Why the Seahawks quarterback saga may rumble on into 2013

October 1st, 2012 | Written by Rob Staton

Nobody should give up on Russell Wilson, but we have to look at 2013 quarterbacks.

Honestly, I had absolutely no appetite to spend another year looking at college quarterbacks. Since I started this blog in 2008, it’s been one long slog – trying to identify who might be a guy capable of leading this team into a new era. Preferably, an era of winning football games. Initially it was about finding a successor to Matt Hasselbeck, then it was about finding someone who could be the answer sooner rather than later. When the Seahawks named Russell Wilson as the starter for 2012 I sincerely hoped the long search was over. Had the Seahawks finally found their starting quarterback for the present and future?

Today I’m preparing to go through three USC games, two West Virginia games and an Arkansas game. Why? Quarterbacks. Again.

This isn’t about a lack of faith in Wilson. I actually think he’s done about as well as can be expected in four starts. I don’t blame him for putting up mediocre numbers in this scheme and with this play calling. The teams offensive coordinator said in a press conference recently that he’d run on every play if he could. Hey, most coaches would probably say the same. The only difference is, Darrell Bevell actually meant it. At a time when the virtually the entire NFL is trying to find ways to open up the passing game, at a time when quarterbacks named Manning, Brady, Rodgers and Brees are winning every Super Bowl, the Seahawks are making their passing game a complimentary piece to their offense.

That’s not to say you can’t win playing mainly tough defense and running the football, or that you have to conform to be successful. Even so, I do have issues the offense. Pete Carroll preaches ball security, control and winning the turnover battle. If the Seahawks can get ahead in games – like they did against Dallas – they’ll have a good chance to get wins. When they have to chase things, it’s difficult to suddenly break out a quick strike to change momentum. This was clearly evident against the Rams when the game started to drift away from the Seahawks. Suddenly Carroll is trying an onside kick to regain momentum. When the big-time passing teams get behind they don’t have to adjust too much to launch a comeback. Quick strike, potent offenses will do that for you because they’re capable of scoring cheap and quick points. When the Seahawks get behind, it almost leads to a sea-change in attitude and scheme. They try to do things that aren’t natural to this team.

The fact Seattle has lost so many games trying to drive for victory is evidence of this. How many times have the Seahawks had possession in the fourth quarter, needing a touchdown or field goal to win? And what is the record like in those games since 2010? It’s pretty poor. The problem extends to the red zone offense – the Seahawks can drive with the running game and some play action, but when they get close it’s like suddenly they don’t know what to do. A misdirection or power run play might be called on the half-way line, yet we’re treated to quarterback draws from in close on third and short. I just don’t see an offense that is very flexible or adaptable, instead it appears built to consume time and protect the ball rather than do the purely fundamental thing of scoring points.

It’s hard to blame the coaches too much for going in this direction upon arrival in Seattle. Pete Carroll inherited a team with virtually no assets. He had to build from scratch with one of the worst rosters in the NFL. He had to do it without the top 1-5 pick the roster probably warranted for 2-3 years. Not forcing the issue on a bad quarterback and an ill-advised passing game plan was absolutely the right way to go and the Seahawks have put together a very good running game and defense instead. They are a much better team since Carroll took over. Nobody can deny that.

Yet because the team has improved so much, it would be a shame to waste such a good defense on an impotent offense. This team isn’t scoring enough touchdowns. The passing game isn’t pulling its weight. And if this continues, Carroll cannot remain too loyal to a system that hasn’t worked so far.

There’s still time for things to come good, but let’s assume the passing game follows the same path we’ve seen for two and a bit seasons now. In that situation, I think you have to consider a re-think and search for more balance. The Seahawks recreated their defense and running game with great effect, why can’t they do the same with the passing game? If you’re going to start changing things, you better make sure the right people are at the core of the rebuild – coaches and players. It might mean a new offensive coordinator, it might mean new receivers and it might even mean a new quarterback.

