PDA

View Full Version : Seahawks 2 Games Back From A Playoff Spot


eltwentyone
12-04-2011, 10:56 PM
I was reading this on another website credits go to Tim Tebow

suh suspended one more game

Cutler and Forte down

rams, bears cards on our schedule

Looks like only thing that can stop us is the 49ers

http://i.imgur.com/dnROj.jpg

PoopSandwich
12-04-2011, 11:03 PM
http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss146/MetroidBob/Cool-Story-Poe.jpg

XxXdragonXxX
12-04-2011, 11:08 PM
I think they get the help they need from the Lions, Bears and Giants. However inconsistent QB play and an increasingly banged up O-line will probably blow it for them.

It would be just like this years Seahawks to beat the Rams, Bears and Niners and then lay an egg against the Cardinals.

gpngc
12-04-2011, 11:22 PM
Messing around with the playoff machine... If the Seahawks win out, they will most likely make the playoffs... it's insane but true.

The losses to the Browns and Skins absolutely killed them.

It really is possible though. Without 3/5 of the OL and no Sidney Rice, it's tough to believe but if they can win on MNF against St. Louis, go into Chicago and beat McNabb/Hanie, it would set the stage for a crazy scene at home against SF (who could have the 2-seed locked up by then).

For some reason if the 6th wild card is a 9-7 team, and the Seahawks are one of them, they win most tiebreakers...

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 06:53 AM
Why would you even want to make the playoffs with a ****** team? You wont win anything worthwhile and you'll screw yourself out of a good draft pick

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 08:33 AM
Why would you even want to make the playoffs with a ****** team? You wont win anything worthwhile and you'll screw yourself out of a good draft pick

Anything can happen in the playoffs, they did beat New Orleans last year.

Plus winning breeds confidence throughout the team. Ending the year on such a high can carry over. Plus, the difference between a pick in the late teens and the early 20s isn't that much.

JBCX
12-05-2011, 08:33 AM
Until they get a real QB, they are actually better off playing for a higher draft position.

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 08:36 AM
Anything can happen in the playoffs, they did beat New Orleans last year.

Plus winning breeds confidence throughout the team. Ending the year on such a high can carry over. Plus, the difference between a pick in the late teens and the early 20s isn't that much.

I'm not trying to say they should lose, I'm just wondering why Seattle fans are hoping for this, It would be like Colts fans hoping that they and Miami were in reverse positions.

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 08:36 AM
Until they get a real QB, they are actually better off playing for a higher draft position.

I really don't get this line of thinking. There are multiple teams with questions at QB. By this logic all of these teams should tank the season to be in play for a legit QB prospect???

The QB is the most important part of the team, but not the only part. Players are professional. They play to be the best, gain more value in terms of contracts and for pride. Try telling a locker room "hey guys we are ok but not great. If we deliberately suck the rest of the year we can get an untested rookie to carry us"

I don't think that would go over well in pretty much any locker room

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 08:38 AM
I'm not trying to say they should lose, I'm just wondering why Seattle fans are hoping for this, It would be like Colts fans hoping that they and Miami were in reverse positions.

Miami definitely won't make the postseason. I understand maybe with one or two games left to think that the season's over. But, if you have any chance at the postseason then you should for damn sure play your ass off. Just ask Takeo Spikes who has never been to the playoffs what that would mean

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 08:39 AM
Miami definitely won't make the postseason. I understand maybe with one or two games left to think that the season's over. But, if you have any chance at the postseason then you should for damn sure play your ass off. Just ask Takeo Spikes who has never been to the playoffs what that would mean

Again, I'm not trying to say the team should try to lose, I'm totally against it, I'm just wondering why Seattle fans would want that scenario to play out

JBCX
12-05-2011, 08:43 AM
I really don't get this line of thinking. There are multiple teams with questions at QB. By this logic all of these teams should tank the season to be in play for a legit QB prospect???

The QB is the most important part of the team, but not the only part. Players are professional. They play to be the best, gain more value in terms of contracts and for pride. Try telling a locker room "hey guys we are ok but not great. If we deliberately suck the rest of the year we can get an untested rookie to carry us"

I don't think that would go over well in pretty much any locker room

If you don't have a top-10 QB in the NFL, you are basically never winning a Super Bowl and probably not winning many games in the regular season with any consistency.

On the other hand, if you do have one of those top-10, top-5 guys, you will be blessed with a decade or more of 10+ win seasons, playoffs nearly every year, and a strong chance to win one or more Super Bowls.

A team should do everything in its power to try to obtain one a franchise QB. If that means "tanking" games (by, say, sticking with an inferior QB as a starter and installing crappy gameplans), then so be it. Having a franchise QB is the most important thing in the NFL.

I mean, obviously, you don't tell the players in the locker room that you want to tank the season, but you don't go out of your way to give them a fighting chance. For example, see what the Colts are doing this year. Sticking with Caldwell, Orlovsky, and Painter will basically allow them to dominate the AFC for another decade after they draft Andrew Luck.

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 08:46 AM
Again, I'm not trying to say the team should try to lose, I'm totally against it, I'm just wondering why Seattle fans would want that scenario to play out

Yeah I understand your logic but I am of the opinion that anything can happen in the playoffs. The Giants sneaked in as a wildcard in 2007 and won the Superbowl. The Packers sneaked in last year. Sure both those teams have legit QBs but with a few breaks the Seahawks could get lucky.

Say for instance, if the Seahawks get a wildcard and play Dallas. That's not a foregone conclusion for the Cowboys.

Then they get the 49ers in the divisional round. Very possible to beat them.

Then the conference game at Lambeau or NO. Sure they would be big underdogs but any given Sunday and all that jazz.

With a few breaks they could get on a roll especially with Marshawn Lynch balling at the minute

JBCX
12-05-2011, 08:48 AM
Yeah I understand your logic but I am of the opinion that anything can happen in the playoffs. The Giants sneaked in as a wildcard in 2007 and won the Superbowl. The Packers sneaked in last year. Sure both those teams have legit QBs but with a few breaks the Seahawks could get lucky.


You just ignored your own logic there. Those teams both had legit franchise QBs. A team with Tarvaris Jackson as their QB is simply *NOT* *EVER* getting to a Super Bowl, let alone winning one.

The ONLY way a crappy QB is winning a Super Bowl is if his defense is a lockdown unit (2000 Ravens, 1985 Bears). The 2011 Seahawks defense is mediocre at best. Solid stopping the run, but kind of bad otherwise.

Raiderz4Life
12-05-2011, 08:48 AM
If you don't have a top-10 QB in the NFL, you are basically never winning a Super Bowl and probably not winning many games in the regular season with any consistency.

On the other hand, if you do have one of those top-10, top-5 guys, you will be blessed with a decade or more of 10+ win seasons, playoffs nearly every year, and a strong chance to win one or more Super Bowls.

A team should do everything in its power to try to obtain one a franchise QB. If that means "tanking" games (by, say, sticking with an inferior QB as a starter and installing crappy gameplans), then so be it. Having a franchise QB is the most important thing in the NFL.

I mean, obviously, you don't tell the players in the locker room that you want to tank the season, but you don't go out of your way to give them a fighting chance. For example, see what the Colts are doing this year. Sticking with Caldwell, Orlovsky, and Painter will basically allow them to dominate the AFC for another decade after they draft Andrew Luck.

Worst. Logic. Ever.

JBCX
12-05-2011, 08:50 AM
Worst. Logic. Ever.

Doing whatever it takes to get a person who will help you win 10+ games year-in and year-out is terrible logic, right?

