HawkShack.com

An interesting sort of mini debate going on at Field Gulls with both sides making excellent points, and I think both sides being at least partly right.

On the one hand, Richard Sherman has the luxury of playing in a secondary where honestly, he's not asked to do all that much. He doesn't have to shadow a receiver like Revis does, he also doesn't have to cover nearly the space other corners have to because of Thomas' blazing speed. That is the reason that Brandon Browner, who is a little stiff, a little slow and not really that great at coverage made a pro bowl right away. He was asked to do less than he normally would be, just basically, cover the sideline, use it as an extra defender, and just cover your less than a third of the field.

On the other hand, Richard Sherman is NOT Brandon Browner! He is obviously FAR more talented as a cover man, and if he were asked to do what Revis is, could reasonably be expected to do it VERY well. His range and hops, his ability to adjust to the ball in the air, and make a play, due to the fact that he was a wide receiver, makes him FAR better in many ways than even the best cover corners. He gets thrown to less often than anyone, and STILL leads the NFL in picks...think about how difficult that is! The guy makes plays ALL THE TIME!

Still, when you really boil it all down, it's the two safeties who REALLY make the secondary go, we all know that I assume, or we all should by now! Earl Thomas isn't just a great safety, he's literally a once in a generation, future hall of famer already on par with Ed Reed at his very best. Earl Thomas is ABSOLUTELY irreplaceable, there isn't even an argument to be made otherwise. Anyone trying should be immediately dismissed as either a complete moron, or troll, or as someone who doesn't know the first damn thing about football!
Then of course, you add in the VASTLY underrated Chancellor, who in my opinion was the teams best player this year. Seriously, I truly absolutely believe that Chancellor was the teams MVP. As great as Sherman and Earl played, and as terrific as Lynch and Wilson are, Chancellor had an AMAZING season, completely redifining what it is to be a strong safety in the NFL, relearning how to tackle within the rules and still being the ultimate enforcer, WITHOUT getting flags! The work he (and the rest of the team) put in to do that...awesome.
So when you have those two safeties back there...honestly how hard is it to just bring in another bigger corner? Just like Browner, Maxwell, Thurmond...they've all done VERY well back there, and is anyone really surprised with our safeties?

Of course, Thurmond, and even Maxwell (as good as he was in a short amount of time at causing turnovers) cannot replicate what Sherman does.
Even if Sherman were playing for a crappy team...the Browns maybe, he's still be forcing a buttload of turnovers, and making game changing game winning plays, because of his arm length, height, speed, reflexes, and because of his wide out, ball skills. He's become in many ways, the voice and the brains of the secondary, with his almost photographic memory and his impressive film study habits. The guy learns tendencies, and communicates them to the rest of the team, and then good things follow.

I dunno guys, where do you fall on this?
Personally while I agree with the side that says he's more easily replaced than Earl (duh) and we could probably find someone to do a reasonable facsimile of him, I also agree with the side that says, "remember the bad old days when we had short little corners who could run with their guy, and could make the tackle after the catch but couldn't make a play on the ball in the air if their life depended on it?"
I think it's a fascinating debate, and I understand one side saying that they hope we don't spend too much on him, but in the end, I hope they make Sherman a VERY high priority!

He's become in many ways, the voice and the brains of the secondary, with his almost photographic memory and his impressive film study habits. The guy learns tendencies, and communicates them to the rest of the team, and then good things follow.

It's this part of your post that in my mind makes Sherman irreplaceable. Football is a team game, & it is the unique dynamic of Sherman, Earl, & Chancellor that make this work. That old saying, "The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts", comes to mind.

Then of course, you add in the VASTLY underrated Chancellor, who in my opinion was the teams best player this year. Seriously, I truly absolutely believe that Chancellor was the teams MVP. As great as Sherman and Earl played, and as terrific as Lynch and Wilson are, Chancellor had an AMAZING season, completely redifining what it is to be a strong safety in the NFL, relearning how to tackle within the rules and still being the ultimate enforcer, WITHOUT getting flags!

If you held a gun to my head & forced me to choose my favorite Seahawk, it would have to be this man. I just LOVE watching him HIT!

Everyone's replaceable - it's just a matter of how much adjusting would have to occur to cover the missing talent.
Some day we will find out what it's like without Sherman. I hope it's a few years away, but it will happen.