Again, this isn’t about giving up on Wilson. As I said, he’s doing pretty much all he can out there in the circumstances. At the same time he is leaving the pocket too early, too often. Perhaps the height thing is an issue after all, if he can’t just sit in the pocket and make reads? It’s difficult to judge without seeing the all-22 tape. If he cannot show progression, the front office might end up second guessing whether they can afford to invest their entire faith in him for the long haul. Especially if a potentially better option emerges.

What if a guy like Matt Barkley is within reach? A player with obvious ties to Pete Carroll and the city of Seattle? I don’t want to make this a Barkley thread – I appreciate opinion is mixed on his pro-potential. But let’s consider the situation where Barkley is sitting right there for the Seahawks next April. Had things started well with the passing game, we could probably write that off and concentrate on other needs. But now? I’m not so sure.

Here’s my wild, uneducated guess on what this team has been planning. I think they liked Wilson a ton and when they were able to draft him, they wanted to give him every chance to win this job (maybe even to the point where he had an edge over Matt Flynn all along). As long as he didn’t implode in pre-season, they could justify giving him the gig over Flynn. That way, they can see what they have in a third round rookie quarterback with a lot of upside but also some legitimate issues (such as height). If it works out, everyone’s a winner. If it doesn’t, well it’s disappointing but who’s really going to hammer the team for trying this out for the sake of a third rounder and spending a lot to learn nothing about Matt Flynn? (Who, by the way, is still Matt Flynn. Let’s never forget that, however much he’s earning.)

If Wilson cannot convince the team he’s starter material, the worst case scenario is they’re left with a competent backup at the cost of a third rounder. They know what they have there, no doubts left on the table. And if necessary, they can relaunch the offense by making the kind of move  they’ve so far resisted – drafting a quarterback in round one. And like I said, one of Carroll’s best guys will be part of the draft. Pete has resisted the temptation to go big on USC prospects in the draft so far, but I wouldn’t expect that would be the case for Matt Barkley.

And for anyone who is complaining about not knowing what the team has with Flynn in this scenario, well really it’s no different than not knowing what you’d have in Wilson if it was the other way round. There’s nothing stopping the Seahawks making a switch down the line. I would argue, however, you’d need to see a full season from either to truly have a good idea as to whether you need to make ‘the splash’. Seattle made it’s bed with Wilson and should stick by him for the time being to give him a chance to improve and earn the kind of trust that eliminates any need to discuss this subject after January.

I appreciate that even if the Seahawks did end up drafting a quarterback in round one next April, he’ll still have the same (or similar) options at receiver. I get that. But I’m struggling to find a receiver worthy of a top-20 grade in next years draft. Are you going to reach on a receiver in round one? Over a quarterback who is higher on your board? Not for me.

Who knows, maybe next off-season was always likely to be the one where they were most likely to ‘go big’ at the quarterback position? Wilson perhaps made them second-guess whether they had the answer already – and he could still prove to be the long term answer. Nobody should be giving up on the guy. Not yet. He’s getting his shot and now it’s up to him to prove he’s as good as many believed going into the year. If he can’t do that, then it’s time to do what this team hasn’t done for 20 years – draft a quarterback in round one. While that remains a possibility, it’s time to keep scouting the position. So here’s three games of Matt Barkley tape courtesy of JMPasq…

31 Responses to “Why the Seahawks quarterback saga may rumble on into 2013”

  1. Colin says:

    Pete has already axed one coordinator, I don’t think he’d hesitate to do the same to Bevell if this continues.

    We can’t pass on a talent like Barkley unless Wilson shows serious improvements- at some point you have to push all the chips to the middle. 3rd and 4th round talents are nice, but we need playmakers- not “don’t turn it over” makers.

  2. Mtjhoyas says:

    With how many great things PC/JS have done in the last few years, I can’t escape this feeling that we will never win a SB under them. Their philosophy really makes the margin of error so small, that it’s hard not to be perfect and still win a game.

