereas Luck currently doesn’t see that much given they don’t need to in order to stop the likes of Richardson, Herron, or Tipton. Bradshaw seemed to have some success but he’s forever injured. I think the difference in talent at the RB position is equal to the difference in talent at the WR/TE position this year with Tate being gone. By the way, I love Luke Willson. I remember reading somewhere that he had one of the best SPARQ scores for TEs in his draft class. I was able to snag him in a dynasty fantasy league and I’m hoping next year is a breakout year.

          • eYeDEF

            It’s hard to understand calling Wilson a ‘system quarterback’ because it implies his success passing comes predominantly from a system designed to allow him to throw outside the pocket and able to run the read option which just isn’t the case. According the PFF only 13.5% of his drop backs were designed rollouts. Another 12.5% of his drop backs resulted in scrambles, which are not by design and thus would occur in any system where the play breaks down and he doesn’t have time to throw. So is it really fair to call him a ‘system quarterback’ when 86.5% of the time he’s dropping back to pass he’s operating as he would under any traditional system? Unlike popular misperception there’s no drop off in his passing performance inside the pocket when compared to outside, at least for the stats compiled from his first two years. I haven’t seen the results from this year yet, but his qb rating last year was actually significantly higher in the pocket (104.7) than outside (93.9). If he were significantly less successful in the pocket, I’d expect a lot more designed rollouts than merely 13.5%. You could make a case he wouldn’t be as successful running the football on the 10% of Seattle’s running plays that are read option where he opts to hold onto the ball to run but a traditional system isn’t expecting the quarterback to be a successful runner anyway. I also don’t think 20% of an offense’s running plays being read option based and 13.5% of passing plays that come on designed rollouts is anywhere near as radical as you seem to think when you say the ‘entire offense is designed around him’. Any offense could incorporate that percentage of plays into their system if they had a quarterback that could run them well. Outside of those minority of bootlegs and read option plays Seattle runs a fairly vanilla offensive system that would form the basis of any traditional offense. But any good coaching staff that had him in their traditional system would be idiotic not to take advantage of adding those wrinkles to enhance their offense. Just because he has more success than any other quarterback running the
            read option doesn’t mean he’s only a read option quarterback. Yet that’s exactly what is implied when calling him a ‘system quarterback’.

            As far as Willson, yeah Carroll loves coaching up the late round projects with fantastic sparq scores. His late round picks can be a little more predictable in the sense that he shows a strong preference for the athletic freaks of nature that have been passed over as being too raw. So for that reason Luke is a pretty frustrating player to follow because he’s way too inconsistent and his 18.52 drop rate ranks 38th of 39 tight ends that played on 25% of more of their offense’s snaps. Ebron’s drop rate by comparison is 13 something, not even in the same ballpark even though they both drop balls at an unacceptable rate. He’ll follow up a good game by just dropping really easy passes thrown right to him. The other issue with him is that for being a 6’5″ guy he’s really not very good at contesting passes thrown to him in traffic. If someone is contesting his catch he counter intuitively can’t seem to come down with it a lot of time. The biggest thing Seattle has been lacking is that big red zone target and you would think Willson would be ideal to be that guy, but he’s not. You won’t see him using his length to box out defenders and out muscle shorter DBs for the ball even though that SHOULD be something he’s good at. If he could ever add this aspect to his game and improve his consistency he could be a poor man’s Gronk. I’d love to see him break out but I’ll believe it when I see it.

          • Dohkay

            It’s not just rollouts, though. Seatte has utilized play-action more than any other team in the league over the past 3 seasons (36%, 34%, and 31% respectively). Couple that with the rollout numbers (may be some redundencies but still) and you’re at 40+% without a traditional dropback. It obviously helps too, as this article indicates: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/2013-play-action-offense

            Lynch obviously plays a part in that as it makes the fake that much more effective when teams have to honor it but regardless, Seattle has a system in place and Wilson has thrived in it.