Old but Slow wrote:Finding really good corners is not easy. Finding one that opposing QB's avoid is even harder.

Note that when Sherman left the SB, Manning started throwing to that side and had some success, including a pass interference call on Thurmond. I would suggest that you don't replace a player of that quality until you have another player who can do the job well enough. We don't have that now.

Good points OBS, though I think it's debatable whether or not Thurmond could at least hold down the fort. Still, not sure the extra cap space offsets the drop in talent.
It's not the Thurmond is horrible, he'd start on many NFL teams and be considered their top corner, but it would still be a considerable drop off from Sherman!

I commented in your other thread (MMQB) that I'll be curious as to what we offer RS when his Power Ball lottery money is due.

I could see him staying if we're in the neighborhood of what others offer. Maybe, perhaps likely, he's franchised if they can't reach a long term deal, I dunno.

For some, once they win a SB ring, then it's off to highest bidder when they qualify for what usually turns out to be their most lucrative deal. Is Sherman that kind of guy? A good part of me says yes unless, of course, the Seahawks are in a position to pay him top dollar anyway.

I get the argument both ways. Keep him, he's a shutdown corner, period. Or, spread the wealth, add several (hopefully) key prospects that make the team better all around. The operative word there being "hopefully", lol.

In any event, you can never have enough good CB's to begin with, so I hope we continue our trend of being proactive, and draft a CB who, while not being Sherman's calibre per say, would lessen the risk of our pass defense suffering majorly, should we lose the bidding war when the time arrives.

Note that when Sherman left the SB, Manning started throwing to that side and had some success, including a pass interference call on Thurmond. I would suggest that you don't replace a player of that quality until you have another player who can do the job well enough. We don't have that now.

Manning wasn't the only playoff quarterback that stayed away from Sherman's side of the field. Kaepernick and Brees did, too.

I agree with the thought that it's Earl Thomas that turns Sherman from being an All Pro cornerback into the best corner in the game. It's Earl's ability to cover sideline to sideline that gives both of our corners the confidence to play the tough man-to-man defense that makes Sherman so tough, and is why you don't really see a big drop off when one of our corners, like Browner, go out.

As far as if we'll be able to come up with enough dough to keep Sherman in the fold or not is a big question. Like Zorny said, once a player gets that ring, they aren't nearly as motivated to succeed on the field and their attention turns a little more towards the business side of the equation. I think this is what Michael Bennett has been eluding to the past week or so. It's not necessarily thinking that's limited to the highest bidder, but we're going to have to at least be in the same general ball park as a Buffalo or Cleveland would. But then again, Sherman isn't as old as Bennett, so he may not be as interested in finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Not

You can put a player there but its highly unlikely he will be a Sherman. We have a great secondary in general but when a guy can eliminate a #1 reciever hes a rare talent. Trying to keep together a team that just won it all is a great problem to have:-)

As a player of course he's not replaceable. He may be the most unique talent I've seen at CB.

But as a member of our secondary he may be, as long as we maintain our high level of play around whomever we replace him with and his replacement is capable of filling the requirements of the position in our defense.

We blew our wad with Harvin's money and Rice's and Miller money. But it was win baby win!
We did it.
And Harvin and Rice and Miller contributed
But you can't pay everyone Rice and Harvin money.
That being said here is our core that we should keep:

Thomas
Wilson
Sherman
Chancellor
and maybe Pierre(Center)
Okung(barely)
Bennett
Avril(based on SB play)
Mebane
Harvin
Huska(sorry I can't remember how to spell his name, sure say what you want, but this past season he was MONEY)

Let me help remind all of you. We are not a rebuilding team anymore. We found our SB winning team
Sure we need to continually change some parts. But we won the SB. The goal has been met. Now we just need to keep those players that want to win a second ring.
Player that want to take care of their families should do just that.
I know I would.
That said let's keep those who we can keep and replace those that need replacement.
Some of these guys are already under contract. But my point is that this is where you start. I just think these guys are the main characters for our 2014 team. Then you add more from there.