    Now, I am not saying fire them, but I wish they put more of a premium on the passing game. That doesn’t mean to be an aerial assault team, but they need to not treat it like a red head step child. It’s more than acceptable to have a great passing game, that is in the holster for when you need it and to continue to rely on the run game. The fact of the matter is, that threat has to be there even if you don’t use it all the time.

    The scary part is, I think they have conviction in this idea that we can be the worst passing team in the league and win. That’s not a sustainable approach. It needs to change, and perhaps a sub par finish, where we lose a lot of games because the passing game is so inept, might in fact be the best thing for this franchise long term. Perhaps, a 6-10 season where we learn full well that QB is the main issue would be the best. This would allow us to get aggressive for a QB we want, knowing we have a lot around him to win. (That includes making a run at Mike Wallace or someone like that in FA, cut bait with Sidney Rice, who is so overrated it’s not funny).

    As far as prospects go, I really, really like Matt Barkley, just not for the Seahawks. He is really dependent on good perimeter players that we do not have here and his lack of velocity with his short stature does scare me quite a bit. Now, if we are picking at 19 and he’s there, I’d consider that a value pick. However, I don’t think I could spend a top 12 pick on the guy because I don’t see him carrying a franchise with his lack of physical and play making ability. It pains me to say this, but he is a more polished Andy Dalton, who many fail to realize his recent success is directly attributed to AJ Green and an Offensive Coordinator who does a superlative job masking his weaknesses. Jay Gruden and AJ Green don’t get enough credit. Without them, Dalton is a QB you look to upgrade anyway you can.

    Despite the stats, I am very intrigued by Geno Smith. I really do think people are now starting to overrate him however. My main concern with Geno is that he looks very ansty in the pocket. He always seems to be drifting backwards. That said, I think this is correctable with him because this is not a vision issue, which unfortunately, looks like a more than valid concern with RW. Smith is mobile enough, with a good velocity and touch, and some outstanding down field accuracy. All of this neatly packed into a legit 6’4″ frame. He is definitely not perfect and will have to adjust to a pro offense, but the tools are in place and his lack of turnovers would fit well in Seattle. Not saying he’s RGIII or Cam Newton, but I certainly wouldn’t mind an aggressive move to land him.

    Unfortunately, outside of those 2, nobody looks like what we may need for the Hawks. Tyler Wilson has singlehandedly murdered his draft stock while Logan Thomas looks more and more like a TE in the NFL. The options are thin, but thankfully there won’t be many teams that are looking to draft a QB. If Tennessee keeps losing, and Locker is hurt most of the year, they might just be our most valuable trade target in 13. Very premature call on my part, but I believe thinking ahead about this stuff is completely necessary.

    With all this said, I keep coming back to the notion that the Philosophy of this team needs to change. They need to have the goal of having a dangerous passing attack. That doesn’t mean you base your offense around it, but it needs to be in the proverbial holster. Until that day comes, we will be saying “what if” and “if only.” Let’s not let that be the case.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Great points there, Mtjhoyas. Great read.

      • AlaskaHawk says:

        I would take Geno Smith but he is playing well enough that he will be picked in top five and Seahawks will be picking mid-round again.

        We really need to either play Flynn or cut him after this season. Spending that amount of money and not even trying him is absurd.

        • Rob Staton says:

          One could argue they did try him and he got beaten out by Russell Wilson.

          • AlaskaHawk says:

            I thought the announcement of Wilson before preseason was over was premature. Since we are back to wondering about our QB of future then why isn’t Flynn getting a real try out? Would it kill PC to play each for a half. After all it is mostly handoffs.

            I will never dismiss Flynn without a real try out. He set passing records with Green Bay. To dismiss him so quickly is unreasonable.

            • Colin says:

              Pete just said on radio today that Matt Flynn can’t do more than about 15 throws a day right now- that is more than enough reason to NOT push him in now.