            I’m not just focusing on the read-option and I agree that it can be seen both ways. Many QBs cannot run the read-option so one could certainly count that as a weakness among them. As for your comment regarding Stafford, I think it’s safe to say the offense would be much different so as to utilize his skill-set. Seattle didn’t implement the read option until midway through Wilson’s rookie year, correct? They realized his strengths and weaknesses and tailored the offense to fit it. Keep in mind that outside of Megatron, Stafford had very little to work with. In fact he got by with a few Seattle castoffs in Burleson and Durham for 2012 and 13 seasons. Sure, this year he had Tate but he also had a new system and injuries for the second straight year to Megatron.

            I’m in agreement that Seattle under it’s current offensive construction would be a tall task for Stafford and he undoubtedly would be worse. I’m not so sure about Wilson in Detroit being undoubtedly better. Detroit’s offensive line isn’t a rock-solid OL either and is markedly worse in run-blocking so Wilson running a read-option with Joique Bell probably doesn’t end well. I’m sure he’d feast on Calvin and Tate and it would help that he could scramble which probably opens them up more as well. Given that I’ve yet to see Wilson succeed without the read-option and heavy PA passing I’m hesitant to say he’d be better though.

            Now if Stafford had started his career on a team that gave up 15 points a game I’m confident he’d be a better player than he is today. I think much of his “gunslinger” persona came from starting on a team with no real talent outside of him and Megatron. If he was asked to simply “not lose” instead of “win” I think it would be better for his development. Caldwell and Co. are essentially trying to do this in 2014 and there are growing pains. As I’ve stated before, I think it’s fair to give him another year to learn the system and have some familiarity with his receiving core. Outside of Pettigrew (who was rarely used in the passing game as he mostly blocked) and Johnson, everyone else was a new target. That takes time and it requires that both are on the same page in the offense.

          • eYeDEF

            Wait, you’re not making much sense to me here. I don’t get why you’re dinging him for running play action when all quarterbacks run play action. Play action is a feature of every traditional offense and is used to gain an advantage against defenses focused on stopping the run. He had 30.8% of his pass attempts out of play action this year, Stafford had 20.6% so Stafford ran a lot of play action too. Are you dinging him for it? Rodgers ran even more at 24.1%, are you going to call Rodgers a “system quarterback” because he runs a lot of play action?

          • Dohkay

            Over the past three seasons nobody comes close to Wilson in terms of % of play action. Look at 2013 and 2012. Add in all the designed roll outs which are also more than most if not all QBs and it seems to me he’s got a specific system in place that no other QB does. The only QB that rivals him is RG3 when healthy. That seems like a system QB to me. How would he perform in a system without a good running attack and the ability to lean on the run game since the score almost never requires abandoning that system? I haven’t seen enough from him to suggest he’d excel at it.

          • eYeDEF

            But your position is not coherent. Because like I said, play action is an integral part of every team’s playbook, not just Seattle. You’re acting like this is some sort of unique feature. Nope, play action has been around as long as the game and every team runs it. Plus you’re not exactly playing with a full deck trying to incorporate play action over the last three seasons instead of his most recent one because it doesn’t suit your argument to admit that his percentage of play action his steadily decreased from 36% his rookie year to 30.8% this season. But we’re not talking about what he did his rookie season, we’re talking about what kind of quarterback he is now are we not? So what you’re bitterly complaining about is that he runs play action 6% more of the time than Aaron Rodgers so that makes him a ‘system quarterback’. But like I said, Manning and Rodgers have historically ran a lot of play action. Manning also had a great running the first ten years of his career, did that make him a ‘system quarterback’ in your eyes? He had Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, and Joseph Addai. It wasn’t until the last few years in Indy he no longer had a decent running game. If you look closely you’ll recognize you’ve got some serious double standards going on. I’ll point to your argument about him having Lynch which I’m still trying to wrap my head around, that you say he has to “lean on” in your words. Ok, so he doesn’t play as well without Lynch. But NO QUARTERBACK WOULD. So what? How does not having Lynch have anything to do with the ‘system quarterback’ argument? Are you really trying to suggest that if he didn’t have Lynch he’d be out of the league?

          • Dohkay

            I am well aware that it’s a common part of every playbook. My point is he has been consistently higher than everyone else which to me is a crutch that he wouldn’t have on most teams. Here’s the list of QBs who have had 30% or more of their passes via playaction since 2012: Wilson (3 times, RG3 (2 times), Christian Ponder (2 times), Cam Newton, Colin Kaepernick, Nick Foles, Alex Smith, and Mark Sanchez. Let that sink in.