Now tell me how in Sam's hell do we get rid of Sherman?
Even if you jettison him, you are TAKING A CHANCE!
The dude is 6'3 and the heart and soul of our team and a Stanford graduate that takes pride in his knowledge of the game preparation for his opponent, and his play on the field. His articles are excellent. Really, would anyone here CONSIDER trading him?
Some of you might, but I would agree to disagree on that point. My dad(RIP) mentioned a few times around the dinner table:a "hen in the hand is worth two in the bush".
Do not take for granted cohesiveness gentlemen. Its truly one of the reasons why the older teams pre-cap did so well. Because they stayed together for years. We may not be able to achieve that, but to the extent that we do, we will be dominant for years to come. Sherman is a SEAHAWK for a long time yet. Reminds me of a younger Champ Bailey except Sherman won. I hope PC JS sees it that way.

Sherman's very replaceable just like Walter Jones was.........

Eaglehawk wrote: Really, would anyone here CONSIDER trading him?

Funny you ask that, because I was actually considering trading him a FAR better alternative to just letting him walk and getting nothing for the best corner in the game. What could you get for him right now? I'd wager he's worth more than people might think, even nearing the end of his contract.
Still Sherman has become one of my favorite players, I just love everything about the guy, and my heart wants to keep him regardless. Still...if a team offered a killer deal for him...how could you turn it down you know?

Steady_Hawk wrote:Sherman's very replaceable just like Walter Jones was.........

Haha, good one.
You might be right, I certainly feel like you are, just not sure my logical side of me agrees as well.
Sherman is just so stinking good, I don't want to ever see him in any other jersey, it'll freakin tear me up knowing he was once ours! And yet...you can't keep everyone, sometimes for the good of the whole you make to make some really deep cuts. I just hope he isn't one of them!
I guess I still cannot decide whether or not I consider him irreplaceable or not, but I'm leaning more towards thinking the Seahawks would make the bigger mistake by not signing him to a new deal. Still...I see the argument both ways so clearly.

I think you keep Sherman if for no other reason than to continue to make Kappersnapper and Crabapple's football dreams a foot out of reach, year after year.

He's not replaceable, in the sense that any replacement would be a step down. But that may be a bullet the FO will have to bite. Earl is more important to the defense, and signing Sherm would tie up a lot of money in one position group.

Which would suck. Sherm is probably my favorite player on the Hawks, but we'll have to wait and see.

If I were Richard Sherman, I would just file a worker's compensation claim for that Super Bowl injury he suffered.

It's only fair.

rottweiler wrote:If I were Richard Sherman, I would just file a worker's compensation claim for that Super Bowl injury he suffered.

It's only fair.

Hey Rott!!!!

I was beginning to worry about you.

Sherman is replaceable in the sense that any player on a team can be replaced.
Can the Hawks go out and get someone as good as him for the price we've been paying him? Not unless they draft the next Richard Sherman.
Can the Hawks go out and get someone as good as him for the price he will be ASKING? No, because Sherman IS the best.
Could the Hawks repeat as Super Bowl champs if he suffers a season-ending injury (knock on wood) in the preseason? Yes i think we can.
I don't think the loss of any one starter would be the difference between going to the super bowl or not.


The thing about having so much talent back there is that none of them are really forced to use it all.
They are all so good and cover so much area that there is actually talent that gets WASTED (as scary as that sounds!)
If we lost Sherman for whatever reason, there WOULD be a drop at CB1 but it would allow the other members of the LOB to use all their talent to mitigate the loss.
The Hawks have THE BEST SECONDARY EVER. No exceptions. There is not a single team in NFL history whose secondary can match ours.

To give you guys an idea of just how good our secondary is, if we lost sherman we would STILL be the best secondary in the NFL (but not all time).


Personally I am hoping the Hawks can work out a short-term deal that pays Sherman a lot of money but doesn't keep us committed long-term. It would be a large enough contract to set him up FOR LIFE while also massaging his ego, and perhaps by the end of the contract he would decide that staying in seattle for a 3rd contract at a discount (and more SUPER BOWLS) would be better than taking an extra couple million a year from some crappy team.

When you don't have millions of dollars in the bank it becomes very easy to want your many millions NOW and not want to make any concessions. But once a player has had MILLIONS of dollars in their bank account for a few years and they've been able to buy all the things they want (except what can't be bought: super bowl, love, etc.) other things gain importance.