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 08:51 AM
You just ignored your own logic there. Those teams both had legit franchise QBs. A team with Tarvaris Jackson as their QB is simply *NOT* *EVER* getting to a Super Bowl, let alone winning one.

How am I ignoring my own logic???

My point was clearly once you get to the playoffs anything can happen.

It is easier with a bona fide franchise QB but it is not an exclusive thing.

I seem to remember Trent Dilfer winning a superbowl. A combination of Rex Grossman/Kyle Orton made a Superbowl a few years back.

Rosebud
12-05-2011, 08:52 AM
Worst. Logic. Ever.

JPP is a bust.

JBCX
12-05-2011, 09:00 AM
How am I ignoring my own logic???

My point was clearly once you get to the playoffs anything can happen.

It is easier with a bona fide franchise QB but it is not an exclusive thing.

I seem to remember Trent Dilfer winning a superbowl. A combination of Rex Grossman/Kyle Orton made a Superbowl a few years back.

No, anything cannot happen.

Trent Dilfer had a lockdown defense, maybe the best the NFL has ever seen.

Rex Grossman also had a lockdown defense (in addition to the best PR/KOR in the history of the NFL), and even that was not enough to actually win the Super Bowl.

Do the 2011 Seahawks have a lockdown defense? No. They cannot replicate the success of the 2000 Ravens or 2006 Bears.

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 09:16 AM
No, anything cannot happen.

Trent Dilfer had a lockdown defense, maybe the best the NFL has ever seen.

Rex Grossman also had a lockdown defense (in addition to the best PR/KOR in the history of the NFL), and even that was not enough to actually win the Super Bowl.

Do the 2011 Seahawks have a lockdown defense? No. They cannot replicate the success of the 2000 Ravens or 2006 Bears.

Ok well since my crystal ball isn't working you tell me how this scenario absolutely 100% definitely can not happen.

In a one off playoff game, is there absolutely no chance the Seahawks can beat Dallas? Tony Romo does have a history of choking on the biggest stage, including once already against Seattle(fumbled snap on FG).

In a one off playoff game can the Seahawks not have any chance in hell of beating the Alex Smith led 49ers?

In a one off playoff chance is there absolutely no chance of the Seahawks beating the Packers? Say Aaron Rodgers suffers yet another concussion in the divisional game and Charles Woodson breaks his collarbone. Still no chance?

Is there no chance that Seattle could then beat the TJ Yates led Texans in the Superbowl? Or the Patriots who just gave up 450 yards and 24 points to the Dan Orlovsky led winless Colts? Or the Ravens who lost to the Blaine Gabbert led Jags? Or the Steelers who beat two of the worst teams in the NFL(Colts and Chiefs) by a combined 7 points?

There is absolutely no chance at all? Now I'll admit that the odds are against them but anything can happen in the playoffs

JBCX
12-05-2011, 09:20 AM
Ok well since my crystal ball isn't working you tell me how this scenario absolutely 100% definitely can not happen.

In a one off playoff game, is there absolutely no chance the Seahawks can beat Dallas? Tony Romo does have a history of choking on the biggest stage, including once already against Seattle(fumbled snap).

In a one off playoff game can the Seahawks not have any chance in hell of beating the Alex Smith led 49ers?

In a one off playoff chance is there absolutely no chance of the Seahawks beating the Packers? Say Aaron Rodgers suffers yet another concussion in the divisional game and Charles Woodson breaks his collarbone. Still no chance?

Is there no chance that Seattle could then beat the TJ Yates led Texans in the Superbowl? Or the Patriots who just gave up 450 yards and 24 points to the Dan Orlovsky led winless Colts? Or the Ravens who lost to the Blaine Gabbert led Jags? Or the Steelers who beat two of the worst teams in the NFL(Colts and Chiefs) by a combined 7 points?

There is absolutely no chance at all? Now I'll admit that the odds are against them but anything can happen in the playoffs

There is a very, very, very infinitesimal chance that the Seahawks catch lucky breaks against superior opponents in three straight games to make it to a Super Bowl. I guess technically, everything stands a chance in this world, but the chance is just so very slight that it's not even worth discussing.

Trent Dilfer and Rex Grossman, on the other hand, had pretty positive chances to get to the Super Bowl because their defenses were just so good. If Tarvaris Jackson were the QB on an elite shutdown defense, I'd definitely give them a shot to make the Super Bowl. But those defenses are just so rare.

Rosebud
12-05-2011, 09:22 AM
Still going to the playoffs is good for the squad's confidence, teaches guys what it takes to win, creates excitement for the fan base which ultimately means they sell more merch and that puts more money in the Owner's pockets. Plus it creates extra attention for next season which could mean more primetime games.

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 09:24 AM
If you don't have a top-10 QB in the NFL, you are basically never winning a Super Bowl and probably not winning many games in the regular season with any consistency.

On the other hand, if you do have one of those top-10, top-5 guys, you will be blessed with a decade or more of 10+ win seasons, playoffs nearly every year, and a strong chance to win one or more Super Bowls.

A team should do everything in its power to try to obtain one a franchise QB. If that means "tanking" games (by, say, sticking with an inferior QB as a starter and installing crappy gameplans), then so be it. Having a franchise QB is the most important thing in the NFL.

I mean, obviously, you don't tell the players in the locker room that you want to tank the season, but you don't go out of your way to give them a fighting chance. For example, see what the Colts are doing this year. Sticking with Caldwell, Orlovsky, and Painter will basically allow them to dominate the AFC for another decade after they draft Andrew Luck.

It certainly helps, but it certainly doesn't guarantee you anything either. The idea that QB's win SB is a ridiculously untrue stigma. In general, complete teams win SBs, a franchise QB on a ****** team probably won't do very much.

I mean Peyton only has a ring because they got lucky enough to play the damn Bears (yes they beat the Pats but it was one of the rare times).

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 09:24 AM
There is a very, very, very infinitesimal chance that the Seahawks catch lucky breaks against superior opponents in three straight games to make it to a Super Bowl. I guess technically, everything stands a chance in this world, but the chance is just so very slight that it's not even worth discussing.

But that's why teams and fans always hope their team can make it to the playoffs. The playoff system is structured to give the best teams the best chance, ie, playoff seeding, bye week etc.

However wildcard teams very often cause upsets and get further than they should. Who would have thought the Arizona Cardinals would have been a downright amazing drive from Ben Roethlisberger and Santonio Holmes away from winning the Superbowl.

If I'm a fan of Seattle, Chicago, Detroit, NYJ, Tennessee, NYG, Dallas, Atlanta, Oakland, Denver etc or pretty much any team with a legitimate shot at the playoffs(not including the top 5 or 6 teams) I am hoping to get to the playoffs.

JBCX
12-05-2011, 09:27 AM
It certainly helps, but it certainly doesn't guarantee you anything either. The idea that QB's win SB is a ridiculously untrue stigma. In general, complete teams win SBs, a franchise QB on a ****** team probably won't do very much.

I mean Peyton only has a ring because they got lucky enough to play the damn Bears (yes they beat the Pats but it was one of the rare times).

Obviously, having a top-10 QB doesn't guarantee you a Super Bowl, but it is a prerequisite to winning one, unless you have an all-time great defense.

And a top-10 QB usually guarantees you multiple 10+ win seasons, which is usually a prerequisite for being in the playoff picture.

Yes, obviously, you have to fill out your team around your top-10 QB, but until you have that top-10 QB, you had better not be drafting ANY other position with your first round draft pick, AND you need to be giving your team the best opportunity to draft that QB.

abaddon41_80
12-05-2011, 09:28 AM
Ok well since my crystal ball isn't working you tell me how this scenario absolutely 100% definitely can not happen.