            I will grant you that it’s at least a decreasing trend but the fact remains he’s the only QB over the past 3 seasons to be over 30% and the list of QBs that make up that group is pretty underwhelming. I’m not saying he’d be out of the league and I’m not sure why you felt the need to add that in… I’m simply saying he’s played in a SYSTEM where he can rely on a running game that’s heavily featured and heavily successful. He certainly factors into the successful piece but Lynch is a top-5 back. If he went to a team without a top-5 back I’d venture a guess his playaction would drop as it wouldn’t be as effective.

            By the way, it’s laughable that you mention Faulk and Addai for Manning. He had Faulk for his rookie season and then they traded him. He had 5 great years out of Edge and I won’t argue about him. He was a great RB. Joseph Addai on the other hand… really? I’d take Donald Brown over Addai. There’s a reason why he has been out of the league since 2011.

          • eYeDEF

            If you don’t think he’d be out of the league I don’t even know why you’d call him a ‘system quarterback’ when that’s a term used to describe a quarterback only capable of playing in one system. What does that term even mean to you then? If you agree he’d still be starting for a team that used a different system even if it meant he wouldn’t have his current production (which I’d agree with by the way) then what’s the point of saying he’s a system quarterback? The label doesn’t seem to carry much meaning if a system quarterback can play in other systems too.

            As far as Addai, he he two strong years where he rushed for 1K+ and averaged over 4 YPC. Of course he’s not in James or Faulk’s class but he was above average his first couple years. Not in Lynch’s class, but added value above replacement RB equivalent to present day Frank Gore quality.

          • Dohkay

            I think he’s a slightly above average QB but needs a system in place to be good to great. In order for him to be successful teams would need to implement the read-option and they would need a good RB in place as I don’t think he’s capable of throwing the ball 30+ times a game and performing well. That’s why I call him a system QB.

            Still disagree on Addai. I think he’s one of the best examples of how a great QB can make a RB appear better than he really is. He had two good years and was out of the league before he was 30 despite having half the mileage of most backs at that point in their careers.

          • eYeDEF

            wh0a. That’s some serious denial seeing how the numbers don’t back you up and you’re going off blind hate but ok. Meanwhile at least I have empirical data and tape I can point to Stafford being a barely above average quarterback now and that if you deprived of him of elite wide receiving weapons he’d be an absolutely terrible QB. This has pretty much demonstrated itself to be fact.

          • Dohkay

            Well that escalated quickly.

            My entire point is that Wilson has been developed in the best possible situation for a young QB. He has had the NFL’s best defense each of his 3 seasons which allows the coaches to put very little on his shoulders and stick to their game-plan on offense given that they don’t need to score at even an average level to win games. That Seattle is winless when surrendering 24 points or more tells me all I need to know in terms of who is the key factor on offense: Lynch.

            He’s had one of the best RBs in the NFL for each of his three seasons which, further to my original point, forces teams to stop Lynch and make Wilson beat them. Look at the Carolina game for all the evidence of that. They absolutely sold out to stop the run which gave Wilson numerous one-on-one matchups that favors the offense, especially under the current rules. Kudos to Wilson for making the throws but how many guys see multiple one-on-one matchups on a single play like that?

            Stafford on the other hand had arguably the worst possible development for a young QB. He went to the worst NFL team in history, and never had even an average defense until this past season. The 2013 season was the first (and only) time he had a RB rush for over 1,000 yards. He definitely had the best WR in the NFL but it’s a bit easier to contain a WR when there isn’t a complementary target (see double/triple teams on him in 2012 and 2013 while Burleson/Durham struggle to beat one-on-ones).

            But hey, until Wilson is saddled with an average (or maybe one day a below average defense) we’ll never know if he’s fully capable of carrying an offense to victory. Most QBs are fully capable of winning games 17-10 but it’s a bit harder to win 35-31. Now add in the fact that he’ll lose Lynch soon and we’ll see how PA and read-options work with average talents at RB. Until then, you can tout the data (which I’m arguing is skewed) and I’ll just be a dissenting opinion. That’s what makes sports great.