So go ahead and give Sherman a taste of the money. Give us a good 3 more years of Super Bowl runs and then decide if the money is better spent elsewhere or if Sherman decides being a Hawk for life is what he really wants.

briwas101 wrote:Sherman is replaceable in the sense that any player on a team can be replaced.
Can the Hawks go out and get someone as good as him for the price we've been paying him? Not unless they draft the next Richard Sherman.
Can the Hawks go out and get someone as good as him for the price he will be ASKING? No, because Sherman IS the best.
Could the Hawks repeat as Super Bowl champs if he suffers a season-ending injury (knock on wood) in the preseason? Yes i think we can.
I don't think the loss of any one starter would be the difference between going to the super bowl or not.


The thing about having so much talent back there is that none of them are really forced to use it all.
They are all so good and cover so much area that there is actually talent that gets WASTED (as scary as that sounds!)
If we lost Sherman for whatever reason, there WOULD be a drop at CB1 but it would allow the other members of the LOB to use all their talent to mitigate the loss.
The Hawks have THE BEST SECONDARY EVER. No exceptions. There is not a single team in NFL history whose secondary can match ours.

To give you guys an idea of just how good our secondary is, if we lost sherman we would STILL be the best secondary in the NFL (but not all time).

Personally I am hoping the Hawks can work out a short-term deal that pays Sherman a lot of money but doesn't keep us committed long-term. It would be a large enough contract to set him up FOR LIFE while also massaging his ego, and perhaps by the end of the contract he would decide that staying in seattle for a 3rd contract at a discount (and more SUPER BOWLS) would be better than taking an extra couple million a year from some crappy team.

When you don't have millions of dollars in the bank it becomes very easy to want your many millions NOW and not want to make any concessions. But once a player has had MILLIONS of dollars in their bank account for a few years and they've been able to buy all the things they want (except what can't be bought: super bowl, love, etc.) other things gain importance.

So go ahead and give Sherman a taste of the money. Give us a good 3 more years of Super Bowl runs and then decide if the money is better spent elsewhere or if Sherman decides being a Hawk for life is what he really wants.

I disagree. We lose Russell Wilson, our season is toast. Not too many teams have gone to a SB with their backup quarterback, unless that backup is really, really, good, of which TJack is not in that category. There might be one or two other critical components on our team as well, like Earl Thomas.

RiverDog wrote:

briwas101 wrote:Sherman is replaceable in the sense that any player on a team can be replaced.
Can the Hawks go out and get someone as good as him for the price we've been paying him? Not unless they draft the next Richard Sherman.
Can the Hawks go out and get someone as good as him for the price he will be ASKING? No, because Sherman IS the best.
Could the Hawks repeat as Super Bowl champs if he suffers a season-ending injury (knock on wood) in the preseason? Yes i think we can.
I don't think the loss of any one starter would be the difference between going to the super bowl or not.


The thing about having so much talent back there is that none of them are really forced to use it all.
They are all so good and cover so much area that there is actually talent that gets WASTED (as scary as that sounds!)
If we lost Sherman for whatever reason, there WOULD be a drop at CB1 but it would allow the other members of the LOB to use all their talent to mitigate the loss.
The Hawks have THE BEST SECONDARY EVER. No exceptions. There is not a single team in NFL history whose secondary can match ours.

To give you guys an idea of just how good our secondary is, if we lost sherman we would STILL be the best secondary in the NFL (but not all time).

Personally I am hoping the Hawks can work out a short-term deal that pays Sherman a lot of money but doesn't keep us committed long-term. It would be a large enough contract to set him up FOR LIFE while also massaging his ego, and perhaps by the end of the contract he would decide that staying in seattle for a 3rd contract at a discount (and more SUPER BOWLS) would be better than taking an extra couple million a year from some crappy team.

When you don't have millions of dollars in the bank it becomes very easy to want your many millions NOW and not want to make any concessions. But once a player has had MILLIONS of dollars in their bank account for a few years and they've been able to buy all the things they want (except what can't be bought: super bowl, love, etc.) other things gain importance.

So go ahead and give Sherman a taste of the money. Give us a good 3 more years of Super Bowl runs and then decide if the money is better spent elsewhere or if Sherman decides being a Hawk for life is what he really wants.

I disagree. We lose Russell Wilson, our season is toast. Not too many teams have gone to a SB with their backup quarterback, unless that backup is really, really, good, of which TJack is not in that category. There might be one or two other critical components on our team as well, like Earl Thomas.