In a one off playoff game, is there absolutely no chance the Seahawks can beat Dallas? Tony Romo does have a history of choking on the biggest stage, including once already against Seattle(fumbled snap on FG).

In a one off playoff game can the Seahawks not have any chance in hell of beating the Alex Smith led 49ers?

In a one off playoff chance is there absolutely no chance of the Seahawks beating the Packers? Say Aaron Rodgers suffers yet another concussion in the divisional game and Charles Woodson breaks his collarbone. Still no chance?

Is there no chance that Seattle could then beat the TJ Yates led Texans in the Superbowl? Or the Patriots who just gave up 450 yards and 24 points to the Dan Orlovsky led winless Colts? Or the Ravens who lost to the Blaine Gabbert led Jags? Or the Steelers who beat two of the worst teams in the NFL(Colts and Chiefs) by a combined 7 points?

There is absolutely no chance at all? Now I'll admit that the odds are against them but anything can happen in the playoffs

There is a small chance of anything happening but the chance of any of those things happening is so small individually that the chance of all of them happening might as well be zero.

Your mention of QBs is also extremely flawed considering the Seahawks QB is Tarvaris Jackson, who is miles worse than Alex Smith and not significantly better than TJ Yates from the little we have seen from him this year.

JBCX
12-05-2011, 09:31 AM
However wildcard teams very often cause upsets and get further than they should. Who would have thought the Arizona Cardinals would have been a downright amazing drive from Ben Roethlisberger and Santonio Holmes away from winning the Superbowl.


That team had a Hall of Fame QB throwing for 4000+ yards on its roster. Any team with a top-10 QB and a decent or better defense stands a chance.

A team with a bottom-10 QB, unless it has an all time great defense, does not stand a chance.


If I'm a fan of Seattle, Chicago, Detroit, NYJ, Tennessee, NYG, Dallas, Atlanta, Oakland, Denver etc or pretty much any team with a legitimate shot at the playoffs(not including the top 5 or 6 teams) I am hoping to get to the playoffs.

Only if you have a franchise QB. If you don't, then it's simply a fruitless exercise in lowering your draft pick and preventing you from obtaining your future franchise QB. I'm all for the Lions, the Giants, the Falcons, the Bears (if Cutler comes back), the Jets (if you still believe in Sanchez), the Cowboys (if you believein Romo for the tnext 5+ years), and the Titans getting into the playoffs, because they already have their franchise QBs in place and have no need to maximize the slotting of their first round draft pick to get a franchise QB. But Seattle, and probably Oakland, and probably Denver, are simply doing nothing but hurting themselves in the long run by trying to make the playoffs.

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 09:38 AM
Obviously, having a top-10 QB doesn't guarantee you a Super Bowl, but it is a prerequisite to winning one, unless you have an all-time great defense.

And a top-10 QB usually guarantees you multiple 10+ win seasons, which is usually a prerequisite for being in the playoff picture.

Yes, obviously, you have to fill out your team around your top-10 QB, but until you have that top-10 QB, you had better not be drafting ANY other position with your first round draft pick, AND you need to be giving your team the best opportunity to draft that QB.

Well no ****... if you win a SB and don't have a good QB you have a good D (not all time great thats just ridiculous) and maybe a good running game.

What you've essentially said is you need a good team if you don't have a good QB and you need a good team if you do... the point being that good teams are conducive to SBs, not just teams with a good QB

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 09:42 AM
There is a small chance of anything happening but the chance of any of those things happening is so small individually that the chance of all of them happening might as well be zero.

Your mention of QBs is also extremely flawed considering the Seahawks QB is Tarvaris Jackson, who is miles worse than Alex Smith and not significantly better than TJ Yates from the little we have seen from him this year.

So it would be better for fans to think "aw ****, we're probably not going to win the Superbowl so we may as well lose a few games so we can draft someone. Oh and we're too good to be in play for one of the top QBs so we may as well lose so we can draft someone like Blaine Gabbert"???

JBCX
12-05-2011, 09:54 AM
Well no ****... if you win a SB and don't have a good QB you have a good D (not all time great thats just ridiculous) and maybe a good running game.

What you've essentially said is you need a good team if you don't have a good QB and you need a good team if you do... the point being that good teams are conducive to SBs, not just teams with a good QB

No - what I'm saying is that if you don't have a top-10 QB, you're screwed, unless you're one of maybe 4-5 teams in the history of the NFL with a defense otherworldly-awesome enough to compensate for the lack of a top-10 QB.

So in other words, unless you have a top-10 QB you're not going anywhere.

JBCX
12-05-2011, 09:59 AM
So it would be better for fans to think "aw ****, we're probably not going to win the Superbowl so we may as well lose a few games so we can draft someone. Oh and we're too good to be in play for one of the top QBs so we may as well lose so we can draft someone like Blaine Gabbert"???

Or they could draft someone like Ben Roethlisberger, or Joe Flacco.

Do you think the Pittsburgh fans are glad their team didn't go on a meaningless playoff run in 2003 when they had Tommy Maddux and Charlie Batch as their QBs? Instead they finished 6-10 and had a high enough draft pick to grab Ben Roethlisberger in the first round.

Do you think the Baltimore fans are glad their team didn't go on a playoff run in 2007 when their QBs were Kyle Boller and an aging Steve McNair? Their 5-11 finish enabled them to draft Joe Flacco in the first round in 2008.

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 10:05 AM
No - what I'm saying is that if you don't have a top-10 QB, you're screwed, unless you're one of maybe 4-5 teams in the history of the NFL with a defense otherworldly-awesome enough to compensate for the lack of a top-10 QB.

So in other words, unless you have a top-10 QB you're not going anywhere.

Wow I'm sorry but this is one of the dumber things you've ever said...

the 2005 Steelers didn't even have the best defense in the league the year they won the SB much less one of the top 5 defenses of all time... and before you say Ben is a top 10 QB, no he ******* wasn't at the time

This is just one of the most recent that comes to mind and don't worry, there are more

wogitalia
12-05-2011, 10:10 AM
Obviously, having a top-10 QB doesn't guarantee you a Super Bowl, but it is a prerequisite to winning one, unless you have an all-time great defense.

WTF? In the last 5 years we've seen the Steelers win without a top 10, the Ravens win without a top 10, the Giants win with at best a very questionable top 10. Throw in the Bucs and Pats for the first one and you have half the recent winners.

Then you can go to the teams that nearly won one, ie the runners up. Seahawks, Bears and Panthers at the very least.

Fact is that if you can make the playoffs you have a chance, I mean didn't the Seahawks manage to beat the Saints last year? It only takes a good little run with health, a couple of plays here and there and you can be in a Super Bowl.

Fact is that a QB is a nice bonus, you know the only pre-requisite for winning a SB, being in the playoffs.

On top of which, the difference between picks 15-25 just isn't significant enough for fans to be cheering for their team to miss the playoffs. That is just stupid logic.

Now those teams that completely suck, sure why would you want to win, but a team like the Seahawks is getting a middling pick anyway, may as well try and win the whole thing.

JBCX
12-05-2011, 10:23 AM
WTF? In the last 5 years we've seen the Steelers win without a top 10, the Ravens win without a top 10, the Giants win with at best a very questionable top 10. Throw in the Bucs and Pats for the first one and you have half the recent winners.


Eli Manning is a top-10 QB, as is Ben Roethlisberger. At the very least they are franchise QBs if you quibble with their spot in the top QBs listing.