            As a side note, no hard feelings. Rooting for you guys to win on Sunday and hoping that Sherman picks off Brady a few times.

          • eYeDEF

            And again, you appear to be falsely assuming that there is some sort of causative relationship between a quarterback’s defense (incl W/L record from winning with defense) and quarterback performance when there’s absolutely no statistical proof of any such relationship at all. And your conflation of correlation and causation on these two unrelated variables when it comes to Wilson appears to be a primary driving force that forms the basis of your misguided ideas. This article should help you get up to speed:

            http://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/4251/does-a-quarterback-s-defense-impact-his-performance?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=nfl_rss&utm_campaign=ob_nfl_rss

            The position you’re arguing from, that defense and record DO somehow affect performance, is not one that is shared as having any merit in advanced stat circles because it’s simply at odds with the empirical data. So if you can wrap your head around the idea that QB performance and defensive performance are in fact unrelated, you’ll start to see why the basis of your argument above is totally flawed. That’s why we have a difference of opinion on this. I’m just pointing out that your belief in causality between the two isn’t at all tenable. It’s a fallacious relationship that’s not at all supported by the facts on the ground. I just think it’s important that everyone should strive to rise above adopting positions that don’t hold any factual basis though if you can live with knowing you’re embracing discredited ideas, that’s your prerogative. No hard feelings at all.

          • Dohkay

            Yeah that article doesn’t do much for me. The problem being there are plenty of great QBs on bad defensive teams and bad QBs on great defensive teams. Of course the correlation will be nil. There’s too much noise in football. Hell, he even agrees that intuitively it makes sense. A great defense puts less on a QB’s shoulders. Sure he won’t be throwing 30+ times a game and racking up CUMULATIVE stats but it definitely helps maintain or improve efficiency.

            As for your empirical data, look no further than Wilson himself. In games where his defense gives up 16 or less (Seattle’s average over the past 3 seasons is 15.5 PPG) his passer rating is 103.1, his YPA is 8.4, his INT rate is 1.5% in those 27 such games. How about when the defense gives up 22 or more (the average points allowed of the 16th ranked defense)? His passer rating is 93.7, his YPA is 7.6, his INT rate is 2.5% in those 13 such games. See the efficiency drop?

            It certainly seems that Wilson is a better QB in games where he doesn’t have to score as much. Sure, his CUMULATIVE numbers may be worse (6 less PA, 31 less yards, .4 TDs less per game albeit with .4 more INTs) but you can’t argue with the efficiency numbers which has been my entire argument. It’s easier to have a high passer rating, high YPA, low INT % when you don’t have to force the ball and score more points. Wilson can pick his spots in low-scoring games… there’s always going to be another drive. In high scoring games that isn’t the case as QBs need to take risks and score and can’t afford to just punt and let the defense force another 3 and out.

            It’s the same reason a guy like Alex Smith goes from being a bum to an efficiency all-star overnight. What changed? Sure he got a new coach… he also got an amazing defense. I’d argue the defense is the reason for his improvement and seeing how it’s carried over to a new team with an equally great defense it certainly seems to prove my point. Unless you think Smith suddenly learned how to play the position one day and that explains the marked improvement?