If wilson was injured and we had to rely on Tjack then maybe we dont win the super bowl, but the 2013 hawks could've won with early-2000s Trent Dilpher.

Again, I disagree. I don't see a Trent Dilfer taking this Seattle team to the SB and winning it, not with the competition we faced this season. I don't think Dilfer beats the Niners and probably not the Saints. This team is more reliant on offense than you're suggesting.

We could have won that Super Bowl with just about any QB.

c_hawkbob wrote:We could have won that Super Bowl with just about any QB.

If it were just one game, then I'd agree. But I don't think we get to the SB with "just about any QB".

RiverDog wrote:Again, I disagree. I don't see a Trent Dilfer taking this Seattle team to the SB and winning it, not with the competition we faced this season. I don't think Dilfer beats the Niners and probably not the Saints. This team is more reliant on offense than you're suggesting.

This is a bit complicated, because no one mentioned WHEN in the season we lose RW.

Here are my thoughts:

I think if we lose RW mid season. We do not go to the SB with TJACK we make the playoffs and lose to the Niners in the Championship game because we don't score enough points, and maybe get an int here and there more than RW.

If we had Dilfer we go to the playoffs, if that. And again LOSE to the Niners because they will shut down Dilfer. Not as much mobility.

If we had a GARCIA, now he COULD take us to the Super Bowl. And we would win. Garcia( I am talking about the one that backed up Romo a few years ago) had the football IQ and little mobility even at his age, to get us to where we needed to go).

But yeah, RW's prep was special, our defense was as well, but so were the defenses we faced during the regular season.

I think only RW, would have been able to put up points against the Niners the way we did. Utilizing his feet as well as excellent throws.

Every scenario with a backup quarterback LOSES TO THE NINERS except , GARCIA(ok admittedly a stretch), and RW. However there are many MAYBE scenarios where I can't say with a certainty that with this guy in our lineup we win the SB.

AS A BACKUP(some are not playing anymore in the NFL, but I threw them in for laughs and giggles, this list does not include starters for 2013):

Maybe TJ gets us to the Promised Land I have not seen enough of the new improved TJ to say yes to that question.
Although, if you all noticed he DID throw it away on 3rd down in our SB win when he played in garbage time. Some smarts at least.
Hasselbeck? NAH, no mobility.
Tebow? too unstable.
Sanchez? Football IQ and happy feet, but then I look at Eli and say the same thing. In my book both of them are the same(ELI of 2013 season at least but again, he is a starter so I can't mention him).
Quinn? MAYBE.
Vince Young, Maybe
Vick? Maybe
Flynn? No
Wallace? (Qualified No). Poor decision making but again maybe the new and improved and experienced Wallace might have worked for us.

briwas101 wrote:

RiverDog wrote:

briwas101 wrote:Sherman is replaceable in the sense that any player on a team can be replaced.
Can the Hawks go out and get someone as good as him for the price we've been paying him? Not unless they draft the next Richard Sherman.
Can the Hawks go out and get someone as good as him for the price he will be ASKING? No, because Sherman IS the best.
Could the Hawks repeat as Super Bowl champs if he suffers a season-ending injury (knock on wood) in the preseason? Yes i think we can.
I don't think the loss of any one starter would be the difference between going to the super bowl or not.


The thing about having so much talent back there is that none of them are really forced to use it all.
They are all so good and cover so much area that there is actually talent that gets WASTED (as scary as that sounds!)
If we lost Sherman for whatever reason, there WOULD be a drop at CB1 but it would allow the other members of the LOB to use all their talent to mitigate the loss.
The Hawks have THE BEST SECONDARY EVER. No exceptions. There is not a single team in NFL history whose secondary can match ours.

To give you guys an idea of just how good our secondary is, if we lost sherman we would STILL be the best secondary in the NFL (but not all time).

Personally I am hoping the Hawks can work out a short-term deal that pays Sherman a lot of money but doesn't keep us committed long-term. It would be a large enough contract to set him up FOR LIFE while also massaging his ego, and perhaps by the end of the contract he would decide that staying in seattle for a 3rd contract at a discount (and more SUPER BOWLS) would be better than taking an extra couple million a year from some crappy team.

When you don't have millions of dollars in the bank it becomes very easy to want your many millions NOW and not want to make any concessions. But once a player has had MILLIONS of dollars in their bank account for a few years and they've been able to buy all the things they want (except what can't be bought: super bowl, love, etc.) other things gain importance.