            • Rob Staton says:

              Starting two QB’s like that would create ridicule if the team didn’t win. It’d turn the team into a QB experiment and not one zoned in on success. The players, quite rightly, would need to know ‘who is the leader’ of the offense. And while Flynn did set passing records in one game against a bad Detroit secondary with Green Bay’s weapons, he still came second in a contest this off season to a third round rookie.

              • AlaskaHawk says:

                I agree that Wilson cleaned up on the second and third string defenses in preseason. He hasn’t done so well against first string – which is to be expected. I don’t blame him, he is doing his rookie thing.

                I blame PC for lame routes and telegraphing when we will throw. Run, run throw is our new mantra. When we do throw can we have some quick routes? To much time for Wilson to get hit. Also an empty backfield is an invitation for blitzing.

    • Derrick says:

      Isn’t Seattle’s “philosophy” pretty much the same as San Francisco’s last year? The Niners were 29th in team passing last year. They went 13-3 and a play away from the Super Bowl. They are now building upon what they did last year after acquiring more offensive weapons in the off season and may well be the best team in the NFL. I don’t see the problem with the philosophy. Russell Wilson is 4 weeks into his rookie season people!

      • Rob Staton says:

        There are some similarities in that it’s a run based system with a ‘game manager’ or point guard at QB. However – the offense is different… lot’s more trick plays. Harbaugh uses so many trick plays and end arounds. He’s using a more creative flair than the Seahawks right now. And let’s not forget they’re starting a former #1 overall pick at QB who when asked to out-pass Drew Brees got it done in the post season.

        • Derrick says:

          That’s right but he (Alex Smith) wasn’t “asked” to do that until the 17th game of the season.

          Seattle Seahawks just tweeted a relevant point:

          @DangeRussWilson’s numbers are comparable or better than the best QBs in franchise history thru their 1st 4 starts. http://shwks.com/npbh

          • Rob Staton says:

            I find that tweet comparable to the popular ‘we were 2-2 in 2005′ comments you see every time the Seahawks start with a bad or average record. They fail to recognise the countless other Seahawks seasons where 2-2 didn’t turn into 13-3. And I will also add – Matt Hasselbeck also had a QB guru coaching him in a very defined passing system.

            • Derrick says:

              I just see it as anecdotal evidence that all this conclusive talk about Russell Wilson is premature!

  3. John says:

    I honestly don’t see a true franchise QB in this draft. I think Barkley is way way way overrated. I think Geno is a mirage. Tyler Wilson has collapsed without Petrino. I honestly don’t see it this year. I’d cry if we go big on a QB. Seattle needs something on offense no doubt, but pulling a Weeden-esk move isn’t worth it.

    I really kind of wish we’d go BPA at this point since it’s so early in the season. So much can change.

    And I’m crossing my fingers that we somehow magically get Werner. Dude is a beast.

    • Rob Staton says:

      What if, John, the Seahawks drafted one of Barkley, Smith or Wilson (or another) at around the 16-18 mark without a trade up? Or maybe even moved into the 20’s and drafted a QB? How do you think you would react to that?

      • John says:

        You can ask me if I’d take Weeden in the 20’s like the Browns did, I’d give the same reaction. A player falling to us doesn’t mean much to me if I don’t already believe in the player. If that makes sense. If we take a QB in the first round they will be expected to start. Period. And I don’t think there is a QB in the draft that can start Week 1 and succeed, especially in our system.

        I didn’t really get into this before, but Seattle needs offensive COACHING, more than offensive talent in my mind. The NFL is the most coaching dependent sport in the world, and a good OC can make a tremendous difference. I am not sold on Wilson, but do I think anyone of Barkley, Smith, or Other-Wilson will give us a better chance to win going into next year? No.