          • eYeDEF

            Except there’s a really easy to understand explanation as to why Wilson has problems dropping 30-40 points a game on opponents that I’ve already mentioned. His offense is not designed to put up a bunch of points if it gets in a hole. It’s built on the run and relying on defense to keep the score close. He doesn’t have the complimentary pieces at receiver that can consistently create separation and reliably secure the ball to drop 30+ points a game. In fact his receivers can’t create any separation at all on their own and require scheme related tricks like rubs and switches to get separation which severely limits the playbook for Wilson when in open space his receivers can’t create on their own. This requires pinpoint perfection from him to compensate for their shortcomings to have any chance they come down with a catch, and guys like Kearse and Willson still manage to have mediocre to terrible catch rates in spite of having the ball delivered right to them. That winning pass to Kearse isn’t a winning pass if it wasn’t a perfectly dropped dime because he was tightly covered by Tramon Williams and can’t create in open space. Kind of hard to sustain drives and put up a bunch of points in a hurry when you’ve got drive killers like Kearse and Willson as your second and third reads don’t you think? So here’s a thought experiment for you that proves my point. What quarterback WOULD be able to consistently create a bunch of scores in that offense in games that the defense fails? I’m really having a hard time coming up with one quarterback in the league having as much success as Wilson has had in spite of low ceiling receiving talent and poor pass protection he gets from his line. It’s not like he has problems rallying the team to victory when they find themselves down. The crux of your argument revolves around his ability to score in volume. And volume scoring requires a fluid passing game with reliable receivers that can be counted on to get separation and catch contested balls. It can’t really be denied that if Wilson had a guy like Megatron or Gronk he could lean on in the red zone and to bail him out when his line breaks down then game over. Wilson wins the NFL. His ay/a would go through the roof. Not like his numbers are bad now because they aren’t, nor have they ever approached Stafford-level bad even though it would be entirely excusable if he did seeing what he’s been given to work with, which is not a lot. Wilson would be drooling though the weekend with the thought of having an outlet like Megatron he could throw jump balls or even force throws to in double or triple coverage like Stafford does, with still a reasonable expectation it would still be caught. Because you won’t be able to find a single top 10 quarterback with a more pedestrian core of receivers catching the ball for him. It really shouldn’t be hard for you to figure out that when a QB that excels in rallying from behind while maintaining high efficiency, yet only has problems scoring in volume, that the limitation is schematic and receiver based, not the QB. The numbers you cite in those games do a good job reinforcing my point. The 93.7 rating is what I would expect given the circumstances and it closely hews with his ahead/behind splits. He’s at 105.5/rate and 8.92 ay/a when ahead and 95.5/rate and 7.6 ay/a when behind. All elite quarterbacks have similar splits that suffer at least a 10 point drop in rating and a little over 1 yard drop in ay/a when playing from behind. As discussed, that makes perfect sense. The elites adjust their risk/reward calculus accordingly to increase variance in order to put their teams in better positions to win.

            So you’ll have to explain to me how it is that a quarterback who sinks to a 93.7/rate and 7.6 ay/a when his defense fails him because he’s increasing risky throws to try and rally an offense to multiple scores in short periods of time deprived of receivers to do so is somehow a “system quarterback” and “slightly above average” when I don’t hear you calling Stafford a product of his elite receivers or “below average” despite his career 83.6/rate and 6.6 ay/a. In fact, you’ve argued that he needs more time and better receiving options before making that determination. Yet you have no problem making that assumption for Wilson in spite of his clearly far superior efficiency and inferior receiving weapons and an inferior offensive line in situations specific to why you consider him “slightly above average”. In the one year Stafford did enjoy efficiency numbers comparable to how Wilson performs when forced to throw for a bunch of scores Stafford enjoyed his career year. Looks like Stafford would love to perform as “inefficiently” as Wilson does at his worst. Why no arguments that Wilson needs better receiving weapons before making such an assumption? Geez man, you could at least try and be internally consistent. If you’re going to call Wilson’s 93.7 rate and 7.6 ay/a “slightly above average” at least have the internal consistency to appropriately call Stafford’s 83.6 and 6.6 ay/a the performance of a garbage man and purely a product of his elite receivers. Additionally, your argument that Wilson “leans on” his elite running game has no standing in these situations where everyone and their mom knows he has to pass in order to score as many points as possible in a limited amount of time.

          • Dohkay

            Look I’ve had about enough of the Wilson discussion. It sounds like you’re biggest issue is my ranking Stafford ahead of them so I’ll do you a favor and swap them. Wilson is now 9th in my QB rankings. Better? As for his below average WRs, give me a break. I heard the same argument last season and then Tate comes to Detroit and outplays Megatron at times. I have confidence that Baldwin could do the same on a different team and I love Willson despite your issues with him. His drop rate is better than Ebron’s by the way 😉

            If Wilson had a top 5 WR or TE to go with his already top 5 RB than I have no doubt he’d be amazing. I also have no doubt that 20 QBs would look amazing with that too. Take lynch away and give him Megatron and I’m not sure you see an improvement. Teams would no longer stack the box and they’d just double Megatron.