The Ravens are one of the few (I mean, very few) teams in Super Bowl history to win without a true franchise QB. It's the exception; not the rule.


Then you can go to the teams that nearly won one, ie the runners up. Seahawks, Bears and Panthers at the very least.


Bears, again, like the Ravens, had an elite shutdown defense. The Seahawks had a franchise QB that year; his name was Matt Hasselbeck, and you could argue that he was a top-10 QB that year. The Panthers, as well, had a franchise QB, even if he wasn't necessarily top-10 at the time.


Fact is that if you can make the playoffs you have a chance, I mean didn't the Seahawks manage to beat the Saints last year? It only takes a good little run with health, a couple of plays here and there and you can be in a Super Bowl.


Wrong. The Seahawks had a nice flukey win over the Saints at hoome, but were clearly outmatched in the playoffs on the road. Without a franchise QB, they didnt' stand a chance. All they did last year was hurt their draft positioning in 2011's draft.


On top of which, the difference between picks 15-25 just isn't significant enough for fans to be cheering for their team to miss the playoffs. That is just stupid logic.


There's a big difference between a playoff pick stuck in the 21-32 range and a non-playoff pick in the upper part of the first round.

Seattle's 2010 win over the Rams, and subsequent divisional crown, cost them the opportunity to pick in the top-15. If they had lost to the Rams at the end of the season, they would have been picking somewhere between #10 and #14, but by winning, their draft pick fell to #25.


Now those teams that completely suck, sure why would you want to win, but a team like the Seahawks is getting a middling pick anyway, may as well try and win the whole thing.

Because they're simply not giong to win it all with Tarvaris Jackson. They're only going to win it all when they have a real franchise QB.

JBCX
12-05-2011, 10:27 AM
Wow I'm sorry but this is one of the dumber things you've ever said...

the 2005 Steelers didn't even have the best defense in the league the year they won the SB much less one of the top 5 defenses of all time... and before you say Ben is a top 10 QB, no he ******* wasn't at the time


I don't know where you're getting your facts but they're wrong.

Ben Roethlisberger was clearly a franchise, top-15, top-10 QB in 2005. His stat line from that year was the following:

62.7% completion percentage, 2385 yards, 17 TDs, 9 INTs, 98.6 QB rating. And this was in 12 games, as well.

I'd wager a tidy sum of money that if the Steelers never drafted Ben Roethlisberger, they don't win a single Super Bowl in the past 10 years.

prock
12-05-2011, 10:35 AM
You are right, drafting order is more important than winning games. Why would you want to increase veteran, coach, and fan base confidence when you can just tank and get a higher projected 21 year old college kid? As a Vikings fan, I would much rather see my team finish 6-10 and show some sort of confidence and competence than being 2-14 and getting Kalil or Claiborne.

dan77733
12-05-2011, 10:40 AM
Playoffs????? Playoffs??? Lol.

wogitalia
12-05-2011, 10:48 AM
Eli Manning is a top-10 QB, as is Ben Roethlisberger. At the very least they are franchise QBs if you quibble with their spot in the top QBs listing.


They are now, rookie Roethlisberger was at absolute best scraping into 10th spot. Manning was absolutely borderline top 10 when they won the Superbowl.

The Ravens are one of the few (I mean, very few) teams in Super Bowl history to win without a true franchise QB. It's the exception; not the rule.

Just because a guy becomes a franchise QB in the future does not make them one when they won it, I gave you Roethlisberger, Manning, Brady, Dilfer and Johnson who were not franchise QBs when they won a SB. That's 5 in 10 years, when 50% of the guys aren't it's more of a norm than an exception.

Bears, again, like the Ravens, had an elite shutdown defense. The Seahawks had a franchise QB that year; his name was Matt Hasselbeck, and you could argue that he was a top-10 QB that year. The Panthers, as well, had a franchise QB, even if he wasn't necessarily top-10 at the time.

Every team has a "franchise" QB, doesn't mean they are any good. When you are stretching to call them top 10, they are average. The QBs in the 10-20 range are JAGs at that position, not elite. You could argue that TJack is at that 20 type range.

Wrong. The Seahawks had a nice flukey win over the Saints at hoome, but were clearly outmatched in the playoffs on the road. Without a franchise QB, they didnt' stand a chance. All they did last year was hurt their draft positioning in 2011's draft.

The Giants, Cardinals and Packers were just making up the numbers in week 1 as well. Rodgers got hot going into the playoffs, Fitz went godlike for a month and the Giants somehow got through the NFC and went in as ridiculous underdogs and shocked the world. Making the playoffs, hell scraping into the playoffs is what it took for them to then get to a SB.

Seattle's 2010 win over the Rams, and subsequent divisional crown, cost them the opportunity to pick in the top-15. If they had lost to the Rams at the end of the season, they would have been picking somewhere between #10 and #14, but by winning, their draft pick fell to #25.

What was the massive difference between those two picks? Look at the guys taken in that 25-40 range in comparison to the guys in the 10-25 range, there is no noticeable difference at this point in time. This isn't the NBA where there are 2-3 game changers in a draft.

You can't win the SB without being in the playoffs, you can get a franchise QB or whatever you need in the 20s of the draft. The two are not mutually exclusive. Look at the top teams over the past few years, Saints, Jets, Pats, Steelers, Ravens and Packers, how many of them tanked for their QB? Not one of them is the answer. In fact they are loaded with guys taken in the teens and laters and good signings.

How many of the teams that tanked drafts and have had multiple top picks are any good? Raiders, Chiefs, Redskins, Dolphins, Bills, Broncos, Panthers, Cards and co? Heck even the Lions with half a dozen years of top 10 picks aren't that good.

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 10:52 AM
You are right, drafting order is more important than winning games. Why would you want to increase veteran, coach, and fan base confidence when you can just tank and get a higher projected 21 year old college kid? As a Vikings fan, I would much rather see my team finish 6-10 and show some sort of confidence and competence than being 2-14 and getting Kalil or Claiborne.

I could not agree more.

I can only assume that since this is a draft website that a lot of people are putting way too much into that area of bettering a team.

There are other ways of getting better. Sure the chances of getting of franchise QB prospect later than in the top half of the first round are slimmer but winning teams are more likely to attract top FAs who want to win a Championship.

Plus how can you keep your top veterans happy if you are saying they can't win so they're going to tank a few games to get an unproven QB?

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 11:08 AM
I don't know where you're getting your facts but they're wrong.

Ben Roethlisberger was clearly a franchise, top-15, top-10 QB in 2005. His stat line from that year was the following:

62.7% completion percentage, 2385 yards, 17 TDs, 9 INTs, 98.6 QB rating. And this was in 12 games, as well.

I'd wager a tidy sum of money that if the Steelers never drafted Ben Roethlisberger, they don't win a single Super Bowl in the past 10 years.

First of all, as usual, you are just using stat lines which we have all tried to explain to you are not telling of what occurs.

Second of all, those are hardly top 10 QB #s. Ben was a game manager that year at best and the focus point of the offense was the run.

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 11:11 AM
You are right, drafting order is more important than winning games. Why would you want to increase veteran, coach, and fan base confidence when you can just tank and get a higher projected 21 year old college kid? As a Vikings fan, I would much rather see my team finish 6-10 and show some sort of confidence and competence than being 2-14 and getting Kalil or Claiborne.

I guess, I just don't see how limping into the playoffs, only to get inevitably crushed helps your team. I'm not saying they should try to lose or pack it in, I just wouldn't be excited about it as a fan if I knew I really had no shot but was playing myself out of any sort of contention for a top QB that my team really needs.