        Look at the drop off between Brees without Peyton and Brees with Peyton. Take Rodgers out of Green Bay and he’s not going to be the MVP and dominate like he did last year. Reid made McNabb look like a first ballad hall-of-famer and Kolb and Foles look like NFL starters. System is everything in the NFL. One thing majorly hurting our perceptions of Wilson this year is RGIII’s success, Tannehill’s ok-ness, and last-year Cam. Here’s the thing though. Shanahan is a guru at tailoring an offense to a QB. He took Jake Plummer to an AFC Championship game. RGIII and Cam play in offenses that take a chunk out of their old college play books. Tannehill is literally playing in his college offense.

        We all want a QB to come in an win our hearts and minds so we can move forward. But outside of Andrew Luck or Manning, no QB is going to step in and perform well in a system that does so little to help them. Carroll is preaching about making things easy for RW, but in reality, he’s making it harder. You can’t put any rookie on a short leash and expect him to do well. Seattle needs an OC more than anything, and Carroll needs to stick to defense and trust an OC to develop the offense. And honestly I think these kind of OC are much easier to find than a scheme transcendent QB. As much as we all WANT a Brady or Rodgers, we need a system set in place first.

        This isn’t all on Bevell, Carroll is as much to blame, but an OC is really my issue. Do we need a wide receiver (alot of wide receivers)? Yes. Do we need a RT that doesn’t headbutt players? Yes. Do we need a QB? Yes. Wilson may or may not be the answer. But Seattle needs a Holmgrem, Reid, Peyton, Gruden, or Shanahan that can HELP their QBs. That doesn’t exist in Seattle. No one, and honestly no one, will succeed in the NFL when their motto to the QB is “don’t screw up”. Even if that is what SF is doing with Smith, Harbough is making it SO freaking easy for him. Coaching is the issue right now. More than talent. I believe that a QB friendly OC would change this conversation drastically.

        • Maki says:

          I repeatedly get laughed out of conversations when I raise these names — and I wouldnt trust either one to be the HC of a pop warner team . . . but, that being said, Hue Jackson is a pretty legit offensive mind that would bring creativity (both running and passing) and that bit of swagger that PC loves to the table.

          Where is he now? Wasting away in Cincy as their special teams coordinator . . .

        • HopScotch says:

          I keep tinkering with the idea that the FO should pick up Norv Turner as an OC if San Diego decides not to resign him this off season.

  4. jianfu says:

    I still can ‘t believe Bevell got another OC gig. Or, maybe he ‘s just a willing yes man for coaches with a set way of doing things?

    Remember the days when teams used to find championship calibur QBs off the journeyman list (Steve Young, Rich Gannon, Brett Favre, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees)? That was sort of cool. Obviously the trend nowise to draft and start a young guy, which is fun and typically more interesting than cycling through retreads. But sometimes I wonder if some team might identify a diamond in the rough again sometime soon, find a system match for somebody somewhere, and get a little lucky (particularly when opinions on the college Qb class are a biwn) . I think Seattle been fairly aggressive in this fairly older approach by giving second chances

    • jianfu says:

      Whoops…. wasn’t. Ready to publish that.

      Anyway, my point is maybe there are different ways to skin a cat when it comes to QB. Obviously, a fanbas that’s experienced a few too many Whitehirsts and TJacks isn’t going to get excited about the approach, but unless a team luck’s into an opportunity to nab a Peyton Manning in the draft, I can dig it to an extent.

      At least the NFC West is suddenly a three -yards-and-a-cloud of-dust division. Even if the Seahawks aren’t currently built to be high-flying team, you don ‘t need to win pretty against the Miners or Cards.

  5. I knew it wouldn’t be long until you started slipping the Matt Barkley comments back in, Rob. ;)

    If he’s falling to our draft position, I’m not sure he’s someone I’d want. Seems to have taken a tep back next year.

    As far as whether we pull the trigger in the draft next year, whatever dazzling first-round marquee QB we draft may not acclimate to the pros any faster than Wilson. Big QB’s don’t immediately catch on fire.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Sure, but the issue really is here – if Wilson doesn’t show he’s definitely worth long term consideration then they’ll need to decide whether a commitment goes to Wilson or if they have to consider alternatives in the draft. I don’t think you say, “Well, this may not work out.” Rather you say, “does this guy give us a better chance?” and just judge it from there. I want Wilson to nail this job but I’m getting more and more concerned every week. He absolutely has to trust the pocket more.