So go ahead and give Sherman a taste of the money. Give us a good 3 more years of Super Bowl runs and then decide if the money is better spent elsewhere or if Sherman decides being a Hawk for life is what he really wants.

I disagree. We lose Russell Wilson, our season is toast. Not too many teams have gone to a SB with their backup quarterback, unless that backup is really, really, good, of which TJack is not in that category. There might be one or two other critical components on our team as well, like Earl Thomas.

If wilson was injured and we had to rely on Tjack then maybe we dont win the super bowl, but the 2013 hawks could've won with early-2000s Trent Dilpher.

Yeah once again no, Dilfer is not any were near as good as Rw and cannot move like RW, never could, so yeah no.

c_hawkbob wrote:We could have won that Super Bowl with just about any QB.

Knowing you I am presuming that is sarcasm

Eaglehawk wrote:

RiverDog wrote:Again, I disagree. I don't see a Trent Dilfer taking this Seattle team to the SB and winning it, not with the competition we faced this season. I don't think Dilfer beats the Niners and probably not the Saints. This team is more reliant on offense than you're suggesting.

This is a bit complicated, because no one mentioned WHEN in the season we lose RW.

Here are my thoughts:

I think if we lose RW mid season. We do not go to the SB with TJACK we make the playoffs and lose to the Niners in the Championship game because we don't score enough points, and maybe get an int here and there more than RW.

If we had Dilfer we go to the playoffs, if that. And again LOSE to the Niners because they will shut down Dilfer. Not as much mobility.

If we had a GARCIA, now he COULD take us to the Super Bowl. And we would win. Garcia( I am talking about the one that backed up Romo a few years ago) had the football IQ and little mobility even at his age, to get us to where we needed to go).

But yeah, RW's prep was special, our defense was as well, but so were the defenses we faced during the regular season.

I think only RW, would have been able to put up points against the Niners the way we did. Utilizing his feet as well as excellent throws.

Every scenario with a backup quarterback LOSES TO THE NINERS except , GARCIA(ok admittedly a stretch), and RW. However there are many MAYBE scenarios where I can't say with a certainty that with this guy in our lineup we win the SB.

AS A BACKUP(some are not playing anymore in the NFL, but I threw them in for laughs and giggles, this list does not include starters for 2013):

Maybe TJ gets us to the Promised Land I have not seen enough of the new improved TJ to say yes to that question.
Although, if you all noticed he DID throw it away on 3rd down in our SB win when he played in garbage time. Some smarts at least.
Hasselbeck? NAH, no mobility.
Tebow? too unstable.
Sanchez? Football IQ and happy feet, but then I look at Eli and say the same thing. In my book both of them are the same(ELI of 2013 season at least but again, he is a starter so I can't mention him).
Quinn? MAYBE.
Vince Young, Maybe
Vick? Maybe
Flynn? No
Wallace? (Qualified No). Poor decision making but again maybe the new and improved and experienced Wallace might have worked for us.

Let me help you

IF=f we loose Rw at any point before we clinch home field we do not win the SB, if we loose him at any point before we clinch playoffs we may not even make the playoffs. None of those QBs you mentioned including Garcia would have done what Rw did. IT is amazing how we forget all those wins with most of our o-line missing, our #1 and 2 WR missing our #1 Te missing, and our running game at best okay. They only chance we would have had of making the playoffs without Rw is if we were already in, and then we would have been one and done. It amazes me how little credit RW gets form his own fans, and then you wonder why he gets little form national media. But that is okay you might all get your wish and see how we would do without him, I hope not because anyone with a brain can see how important he is to our team.

Anthony wrote:

c_hawkbob wrote:We could have won that Super Bowl with just about any QB.

Knowing you I am presuming that is sarcasm

No, I believe it to be true.

Not saying we could have gotten there without him, but the way our defense was playing we could have won that game with you handing the rock to Percy and Marshawn ... (yes that's an exaggeration but it makes my point).

Woah, this thread spun drastically off the rails....

If someone was just a casual reader or new to this forum, they might get the impression some of our regular posters think RW is just a game manager. I know that's not the case, but I wouldn't be surprised if others did.

Russell Wilson made what happened last year with the worst (By Statistics mind you....) Pass protecting offensive line in football.