It's really irrelevant anyway as I doubt they pull it off.

prock
12-05-2011, 11:37 AM
I guess, I just don't see how limping into the playoffs, only to get inevitably crushed helps your team. I'm not saying they should try to lose or pack it in, I just wouldn't be excited about it as a fan if I knew I really had no shot but was playing myself out of any sort of contention for a top QB that my team really needs.

It's really irrelevant anyway as I doubt they pull it off.

Well the Seahawks were 7-9 last year in the playoffs and no one gave them a shot and they beat the defending champs. That's what everyone else has been arguing, once you are in the playoffs anything can happen. And I would rather be in the playoffs and get crushed than miss them entirely.

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 12:00 PM
Well the Seahawks were 7-9 last year in the playoffs and no one gave them a shot and they beat the defending champs. That's what everyone else has been arguing, once you are in the playoffs anything can happen. And I would rather be in the playoffs and get crushed than miss them entirely.

I'm not a Seahawks fan (I know your not either) but I'm looking at this from a draftnik perspective of the Seahawks really needing a QB in this coming draft and if this plays out the way that it did they would be playing themselves into a bad position. I know that there isn't much difference between 15-25 but top 15 is better and it's a lot easier to trade up from a mid round slot than a bottom of the round slot

AntoinCD
12-05-2011, 12:09 PM
I'm not a Seahawks fan (I know your not either) but I'm looking at this from a draftnik perspective of the Seahawks really needing a QB in this coming draft and if this plays out the way that it did they would be playing themselves into a bad position. I know that there isn't much difference between 15-25 but top 15 is better and it's a lot easier to trade up from a mid round slot than a bottom of the round slot

I think that's were the differences of opinion are coming from. If you look at it from a draftnik's point of view than you would want a premium pick every year, regardless of need. However fans and teams think exactly the opposite.

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 12:13 PM
I think that's were the differences of opinion are coming from. If you look at it from a draftnik's point of view than you would want a premium pick every year, regardless of need. However fans and teams think exactly the opposite.

Yes I mean if I were a fan of Seattle I would probably be more optomistic about their chances should they make it to the playoffs as well.

From an outsiders point of view I just see a team that desperately needs a QB

prock
12-05-2011, 12:44 PM
They do, but making the playoffs would obviously be preferable. It gives all their young talent more experience in big games, and they will figure out the QB later. They can always grab someone like Tannehill or someone of that caliber in the twenties. They can get a decent prospect like Foles in the second. These are just random examples, but just because they wouldn't be top 15 doesn't mean they can't get a decent quarterback.

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 12:55 PM
I don't disagree that they could pick someone up later, I just don't really like Tannehill or Foles as prospects. Not that they don't deserve a shot; anything can happen. If I were a GM though I would prefer a higher percentage pick.

I don't know, if the ultimate goal is to win a SB and your team has made the playoffs two years in a row, you might be looking at your window if there is one and getting someone in there now is pretty important

SuperPacker
12-05-2011, 02:35 PM
JBCX

Im guessing you said Blaine Gabbert had NO chance of beating the Ravens? And that the Bills has no chance to beat the Patriots? If someone had said to you Tom Brady would be one of the best quarterbacks ever when he got drafted you would of probably said NO NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

EDIT: Just because you get a early pick it dont mean you're goinf to get an amazing QB. Look at Gabbert and Dalton. Gabbert took with the 10th overall pick and Dalton taken in the 2nd round. And it didnt take long to realise the Jags had a bust and the Bengals had a stud!

Bengalsrocket
12-05-2011, 04:45 PM
Does anybody remember when the Patriots used the 1st overall pick to get their stud QB that won them 10+ games a season for the next 10 years?

I get that Tom Brady is the exception, and not the rule. That is my point though. The Seahawks could be an exception and win something of value (a fighting chance at the Superbowl has value to me, as a fan btw even if they don't ultimately win the Superbowl).

eltwentyone
12-05-2011, 04:55 PM
raised an interesting discussion, one and done teams vs draft picks. In my opinion there are no substitution for experience, playing on the big stage is important for every player, look at Jordy Nelson, don't tell me that superbowl run affected his development and gave him recognition.

I dont care about draft picks, I rather make the playoffs, you learn and you get better. If you keep tanking, I think it affects the mental toughness and development as a player. I think people who are opposed to those one and done teams trying to make the playoffs like the Seahawks should get themselves checked. Marshawn Lynch is playing much better now because of that performance last year in the playofss. People underestimate the experience.

Another example, after 2009 nfc championship, that really hit Adrian home for his fumbling problem and now he fixed it. That is why I don't believe in tanking, not good personally as a competitor and your sending the wrong message.

Seahawks should keep fighting and the pieces will fall. If they really like a guy they can trade up for a qb, knowing they have a solid team. plus the playoffs really help evaluate your players because if your tanking you dont know the skill of your players and development stalls

jth1331
12-05-2011, 05:02 PM
Does anybody remember when the Patriots used the 1st overall pick to get their stud QB that won them 10+ games a season for the next 10 years?

I get that Tom Brady is the exception, and not the rule. That is my point though. The Seahawks could be an exception and win something of value (a fighting chance at the Superbowl has value to me, as a fan btw even if they don't ultimately win the Superbowl).

Peyton Manning - 1st overall pick
John Elway - 1st overall pick
Troy Aikman - 1st overall pick
Drew Brees - 1st pick in round 2
Phillip Rivers - 1st round pick
Eli Manning - 1st round pick
Ben Roethlisberger - 1st round pick

Basically, most teams get their QB by drafting him high and developing. Very rarely is it any other way.

raised an interesting discussion, one and done teams vs draft picks. In my opinion there are no substitution for experience, playing on the big stage is important for every player, look at Jordy Nelson, don't tell me that superbowl run affected his development and gave him recognition.

I dont care about draft picks, I rather make the playoffs, you learn and you get better. If you keep tanking, I think it affects the mental toughness and development as a player. I think people who are opposed to those one and done teams trying to make the playoffs like the Seahawks should get themselves checked. Marshawn Lynch is playing much better now because of that performance last year in the playofss. People underestimate the experience.

Another example, after 2009 nfc championship, that really hit Adrian home for his fumbling problem and now he fixed it. That is why I don't believe in tanking, not good personally as a competitor and your sending the wrong message.

Seahawks should keep fighting and the pieces will fall. If they really like a guy they can trade up for a qb, knowing they have a solid team. plus the playoffs really help evaluate your players because if your tanking you dont know the skill of your players and development stalls

I gotta agree, one and done is way better than tanking and finishing say 6-10.

descendency
12-05-2011, 05:23 PM
Anything can happen in the playoffs, they did beat New Orleans last year.

They beat a crippled New Orleans team that had to travel out to Seattle. It was NO-14, and I told everyone I knew to bet on Seattle. Little did I think Seattle would win...

Breed
12-05-2011, 05:51 PM
You are right, drafting order is more important than winning games. Why would you want to increase veteran, coach, and fan base confidence when you can just tank and get a higher projected 21 year old college kid? As a Vikings fan, I would much rather see my team finish 6-10 and show some sort of confidence and competence than being 2-14 and getting Kalil or Claiborne.

This make no sense. Suck For Luck

PoopSandwich
12-05-2011, 06:17 PM
I'm of the opinion after watching the Browns have **** QB's since coming back that if it required us giving up three first round picks for Andrew Luck I would do it.

Complex
12-05-2011, 06:22 PM
And the browns would be still be **** with Andrew Luck.

PoopSandwich
12-05-2011, 06:27 PM
And the browns would be still be **** with Andrew Luck.