  6. austyb11 says:

    This is more a statement on our offensive scheme is run and less an indictment of our QB’s. I think either would struggle to succeed given how the scheme is currently run. When we do run our multi-WR sets, we seem to have our RB’s line up as WR’s quite often. I understand the rationale that they have mentioned for this, and that it is to create mismatches by forcing opposing D-coordinators to bring matching personnel in to deal with us having RB’s in the huddle. But, I also wonder if it promotes ineffectiveness. I don’t often notice Green Bay, the Patriots, or New Orleans doing the same thing. These potent offenses also add some sort of speedy receiving back ala Sproles, Woodhead, or Kevin Faulk. Green Bay being the exception. When they go 4- or 5- wide they do so with personnel that would make them more effective than using decoy RB’s as WR’s. Being smart as a coach isn’t always about trying to be smarter than the other coach. Sometimes it’s about putting people in position to succeed and then letting them do so. The way we run it though, it’s almost as if our staff hinders production. I just wonder if it’s Carroll or Bevell that is responsible for this because it seems to be antiquated in the modern passing-oriented NFL. If we’re gonna throw, I think we should put our 4 or 5 best receivers out there and let them do their jobs by getting open and catching the ball. I love Marshawn to death, but putting him out along the sideline as a WR seems to be counterproductive. Until I seem sort of hard evidence otherwise, I’m gonna believe putting a WR out there instead would be much more productive. The same thing goes for our use of Leon Washington. He was most productive for the Jets, and produced some amazing highlight reel plays, as a 3rd-down back for the Jets. He gave the offense a big-play option out of the backfield. We shouldn’t rely on “outsmarting” our opponent’s coaching staff. Trying to do so shows our coaches to be egotistical and unwilling to change and somewhat scares me as towards our team’s future offensive growth.

  7. Michael (CLT) says:

    QB will make for an interesting offseason. We continue to play the way we have, the record will allow for an investment.

    Man, I was so sure. Maybe it is just the first Beck year all over again. Ugh

  8. adog says:

    i thought the first drive of the St. Louis game was the template on how to use RW at qb this year. Play action on first and second down, roll him out, run counter passes, and just ask him to make one or two reads before a check down. To ask any rookie qb…no matter his size…to do anything more is asking for failure. It’s tempting to want to air it out… and have him throw the ball all over the field no matter the consequence, but i hope Carroll sticks to his guns and continues with his game plan. I’ll take a five hundred record in the first half of the year anytime since i expect the seahawks to win 6 games in the second half which will put us at 10-6…maybe enough to get us a wild card. Bevell’s play calling has been questionable, but not surprising. Rookie qb, no receiver that draws a double team consistently(on first down as well as 3rd down) and an average pass blocking offensive line. Also…the slot receiver…who is so very important in his offense has been absent from every game so far this year. Baldwin has been a huge disappointment this year. I’m not sure if they’ve been running Tate there or what, but it seems like every time the offense gets a blitz…no one is recognizing the blitz and breaking off their routes(which has been Tate’s main deficiency in his career). The worst passing game in the nfl is not on RW or Bevell, it’s on the O line and the receivers for less than average play on the blitz reads\execution and on overall pass blocking and route running in general.

  9. A. Simmons says:

    If Carroll plays musical offensive coordinators, he’ll likely end up like Mike Nolan. You keep expecting a rookie to learn new offensive systems every year, you court failure. Bevell needs to stop being too clever and take what the defense is giving him and do a better job exploiting matchups. You don’t run plays in a vacuum. Some of these young OCs like Bevell and Bates like to pretend their clever rather than do what works. There is a way to operate an offense and that is keep doing things that work until they get stopped. Bevell doesn’t seem to do that. He seems to try to run strange plays like pitch outs and quarterback draws hoping to hit a big play when he doesn’t need to. You don’t do that with a young offense. You teach them to do a few things very well and continue to rely on those. Bevell needs to get that through his head if he wants to be a quality OC.