            By the way, he never has to put up a bunch of points. Those games where his defense has the audacity to give up more than 22 usually never exceed 30. The guy has played 54 games and has one game where the defense gave up 30+. I appreciate the two things that make the Hawks SB champs. The defense and Beast Mode. Wilson is an effective QB on a team that has those two components. I don’t believe he’d be as effective on a team missing one of those or both, even with a Gronk or a Megatron.

            One more thing. Paragraphs make it easier to read.

          • eYeDEF

            I really don’t have a problem with Baldwin because at least he’s got a good set of hands, does a great job blocking, and I have no doubt he’d put up 1k yards in a pass oriented offense just like I’m sure if Seattle ran a spread offense he could put up a ton of more yards. But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a sub six foot wide receiver and doesn’t have Tate’s speed and the same ability to create separation. He’s hardly the prototype for a #1 receiver. And I can’t tell if you’re joking about Willson’s 18.52 drop rate compared to Ebron’s 13.74. They’re both terrible but Willson’s drop rate is still considerably worse. I’m not sure that you’d see an “improvement” with Megatron and no Lynch, but it’s hard to argue that QBs are predisposed to perform better with an elite wide receiver to throw to than an elite running back to hand off to. Just look at how often championships have been won with a dominant running game as opposed to dominant passing game. It’s really not even close.

            Nah I’m not going to sit here and say Wilson is a finished product or deserves to be considered a top 5 QB at this time, I’m not going to gloss over shortcomings I’ve seen on All 22 which is that he does tend leave a lot of plays on the field sometimes. I can’t really tell if that’s because he’s not seeing them or he’s just over exercising caution on those riskier throws so he’ll take off running instead as the safer option because he can. I’m just encouraged by his improved play in the pocket and his decreased time to throw and more decisiveness he showed in the latter part of the season to expect continued incremental improvement. I’d know I’d be much more upset if he were throwing picks. But is there really much difference in attempting to come back from a one score deficit when the opponent has scored less than 24 points than more? Since it’s hard to come up with any reasonable explanation as to why there would be, it really points to your 24 point bar as being more arbitrary using a limited sample size than anything else.

          • Jay

            Again not what I said. I said The Colts get more out of Wilson with what he adds to their rushing attack and his ability to stay composed under vast amounts of pressure.

          • Dohkay

            You also have to account for the fact that defenses would play Wilson differently in Indy. He may add to the rushing attack but he’s not going to make Trent Richardson suddenly become effective. He will not get one on one match ups as often as he does in Seattle because teams will not respect his RB.

            Luck on the flip side will face loaded boxes for a change given teams have to account for an actual NFL RB in his backfield. Don’t forget Luck is also an excellent running QB. Teams cannot sleep on his scrambling ability. We have tangible proof in their records when the opposition scores a certain amount of proof. Luck is more than capable of winning low scoring games. We have yet to see Wilson prove he can win shootouts. The Colts have given up 40+ In several games. Wilson has never played a game against more than 30. He is the major unknown here so assuming he does better is a stretch.

          • Jay

            Defenses playing him differently is exactly my point. Wilson is a running threat, Luck is a threat to run. Defenses have to account for Wilson on every handoff. That takes one man off Lynch to exploit a bigger gap. The same would happen in Indy.

          • Dohkay

            Except Luck is a bigger threat in the passing game and therefore a defense has to account for that by keeping a safety back… Both impact their offenses and the opposing defenses in different ways but I fail to see how Wilson impacts it more simply because he runs more. Whether a safety has to creep up to the LOS to account for Wilson’s running or stay back to account for Luck’s passing, the effect on the RB is not greater for one or the other.

            By the way, their rushing numbers aren’t that different. Wilson averages 6.3 rushes for 38 yards (6 YPC) compared to Luck’s 4 rushes for 19 yards (4.9 YPC). Wilson is definitely a bigger threat but it’s not like Luck is a statue in the pocket. I’m sure if he ran a read-option offense his numbers would go up as well.

          • 49ers>Seachokes

            Colts get more losses in their record Russel Vick is a bum.