Yeah but at least we would have a QB in place. Our line is pretty solid when Steinbach returns and we could try to hit the free agent market for receiver considering it looks to have a large pool this year.

Who thought with Bradford that the Rams would turn into almost a playoff team.

soybean
12-05-2011, 06:29 PM
I'm of the opinion after watching the Browns have **** QB's since coming back that if it required us giving up three first round picks for Andrew Luck I would do it.

It kind of makes you wonder, If you have a solid team why not just pull a ricky williams for a franchise qb?

I think teams will and can survive just one draft exodus. There are many teams that make horrible draft choices across the board and are in an ok position today.

Complex
12-05-2011, 06:32 PM
Yeah but at least we would have a QB in place. Our line is pretty solid when Steinbach returns and we could try to hit the free agent market for receiver considering it looks to have a large pool this year.

Who thought with Bradford that the Rams would turn into almost a playoff team.

True but look at the rams now, they need WRs,a OL,CBs,OLBs(?) and a runningback.

Rabscuttle
12-05-2011, 06:51 PM
Hmmm, my team doesn't have an elite quarterback and he may or may not be good enough to win in the playoffs. Would I rather we tanked the season and treated this year's games as scrimmages or am I happier that we are sitting at 10-2 and going to see how thing shake out in the playoffs with Alex Smith?

I can't believe anyone would rather their team suck than hope to catch that spark that brings home a Lombardi.

prock
12-05-2011, 06:55 PM
Peyton Manning - 1st overall pick
John Elway - 1st overall pick
Troy Aikman - 1st overall pick
Drew Brees - 1st pick in round 2
Phillip Rivers - 1st round pick
Eli Manning - 1st round pick
Ben Roethlisberger - 1st round pick

Basically, most teams get their QB by drafting him high and developing. Very rarely is it any other way.


Ohh man. This is so full of misguidance. You threw in Brees for dramatic effect even though he is second round, not first overall. And then you named five first overall picks in the last like 28 years and called that most teams....

Jeezus

ChiFan24
12-05-2011, 07:39 PM
The Seahawks aren't going to make the playoffs because they suck and Tarvaris Jackson is their QB. Seeing 3 likely wins on the schedule means nothing because they'll drop a game that they shouldn't. Because they suck.

wogitalia
12-05-2011, 08:26 PM
Ohh man. This is so full of misguidance. You threw in Brees for dramatic effect even though he is second round, not first overall. And then you named five first overall picks in the last like 28 years and called that most teams....

Not to mention that 1 hasn't won anything and another isn't even with the team that drafted him(technically 2 but Eli doesn't count for that purpose).

You can make a decent list going back 30 years that has plenty of guys that weren't first round picks as well. Heck, the 3 best QBs playing right now were a 2nd round pick signed as a FA, a pick in the 20s and a 6th round pick.

You have to be in it to win it, you don't need an elite QB to win it, you just need a fair amount of luck, Seattle have a decent defense and a decent run game. The NFC is wide open after the Packers, I mean if the Saints can lose to the Rams they can lose to anyone. Dallas and New York's calling cards over the past 5 years has been playing down to their opponents levels and losing games they just shouldn't lose. The 49ers still have Smith as their QB. The Bears have no offense if they somehow make it, the Lions can self destruct, the Falcons aren't terribly flash. Seahawks could beat any of those teams on any given Sunday except for the Packers, but that was the same when the Giants took on the Packers and miracles do happen(hell or the Seahawks last year even)

Sloopy
12-05-2011, 09:06 PM
I never said that they should tank it on purpose, just as a fan I wouldn't be excited about being just good enough to make the playoffs every year and maybe win one playoff game but more than likely be a one and done.

I'd probably prefer the higher picks to push me over that hump.

As an outsider I can clearly see that this team isn't going to get any farther with clipboard jesus or Jackson at the helm; they have a good running game but not great and their defense is semi starting to come together but nothing to write home about.

I wouldn't want them to lose on purpose from either perspective. I would just be honestly more excited for them to get the pick.

XxXdragonXxX
12-05-2011, 10:04 PM
I will always root for playoffs over a draft pick that has a 75% chance of sucking.

fenikz
12-05-2011, 10:05 PM
so i'm guessing AZ doesn't have the same tie breakers? cus they have the same record and homefield vs Seattle in week 17

wogitalia
12-05-2011, 10:17 PM
I never said that they should tank it on purpose, just as a fan I wouldn't be excited about being just good enough to make the playoffs every year and maybe win one playoff game but more than likely be a one and done.

That could be used to describe the Giants for the past 5 years and they have a SB win to show for it. Honestly they've been just about good enough to scrape into the playoffs each year and one year they got on a burner and won a SB.

Take the Vikes, we didn't win it with Favre but I sure enjoyed that improbable run we made under him despite it costing us big time in the draft stakes and never really thinking we had a chance but as long as we were in the playoffs we did have a chance and I wanted us to win. The NFL isn't like the NBA where 1 player changes everything. Our run was totally improbable as well, we had Favre not throwing picks, somehow our defense was holding up without a secondary, Rice was healthy all year it just a whole bunch of improbable things coming together to create a run. In our case it was our players, but the Seahawks could ride an injury to an opponent or a lucky bounce to get there.

When was the last draft that had more than 1 slam dunk QB prospect? If you aren't the worst team you don't get that guy, the Seahawks are no chance at being the worst team and really, unless there is a slam dunk guy there is no noticeable difference between the QB prospects. Honestly, once you remove the slam dunk guys it's a crapshoot. Sanchez vs Freeman, Dalton/Ponder vs Gabbert/Locker, Bradford, Rodgers vs Smith, Quinn and Russell. When you don't have a Stafford/Manning/Elway you are hit or miss and seemingly as likely to hit it big in the 20s as the 10s. Young/Leinart/Cutler may be the best example.

There just isn't enough of a difference between picking 15th and 25th to justify not wanting to play in the playoffs, no matter how slim your chances may be if you make it there.

eltwentyone
12-05-2011, 10:36 PM
That could be used to describe the Giants for the past 5 years and they have a SB win to show for it. Honestly they've been just about good enough to scrape into the playoffs each year and one year they got on a burner and won a SB.

Take the Vikes, we didn't win it with Favre but I sure enjoyed that improbable run we made under him despite it costing us big time in the draft stakes and never really thinking we had a chance but as long as we were in the playoffs we did have a chance and I wanted us to win. The NFL isn't like the NBA where 1 player changes everything. Our run was totally improbable as well, we had Favre not throwing picks, somehow our defense was holding up without a secondary, Rice was healthy all year it just a whole bunch of improbable things coming together to create a run. In our case it was our players, but the Seahawks could ride an injury to an opponent or a lucky bounce to get there.

When was the last draft that had more than 1 slam dunk QB prospect? If you aren't the worst team you don't get that guy, the Seahawks are no chance at being the worst team and really, unless there is a slam dunk guy there is no noticeable difference between the QB prospects. Honestly, once you remove the slam dunk guys it's a crapshoot. Sanchez vs Freeman, Dalton/Ponder vs Gabbert/Locker, Bradford, Rodgers vs Smith, Quinn and Russell. When you don't have a Stafford/Manning/Elway you are hit or miss and seemingly as likely to hit it big in the 20s as the 10s. Young/Leinart/Cutler may be the best example.

There just isn't enough of a difference between picking 15th and 25th to justify not wanting to play in the playoffs, no matter how slim your chances may be if you make it there.


http://gifsoup.com/view4/1280677/zyzz-o.gif

TheBoyWonder22
12-05-2011, 11:43 PM
In regard to the topic, this isn't baseball, or basketball, or hockey. Nobody gives a ****.