  10. James says:

    Development of a QB requires enormous patience, even after you have picked the right guy. It can go up and down and up and down for at least a couple of years before the guy settles into the job. It can even go 4 or 5 years (god forbid!). Two of the best performing QBs this year are Alex Smith and Kevin Kolb. Yes, Alex Smith and Kevin Kolb. Both guys were total and absolute busts…Smith over the course of several years, and Kolb an utter failure last year. Cam Newton was the next John Elway, and now the wheels are coming off. He may well be Elway again by this time next year. Christain Ponder was a joke and now is the next big thing. Ryan Tannehill is throwing for 400 yds/game with Div II WRs (would that we had Philbin calling our plays). I see the same potential for Russell Wilson to perform in the NFL as he did at Wisconsin, if the coaches have the sense to use the same type of offense. But this could take 2 or 3 years, we are just going to have to hang in there. (It seems clear to me that Matt Flynn lacks adequate arm strength and was straining to make the throws in practice that a starter has to make, and he has injured a tendon in his arm. This is no “dead arm” that heals in a week. It certainly doesn’t appear that he can handle the load. We should stay the course with Russell Wilson, who I would take any day over Matt Barkely, Geno Smith, or you name it.)

    • peter says:

      james,

      well stated. Ryan Tannehill didi have a heck of a game as far as yards go, but what a nice situation for him to enter his rookie year, with the same OC that was your college coach.

      I completely agree with the points above, it’s taken Flacco and Matt Ryan four years to go from flashes of brilliance to as pundits say “taking the next step,’ and not just managing their teams. ALex SMith after 7 years of workinghis craft and honestly being suprememly lucky to ot get dumped out of SF by any number of coaching regime changes to meld into this hybrid manager who can take a risk every now and again.

      People calling for Flynn, need to do two things that don’t involve talking about the transititve power of football via watching an elite talent making you an elite talent. First, review Matt Hasselbeck’s first season here in seattle. And with that go and review Drew Brees’ first season in New Orleans, any change in system regardless of how good is going to come with slow starts, moments of greatness, and all around face palming. THen the second thing is go take a look at Flacco/Ryan’s numbers for their rookie seasons, and then go ahead and add in almost all currently great qb’s rookie season and note the pattern. It’s that with few exceptions they threw in the wheelhouse of 3000 yards (plus or minus for some) and their TD’s to Int’s ratios for the most part were pretty crappy.

      Rob, if Seattle is in the Market for a QB this off season I don’t think I will calling for the end of the world, I would like for Seattle, tolay off their perceived track record of mid round or odd talent plucking success, and just go all in, drop a few picks and get someone who they can really get behind Barkeley, Smith, Wilson, whomever. The lamest thing would be to draft a 3rd round guy, or some late first rounder who “falls to us,” and open a three way competition again.

      • Mtjhoyas says:

        Well said. To piggyback on the idea of going all in on somebody, I think they need to do that to show conviction in the QB position.

        They have set themselves up nicely to say, “well we didn’t really go hard after that guy,” should said QB fail. Kind of a cop out if you ask me.

  11. PatrickH says:

    Two nice articles at the following links on Russell Wilson’s performance in the last game:

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/any-given-sunday/2012/any-given-sunday-rams-over-seahawks

    and http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/38624/4th-and-short-a-tale-of-two-quarterbacks

    (The grantland article actually discusses Peyton Manning first; so will need to scroll down to read the discussion on Wilson.)

    My take away from the footballoutsiders article: RW has not been able to adapt his progression read based on what the defense showed him pre-snap. This is to be expected for a rookie.

    My take away from the grantland article: RW’s height may be an issue when it comes to quick, 3-step passes. Perhaps a reason the coaches have rarely called those kinds of plays.