          • Dohkay

            Wait, you’d keep Wilson and let go of all those defensive players AND lynch too? How is it Wilson’s credit that his defense is better. It’s completely out of the control of Luck or Wilson. Wilson is just lucky enough that his GM knows what he’s doing.

          • eYeDEF

            The Colts don’t really have a choice. If Luck decides they’re lowballing him by only offering him Andy Dalton money at 15 mil a year then the choice is to lose him to free agency where someone will easily step up and pay him 22 mil a year, or do it themselves. That’s not much of a choice. It might handicap their ability to build around him to give him a 22 mil a year contract, but it would absolutely destroy that team to let him walk. They’d have the perpetual and unenviable task of once again trying to find their franchise QB when there are so few quality signal callers to fill the most difficult position to play in sports. So it’s ridiculous to say he ‘only’ deserves 15 mil a year. He’s worth what the market is willing to bear, which is a helluva lot more than that.

          • Izach

            Honestly the colts would be a 8-10 win team with alex smith or andy Dalton, ppl think they were so bad in 2011, when really it was just painter and Collins that were so horrible.

          • eYeDEF

            I agree that painter and Collins are terrible, but I think you’re missing my point. Alex Smith and Andy Dalton aren’t available because they’re under contract playing for other teams. Competent quarterbacking in the NFL is such a rare skill that even mediocre game managers are in high demand to the tune of 15 mil a year. The Colts don’t have the option of going out and getting Smith or Dalton if they cut Luck loose. All that will happen is the highest bidder would sign Luck for at least 22 and they’d be in the shit can task of starting over with nothing.

          • Izach

            Very true NFL teams are so afraid of not having a decent QB that guys like Dalton and smith get huge15-16 mill per year deals, when they should probably get 10-12 at best.

          • eYeDEF

            Right. So wouldn’t you agree that the lesson to be drawn is that, by the current state of affairs of the lack of even mediocre quarterbacks on the FA market, if you draft a QB that turns out to be mediocre or better you’re pretty much stuck re-signing him no matter what? Because if you don’t you’re back to rolling the dice on the draft again and there’s no guarantee you’ll find someone better. If that’s true, then the Colts don’t really have a choice. Even if they don’t think it’d be worth paying Luck 22 mil, they pretty much have to do it because the alternative is to start over with nothing and a wild stab in the dark with an unknown draftee. There is no alternative.

          • Dohkay

            No. Peyton Manning propped those awful teams up for about 3 years longer than should have been possible. Look at their drafts from the mid-2000s until his departure. There are very few quality players. Contrast that with a Seahawks draft in the past 5 years. Therein lies the problem. They were a terrible team that was elevated by Luck’s play (and a lot of luck, pardon the pun). They have consistently outperformed their Pythagorean wins expectation and they have an obscene record in close games.

            That’s due to Luck and luck. You can pick the order of importance.

          • Izach

            Exactly my point again when the team is built around the QB, their problem look much worse when you have a bad QB, no matter how good the team really is or the player are, you place them in a scheme where they have to play with lead and not worry about the run, when their QB isn’t just not good but is actually bad it makes everything worse. With peyton they that same team was Super Bowl contenders, with Curtis painter and Dan ovlsky they were a 2 win team with luck they are playoff contenders. With an alex smith they are 9-10 win team with some like sanchez or Dalton they be 6-7 win team probably. Their whole scheme is developed around the QBs talent level. It’s a bad scheme and it why the colts never capitalized on having manning for so long probably won’t capitilze on luck untill about the same time

          • Dohkay

            It’s not built around the QB’s talent level. They have had numerous drafts and free agencies to add to the defense and have swung and missed numerous times. That’s not an indictment on Manning or Luck, it’s an indictment on the GM. The only problem wth having a great QB is that you can never bottom out and correct the problem. It took Manning getting hurt to miss the playoffs and clean house in terms of GM and coach.

            Manning propped up terrible drafts and kept the idiot GM in place longer than he should have been. He also kept them good enough to never have a top 20 pick, much less top 5 until he was hurt. Take a look at their drafts since Manning was selected: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/draft.htm

            From 99-04 they drafted players with a combined 9 All-Pro selections. Not bad, but also not great. It was even worse from 05-11. They drafted all of one player with All-Pro honors… their punter. That has nothing to do with Manning other than as I mentioned, the fact that he kept them from having top 10 picks like they should have.