AntoinCD
12-06-2011, 04:46 AM
Peyton Manning - 1st overall pick
John Elway - 1st overall pick
Troy Aikman - 1st overall pick
Drew Brees - 1st pick in round 2
Phillip Rivers - 1st round pick
Eli Manning - 1st round pick
Ben Roethlisberger - 1st round pick

Basically, most teams get their QB by drafting him high and developing. Very rarely is it any other way.



I can play this game too.

Aaron Rodgers - 22nd overall pick-right around where Seattle would be picking should they go 1 and done
Drew Brees - 2nd round
Tom Brady - 6th round
Kurt Warner - undrafted
Brad Johnson - 9th round


I am in no way arguing that the success rate of QBs after the early first round is phenomenal however these guys, who all would have been available in roughly the same draft position as the Seahawks would be should they lose in the Wildcard round, have quarterbacked teams who have accounted for 7 of the last 12 Superbowl wins.

wogitalia
12-06-2011, 05:32 AM
You can throw Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Joe Montana and Steve Young, to name a few, to the list of successful QBs not taking in the top 15 of the draft.

Vox Populi
12-06-2011, 06:13 AM
Does anybody remember when the Patriots used the 1st overall pick to get their stud QB that won them 10+ games a season for the next 10 years?

I get that Tom Brady is the exception, and not the rule. That is my point though. The Seahawks could be an exception and win something of value (a fighting chance at the Superbowl has value to me, as a fan btw even if they don't ultimately win the Superbowl).

its funny because drew bledsoe.

wogitalia
12-06-2011, 07:22 AM
its funny because drew bledsoe.

That's who I thought of when reading that as well!

jth1331
12-06-2011, 08:31 AM
Ohh man. This is so full of misguidance. You threw in Brees for dramatic effect even though he is second round, not first overall. And then you named five first overall picks in the last like 28 years and called that most teams....

Jeezus

I can play this game too.

Aaron Rodgers - 22nd overall pick-right around where Seattle would be picking should they go 1 and done
Drew Brees - 2nd round
Tom Brady - 6th round
Kurt Warner - undrafted
Brad Johnson - 9th round


I am in no way arguing that the success rate of QBs after the early first round is phenomenal however these guys, who all would have been available in roughly the same draft position as the Seahawks would be should they lose in the Wildcard round, have quarterbacked teams who have accounted for 7 of the last 12 Superbowl wins.

I was in a rush and didn't finish what I started, but my point was that most teams that have had success have taken a QB high in the draft.
Jets, Colts, Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Titans, Broncos, Chargers, Giants, Packers, Vikings, Lions, Panthers, Bucs, Falcons, Rams, 49ers.
Its just that those late rounders rarely happen, and its better to invest in a QB high and build him. Although the Raiders would say otherwise.

AntoinCD
12-06-2011, 08:46 AM
I was in a rush and didn't finish what I started, but my point was that most teams that have had success have taken a QB high in the draft.
Jets, Colts, Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Titans, Broncos, Chargers, Giants, Packers, Vikings, Lions, Panthers, Bucs, Falcons, Rams, 49ers.
Its just that those late rounders rarely happen, and its better to invest in a QB high and build him. Although the Raiders would say otherwise.

That's a fair enough point but it's not exclusively why they are successful. The Jets are almost winning in spite of Sanchez. The Titans haven't done much with Locker at QB(it's pretty much been all Hasselbeck).

In an ideal world, sure, every team would love to have a QB good enough to have been drafted in the top 5 or so. However plenty of teams are winning and have won with lower drafted guys.

On another note; it depends on what level of success people are talking about. Obviously the main goal is a Superbowl win. As I have stated this does not only come to teams who have a QB drafted in the top half of round one.

Teams like the Lions, Panthers, Vikings, Rams, Titans, Broncos etc would consider reaching the playoffs as a successful year. That is what the Seahawks could be looking at this year.

If the be all, end all of success is a Superbowl win and only those teams with a realistic chance of winning it should should compete hard, then you would have upwards of 15 teams "fighting" over higher draft position every year. I know that wasn't your point but it comes back to what others are saying.

Sloopy
12-06-2011, 09:26 AM
Regardless of how many good QB's come out of picks later than the top 15, it cannot be argued that a team is more likely to hit on a guy in the top 15.

I'm not even saying that they need a top 10 QB in this league like JBCX was, but they don't exactly have the greatest team overall and they aren't getting it done with clipboard jesus and Jackson. Something needs to change.

You can argue that getting to the playoffs gives you a shot, but how many of you really think that the Seahawkws are going anywhere this year? They will be a WC so they won't get homefield advantage.

prock
12-06-2011, 09:41 AM
They definitely don't have much of a chance. But that isn't the point. The point is that is better to get into the playoffs and get your team the experience and confidence it needs. Having the 15th pick and missing the playoffs is definitely not better than having the 22nd and a first round exit.

Shane P. Hallam
12-06-2011, 09:55 AM
This sounds like an argument that would have happened a year ago for the 49ers. Teams change so much. Aim for the playoffs and draft well and it will work itself out.

wogitalia
12-06-2011, 09:55 AM
I was in a rush and didn't finish what I started, but my point was that most teams that have had success have taken a QB high in the draft.
Jets, Colts, Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Titans, Broncos, Chargers, Giants, Packers, Vikings, Lions, Panthers, Bucs, Falcons, Rams, 49ers.
Its just that those late rounders rarely happen, and its better to invest in a QB high and build him. Although the Raiders would say otherwise.

What an odd list.

Jets - Traded up for that pick and otherwise were picking around where the Seahawks are likely to pick.

Colts - #1 overall pick. Seahawks never had a shot at that.

Steelers - You already mentioned.

Bengals - Not sure how they fit on the success thing, or the high draft pick thing, they had very little to no success with their high pick, and are currently having success with a guy taken after where the Seahawks would pick, even if they won the SB.

Ravens - Haven't had a great deal of success with Flacco, who at pick 18 is right where a 1 and done Seahawks team would pick anyway.

Titans - Young was a failure and really, they haven't had any success in a long time, they've been mediocre to the T.

Broncos - Didn't have much success with their "top" pick. Haven't had much success in general. Now are winning with another guy that fits the Seahawks profile.

Chargers - Haven't exactly won anything, again, they have just been mediocre despite a top pick.

Giants - The poster child for why you want to scrape into the playoffs. On top of which, have been decidedly mediocre for an extended period of time give or take a month of playoffs that resulted in a SB.

Packers - Not sure how they fit your criteria at all. They had Favre, a 2nd round pick they traded for forever and were great forever. They replaced him with Rodgers, a guy who was right in the range the Seahawks will fall if they make the playoffs. The Packers are like the nemesis to the "tank for a top QB prospect" theory.

Vikings - Really? Cunningham was a FA. Culpepper never did anything. We floundered for a few years, then signed Favre and were good for one year, and are now a two win team hoping a QB we reached on can carry an otherwise awful team. We offer no support to the "good teams" and QB theory.

Lions - Seriously? You are putting a team that went 0-16 a few years ago in an example of the teams having success?
Panthers - Really again? They haven't been good in what feels like forever, when they were it was with Jake Delhomme. Again, how exactly do they support your cause, really Jake Delhomme is a lot like TJackson, ie not very good.

Bucs - again... really? They won with Brad Johnson. They've been awful since. Really all they support is that bad management will not lead to wins and the first round pick they now have was in the Seahawks range again.