I wonder if any team has ever won the Superbowl when their offensive line ranked 32nd (last) in pass protection.

When Russell did last season was phenomenal.

He is no "Game Manager"

A better two word description of Russell is "Play Maker"

And an even better one word description of Russell is "Winner"

c_hawkbob wrote:

Anthony wrote:

c_hawkbob wrote:We could have won that Super Bowl with just about any QB.

Knowing you I am presuming that is sarcasm

No, I believe it to be true.

Not saying we could have gotten there without him, but the way our defense was playing we could have won that game with you handing the rock to Percy and Marshawn ... (yes that's an exaggeration but it makes my point).

Handing the rock to lynch and percy, really, wow talk about surprised. Well like I said I am sure that Lynchs 29 yards rushing and 2.6 ypc avg was all we needed, and Harvins 45 yards of total offense is all we needed as well. Seems you solved our problem when it is time to sign Rw, we do not , we do not need him any QB would do. IN fact our defense is so good, we do not really need an offense, lets just get a bunch of cheap 3rd stringers and let them play and allow our defense to win games. I mean they have won every game this year supposedly. Rw and the rest of the offense are just wasted parts we do not need.


Under your thought process why are we even talking about Sherman all he had was 3 tackles and 1 pass defended, any CB could have done that. Of course I realize he did things that impacted the game that other CB could not do, that does not show up in a stat line, just like RW.

At any rate now for the truth, now we do not win the game without RW, our first 3 scoring drives do not happen without him, nor does any of the others.

savvyman wrote:Russell Wilson made what happened last year with the worst (By Statistics mind you....) Pass protecting offensive line in football.

I wonder if any team has ever won the Superbowl when their offensive line ranked 32nd (last) in pass protection.

When Russell did last season was phenomenal.

He is no "Game Manager"

A better two word description of Russell is "Play Maker"

And an even better one word description of Russell is "Winner"

Agreed but, as I said you want to know why the media and other teams feel the way the do, look to our own fans who think we do not need him, or could win the SB without him. That's why and in the end it and the style of offense we play could cost us Rw. He may not care what other teams says, or the media, but I can tell you he cares about what the fans think and some of you seem to think we do not need him, it seems Lynchs 39 yards and 2.6 yards per carry and Harvins 45 yards of offense is all we needed, and any QB could just hand the ball. The 123 qb rating 72% completions %, 26 yards of rushing, 2 tds, and, 58% on 3rd down did not do anything to help this team win, only the 39 yards by lynch and 1 td, and the 45 yard of Harvins. Pathetic.

NorthHawk wrote:If someone was just a casual reader or new to this forum, they might get the impression some of our regular posters think RW is just a game manager. I know that's not the case, but I wouldn't be surprised if others did.

ITs not just that some think he is a game manager, some do no think we even needed him, almost any QB would have done.

I love Russell Wilson to death, there's not another QB in the league I'd trade him for, but with apologies to your delicate sensibilities where he's concerned, our offense was all but irrelevant to winning that game. There is no insult to DangerRuss in that assessment.

c_hawkbob wrote:I love Russell Wilson to death, there's not another QB in the league I'd trade him for, but with apologies to your delicate sensibilities where he's concerned, our offense was all but irrelevant to winning that game. There is no insult to DangerRuss in that assessment.

It has nothing to do with my sensibilities but fact, they were not all but irrelevant in the game. They still needed to score, the fact the defense scored a touchdown that did not matter means nothing, and worse had we not scored the 13 points before the defensive touch down there is no way of saying that defensive touchdown happens. We held the ball 11 minutes in the 1st qtr and scored 6 points, that helped the defense as well. The game winning score was not on defense but offense, if they do not score that you have no way of knowing what would have happened. So yeah the offense did matter, big time. And key to all the offensive scoring was RW.

c_hawkbob wrote:We could have won that Super Bowl with just about any QB.

Maybe we beat Denver, maybe, but we aren't beating the Niners with Dilfer at QB!