            The Hawks, for reference, have 7 All-Pro honors from their drafts from 2010-14 and that number will only increase over the next few years.

        • SeattleGuy

          Not to mention the infamous “tuck” call against Oakland without witch, he dos not win his first SB.

    • Football truth

      People say Luck vs Wilson is Manning vs Brady of the next generation, looks more like Manning vs Manning.

      Luck is Peyton, same team, poor coaching, no help from the defense and always owned by the Patriots.

      Wilson is Eli: the defense plays for him and win games, all he needs are a couple of big plays. Wilson is one ring ahead too.

    • Bill

      Extrapolating a sample size of six games to suggest he’d be winless with a below average defense? Wow! Great logic.

    • Sudden

      Seahawks average PPG in those 6 losses: 25. Seahawks average PPG 2012 through 2014, incl. postseason: 26.75. The offense hasn’t once carried the team to victory through a defensive collapse, that’s about all you can say from this. Divisional loss against ATL was the closest, just looking at the passing game.

      Now if you had said a team with a below average defense AND running game…

      • Anonymous

        I think the point of the post is that 24 PPG allowed isn’t supposed to be “a collapse”, it’s league average.

  • Jason Williams

    Terrific picture of the onside kick. All Bostick has to do is blow up Matthews and Jordy Nelson can win the game for Green Bay.

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/images/Clutch/OSBOS.jpg

    • Dohkay

      I have to give Bostick props. Most guys would run from the locker room after the game. He stood there and took full blame and answered questions. I feel horrible for the guy… He’ll forever be known for this moment.

      • mutzki

        Unless he works hard, cuts out the mistakes and becomes more than a third string TE/Special teams guy.

        • Dohkay

          Remember Romo’s flub on the FG attempt. It takes a lot for people to forget these kinds of things. I hope you’re right though.

  • Football

    Matt Hasselbeck is a far better QB than Russell Wilson. Too bad Seahawks “fans” don’t remember him.

    • Riffle,Rod&Fly

      Well you can’t blame them. Most Seahawks fans are small children who are attracted to their colorful uniforms.

      • Football Sr

        …..Facts

  • Go Hawks

    Seattle got lucky?
    Greenbay
    got all the breaks for most of the game…5 turnovers including 1st and
    goal on the 3, it was not luck that kept Greenbay out of the endzone it
    was the number 1 Defense and the Heart of Champions that play for each
    other. Greenbay had 1st and 10 at least 5 times inside the 35 without
    scoring a single point. Lucky is not hours and hours of practicing and
    practicing, studying film and practicing more and playing your heart out
    for your team. If anyone was”lucky” it was Greenbay being given so many
    opportunities i.e. turnovers and failing miserably to take advantage of
    them.
    Rogers moved very well for a so called “one legged quarterback”.
    While
    Clay Mathews was prematurely celebrating and primping his hair on the
    sidelines convinced the Packers had already won, the Seahawks were
    focused and planning on finishing the game. It was not “luck” it was
    determined Hearts of Champions that never gave up that won the game.

  • Go Hawks

    take another look at the Dallas game….Greenbay got “LUCKY” because Dallas did score that touchdown. So The Pack did not deserve to come to Seattle to begin with.

  • Nate

    Nice cheese-head choke lol. Seattle goes to the super bowl to make history in their franchise.

  • Rob

    Your ripping apart Green Bays run defense when they played extremely well through 3-2/3 quarters. The Packers some I’ll teams cost them this game an ultra conservative play calling by McCarthy, when hd was trying you burn click instead of getting first downs. The Packers defense was lights out for most of the game, which makes me think you went for pizza in the first half.

  • Yonatan Bogale

    even a week later im still pissed -.-

  • Riffle,Rod&Fly

    Maybe Seattle did deserve this. Russell Wilson might have just been doing his best Tony Romo impression by throwing it away and neglecting the run game for the first 50 minutes of game time. If so, I applaud his work.