Falcons - Vick was solid for them. Ryan has been solid for them. They haven't actually won anything though and really at this point Vick and Ryan look more like support for the top QB prospects don't seem to work out any more often than late first QBs do.

Rams - You mean the Kurt Warner lead Rams? or do you mean the God awful Bradford lead Rams? Again, they were good for a while with a guy who absolutely doesn't support your case and have just been awful since.

49ers - Are having success for the first time in like 7 years since drafting high. Prior to that they had incredible success with Montana, Young and even Garcia, three guys who throw further dirt on the top pick QB thing.

I just don't get what your arguement is here.

Basically the top QB arguement starts with Manning, he is a great case for it, of course he was 1st overall and the Seahawks were never going to be that bad this year but if you can get a guy like Manning then sure losing makes sense.

Roethlisberger is a nice support, though he also supports that a team can win a SB without stellar QB play as he did in his rookie season.

After that you have Eli, who really hasn't made the team anything more than consistently mediocre and that again, supports that a team can win a SB by a)scraping into the playoffs and b)having less than stellar QB play.

Honestly though, check the top teams this year...

Dallas - Romo, undrafted.
Green Bay - Rodgers, late 1st - Supports Seahawks going for the playoffs.
New Orleans - Brees, 2nd round pick, signed as FA.
San Francisco - Smith, 1st overall pick, hardly the posterboy of the tanking case though.

New England - Brady...
Baltimore - Flacco, again supports the Seahawks going for the playoffs.
Houston - Schaub/Leinart/Yates, really doesn't matter none support the tanking case.
Denver - Tebowmania, again, doesn't support tanking.

The wild cards...
Giants - Support tanking...
Detroit - Supports tanking...
Chicago - traded for Cutler.
Atlanta - Supports tanking
Seattle/Arizona - Nope.
Jets - Traded up for their QB, support Seahawk making playoffs.
Buffalo - Nope
Pittsburgh - Supports tanking
Cincinnati - Nope
Tennessee - Nope
Oakland - Nope.

So Alex Smith is the strongest support for tanking for a top QB and 7 of 8 division leaders fit the "go for the playoffs" ideal.

wogitalia
12-06-2011, 10:12 AM
Regardless of how many good QB's come out of picks later than the top 15, it cannot be argued that a team is more likely to hit on a guy in the top 15.

Are you really though? That is a serious question.

Teams with top 15 picks at QB1(made by them because that is all that matters)

Giants - 6-6 and Eli is pretty damn good this year.
Detroit - 7-5 and Stafford is pretty damn good.
Minnesota - 2-10 and Ponder looks alright but no better than Dalton at this point.
Atlanta - 7-5 and arguable if Ryan is considerably better than Flacco, taken outside the top 15.
Carolina - 4-8 Newton looks a good one but again, not considerably better than Dalton.
San Francisco - 10-2 Smith...
St Louis - 2-10 Bradford has looked ordinary so far.
Jets - 7-5 Sanchez is hardly the reason they are winning
Pittsburgh - 9-3 Ben is a stud, plain and simple.
Indianapolis - 0-12 Not fair but still included.
Jacksonville - 3-9 Gabbert looks awful(being nice)
San Diego - 5-7 River is a gun but has stunk this year.

Top 3 QBs are all not top 15 picks. The next couple are, whoever you consider them.

By my count 11 of the 32 teams start a top 15 draft pick they made with a combined record of 60-72(becomes 60-60 without Indy).

Kind of interesting, now obviously you are a better chance of having getting a starter, arguable you are a better chance of getting a good starter(big difference!).


You can argue that getting to the playoffs gives you a shot, but how many of you really think that the Seahawkws are going anywhere this year? They will be a WC so they won't get homefield advantage.

I wouldn't bet on them, heck I'd be surprised if they even make it, none of that changes that they absolutely should be trying to make it, that making it helps the team a lot and doesn't change that there is no noticeable difference between pick 15 and 25.

I will add that I felt pretty similarly about the Packers at the same point last year and whilst they are vastly different beasts, they looked just about as unlikely to make it, but by the time they did they were riding high and a very dangerous team.

Sloopy
12-06-2011, 10:39 AM
I mean I'm with you on the fact that having a top QB doesn't guarantee success. In fact earlier in this thread I made an argument against it.

My point is that they will have made it to the playoffs two years in a row (if they did make it this year), but only to achieve quick exits. They have a solid running game and a good line, better than average receivers and a serviceable D, putting a top QB into the mix might push them over the hump.

top 15 picks don't guarantee a prospect but throughout history, the success of those picks has been higher than those after 15. I wish I could find the chart, I think it was posted in another thread at one point but you do have a considerably higher chance of hitting with a top 15 pick

robert pancake gallery
12-06-2011, 11:44 AM
i think the bottom line is any fan would rather their team did really well in the draft theoretically than in games

prock
12-06-2011, 11:53 AM
i think the bottom line is any fan would rather their team did really well in the draft theoretically than in games

But having a higher pick doesn't equate to drafting better. I would rather win games and just hope my team makes the best picks.

Sloopy
12-06-2011, 11:59 AM
But having a higher pick doesn't equate to drafting better. I would rather win games and just hope my team makes the best picks.

This is all fine and well if your team is playing well... the fact is that the Seahawks are far from a team that is performing at a high level and all this playoff talk is theoretical as well. I don't disagree that I would prefer my team to play well in the first place but the fact is that they are not.

This isn't the case with every team and by no means do I think a perennial playoff contender should tank to aim for a prospect to improve their team. I'm not even saying that the Seahawks should tank.

However I can't say I'd be excited for my team to stumble into the playoffs on some crazy scenario only to be ousted immediately and still not have as great of a chance to improve my team.

robert pancake gallery
12-06-2011, 12:54 PM
But having a higher pick doesn't equate to drafting better. I would rather win games and just hope my team makes the best picks.

but having a higher pick means you can make a sexier pick, and you get a chance to see your guy shake hands with roger goodell when his name is announced which is erection-inducing; the actual games themselves are too impersonal for me to care about, i enjoy the red-carpet aspect of the NFL draft and listening the the NFL's version of Joan Rivers, Mel Kiper.

Smooth Criminal
12-06-2011, 12:55 PM
I didn't think they stood a chance, but with the way the Bears, Falcons, Giants, and Lions have been losing anything is possible in the NFC wildcard.

Doesn't appear likely, I think the Giants, Falcons, and Lions will make up the two wildcard spots.

Sloopy
12-06-2011, 01:17 PM
but having a higher pick means you can make a sexier pick, and you get a chance to see your guy shake hands with roger goodell when his name is announced which is erection-inducing; the actual games themselves are too impersonal for me to care about, i enjoy the red-carpet aspect of the NFL draft and listening the the NFL's version of Joan Rivers, Mel Kiper.

This is hardly the point


I didn't think they stood a chance, but with the way the Bears, Falcons, Giants, and Lions have been losing anything is possible in the NFC wildcard.

Doesn't appear likely, I think the Giants, Falcons, and Lions will make up the two wildcard spots.

Even with some of these teams not doing so well, I would be surprised if the Seahawks pulled it off and if they did it would really be them just barely stumbling in

robert pancake gallery
12-06-2011, 02:22 PM
This is hardly the point

i know, but it's more fun to argue with a strawman

Sloopy
12-06-2011, 07:53 PM
i know, but it's more fun to argue with a strawman

haha gotcha

Caulibflower
12-06-2011, 08:29 PM
Doesn't help anything that three of our young, talented and recently-highly-drafted linemen are on injured reserve. Okung just went last week.