Look I get the comparison, what you're saying is that, our defense is as good as that Ravens defense was, so we don't need our QB to be any better than theirs was (Dilfer), but I think that comparison has some serious shortcomings.
When people invoke Dilfer's name it is usually to imply that the Ravens defense was so great they could have won with any old piece of crap throwing passes, but that's a monumental exaggeration. People forget that, the Ravens started that season 5-1 with Tony Banks as the starting QB, (mostly on the strength of their defense of course), then had to switch out Tony Banks after the Ravens lost three in a row.
Their offense completely tanked, and despite their terrific defense, they were NOT going to even make the playoffs much less win a Super Bowl if they didn't make the switch to Dilfer. While they needed a wildcard to make the playoffs, with a 12-4 record (the Titans won the division that year), that's a REMARKABLE accomplishment for Dilfer considering he was a midseason replacement who came in after a three game losing streak, and he still managed to only lose on more game the rest of the way.

While Dilfer will never be mistaken for a great QB, he's no where near as bad as people like to make him out to be. We Seahawks fans ought to know that as well as anyone.
He was in fact, a reasonably decent "game manager". Just because the Ravens weren't smart enough to keep him around, (look how that turned out BTW!), that shouldn't be used against him as though he were so laughably horrible that he couldn't even keep a job. That was just a bad decision on the Ravens part, bad enough that the Ravens with that incredible defense, were a one and done team, a one hit wonder. (The 2013 team that won doesn't even vaguely resemble the 2000 team).
Bottom line, Dilfer wasn't nearly the punchline that he's made out to be.

Most importantly though, the Ravens didn't have to play the NFC West. They didn't have to play as tough a schedule, and didn't have to play anywhere NEAR the kinds of defenses we faced this season.
Dilfer, at his absolute best, couldn't have done what Wilson did, for just so many reasons, such as his lack of big play ability (all Wilson does is make big play after big play), and his lack of ability to extend plays (Dilfer was essentially a statue compared to Wilson). I say that there's not even the slimmest chance that Seattle wins the division and thus, home field advantage throughout the playoffs with Dilfer (or T-Jack for that matter) at QB. Home field was HUGE for us this year,especially considering who we had to play. You think we get by the Saints in their dome with Dilfer at QB? Or the Niners in what would have been their last playoff game in the Candlestick?
I don't see it happening. Not a snowball's chance in Hell.

But the point you were really making was, the way our defense was playing, we could have beaten Denver, no matter what.
The trouble with that is, our offense held the ball over 13 minutes the first quarter, won T.O.P and did it without much help from Marshawn Lynch!
Russell Wilson converted big third down after big third down, and even though we settled for field goals the first two possessions (once because of a horsecrap spot!) our offense was absolutely DEVASTATINGLY effective, even early on!

The defense is getting all the credit, and I for one, am calling B.S.! The Broncos did a terrific job of holding down Lynch for the most part, but they never stopped Wilson from staying IN THE POCKET and chewing their defense and the clock, up!

Just to throw another wrench out there Monkey, Seattle wouldn't have been playing the Saints in NO, pretty much period, win or lose the division, unless they possibly faced each other in the NFCCG, because though people continue to confuse this pertinent fact over and over again, the Saints didn't win their division, hence the best they could be would be the five seed, meaning no home games unless they get lucky and the other WC advances to the Championship game.

As for the QB debate, eh, who knows? I don't feel like taking credit from Wilson, NOR do I feel like doing so from perhaps the best defense I have ever had the privilege watching ( and yeah that includes the Ravens, Bears and anyone else you want to throw into the conversation).

Could they have with someone else? Possibly. Would they have missed the playoffs with someone else? Possibly. Does it really matter that incredibly much? The fact is they won the whole damn thing, and Wilson was a big part of it. Why worry about how it came about, when you can simply enjoy it......

HumanCockroach wrote:Just to throw another wrench out there Monkey, Seattle wouldn't have been playing the Saints in NO, pretty much period, win or lose the division, unless they possibly faced each other in the NFCCG, because though people continue to confuse this pertinent fact over and over again, the Saints didn't win their division, hence the best they could be would be the five seed, meaning no home games unless they get lucky and the other WC advances to the Championship game.

As for the QB debate, eh, who knows? I don't feel like taking credit from Wilson, NOR do I feel like doing so from perhaps the best defense I have ever had the privilege watching ( and yeah that includes the Ravens, Bears and anyone else you want to throw into the conversation).

Could they have with someone else? Possibly. Would they have missed the playoffs with someone else? Possibly. Does it really matter that incredibly much? The fact is they won the whole damn thing, and Wilson was a big part of it. Why worry about how it came about, when you can simply enjoy it......

I can agree with that, good post