Seahawks Offense

[Avante]

we're a quarter of a way through the season, its too early to make final judgments on how good or bad teams are, obviously ... which is exactly why this thread was ridiculous to begin with, since it made such bold conclusions after a 2 game sample size

Ya mean like I always say.....SLOW DOWN....?

[Avante]

It's not like Seattle is going out and beating good teams. Their opponents this year are a combined 3-9. The only team with a winning record that they played they lost.

But it is like anytime the Seahawks start off 3-1, they have won a playoff game in the Russell Wilson era.

In the Russell Wilson era

2012....12-6
2013....16-3
2014....14-5
2015....11-7
2016....3-1

[Avante]

It is funny watching some of you guys, hahaha~~~ When do ya FINALLY figure this out? RW is a great QB playing on a team with a great D, just plug in a RB. And now he has a stud TE, a pro bowl caliber receiver in Baldwin. A game breaker in Lockett.

Stop acting like a bunch of re s, ok?

I challenge anyone to find a better Highlight video for a QB than this one.

[spurraider21]

Ya mean what those children in Olongapo tried to tell me.....SLOW DOWN....?

[Avante]

Why act like the dumb kids I troll?

Why not.....yep, you're right about slowing it down, I do agree.


GROW UP...ok?

[Avante]

Anyone have any idea how many NFL firsts.records.never seen before..... RW already has?

[johnsmith]

we're a quarter of a way through the season, its too early to make final judgments on how good or bad teams are, obviously ... which is exactly why this thread was ridiculous to begin with, since it made such bold conclusions after a 2 game sample size

ESPN article.

[johnsmith]

Anyone have any idea how many NFL firsts.records.never seen before..... RW already has?

He's also the first black quarterback to be fantasized about by avante until he's gone to completion on a regular basis.

So that's something else you can add eh?

[spurraider21]

ESPN article.

yeah, just an espn article. forget the other few dozen comments on the first 2 pages. and i'm sure you only posted it "just cause."

and if you were only being a messenger and not presenting it as an opinion (lol) then you wouldn't have mentioned lynch in the OP since he wasn't mentioned in the article you're now hiding behind

[johnsmith]

yeah, just an espn article. forget the other few dozen comments on the first 2 pages. and i'm sure you only posted it "just cause."

and if you were only being a messenger and not presenting it as an opinion (lol) then you wouldn't have mentioned lynch in the OP since he wasn't mentioned in the article you're now hiding behind

Jesus Christ you take this forum too serious.

[spurraider21]

Jesus Christ you take this forum too serious.

present a take.

get called out on take.

you take it too serious

[johnsmith]

present a take.

get called out on take.

you take it too serious

Wow. You win bruh....you've put internetted me today. Good job.

[johnsmith]

present a take.

get called out on take.

you take it too serious

However, since you can read my mind clearly, if my reason for posting the article wasn't "just cause" as you've said, why did I post it then? And you should know the answer to this because as evidenced by your posting history, you know EVERYTHING.

[spurraider21]

However, since you can read my mind clearly, if my reason for posting the article wasn't "just cause" as you've said, why did I post it then? And you should know the answer to this because as evidenced by your posting history, you know EVERYTHING.

doesn't take mind reading, dip , considering on your second post in this thread you already explained that.

but stop taking this so seriously bro, you might pop a vessel

[johnsmith]

doesn't take mind reading, dip , considering on your second post in this thread you already explained that.

but stop taking this so seriously bro, you might pop a vessel

So wait though, you've made it pretty clear that you understand the reasons for me posing the article. I'd like to know why I did it. And don't get shy and clam up now, lol,you've never hesitated to explain something to people on this forum....in fact, based on your posting history, it seems to me that you know everything about everything....so go on, tell me why I did it.

[Clipper Nation]

Football Outsiders ranks the 1992 Seahawks as the worst offense in NFL history. In the first two games of that season, with Kelly Stouffer under center (widely considered one of the worst quarterbacks to ever see an NFL field), they put up 10 points and 391 yards.

In the first two games of this season, in an era where defense has pretty much been made illegal and the passing game has never been easier for quarterbacks, the 2016 Seahawks have put up 15 points and 658 yards. This, despite having a so-called elite franchise QB under center.

Boiled down, the difference between Struggle as the first option and Kelly Stouffer is less than a touchdown on the scoreboard and 267 yards. And the difference isn't even as significant as it looks once you factor in all the rule changes. The average NFL offense in 2015 put up 872 more yards and 66 more points than the average offense in 1992.

Food for thought for the Struggle apologists. Your boy is the new-age Kelly Stouffer.

I decided to revisit this again after the last two games that Struggle's fluffers were raving over.

Through Week 4, the '92 Seahawks had put up 37 points and 862 yards.

Through Week 4, the '16 Seahawks have put up 79 points and 1430 yards.

That's a difference of 42 points and 568 yards. While the gap between Struggle and Stouffer has widened in the last two weeks (against two teams), it still falls short of the 66-point and 872-yard difference between the average 1992 offense and the average 2015 offense.

Bottom line: this year's Struggle "led" offense still looks more like Stouffer & co. than a good 1992 offense, let alone a good offense in today's pass-happy, video-game-stats league.

[Avante]

He's also the first black quarterback to be fantasized about by avante until he's gone to completion on a regular basis.

So that's something else you can add eh?

Yep, you're an idiot.

[johnsmith]

Yep, you're an idiot.

And you love BBC

[Ghazi]

Seahawks ranked 2nd in ESPN Power Rankings.

[Avante]

Jesus Christ you take this forum too serious.

He's not the one following others around bugging them, that would be you.

[johnsmith]

Seahawks ranked 2nd in ESPN Power Rankings.

I saw that....I'm not sure how you don't rank Minnesota 2.

[Avante]

And you love BBC

Shut up stupid, ok?

[johnsmith]

He's not the one following others around bugging them, that would be you.

Hahaha!!! I love it....everytime someone gives to someone that is ting on you, you white knight the out of it. You're so desperate for virtual friendship it's creepy.

[johnsmith]

Shut up stupid, ok?

No, I will continue to point out your erotic crush on young Mr Wilson. I know he's not your typical age group (10-15), but still good with you eh?

[Avante]

I decided to revisit this again after the last two games that Struggle's fluffers were raving over.

Through Week 4, the '92 Seahawks had put up 37 points and 862 yards.

Through Week 4, the '16 Seahawks have put up 79 points and 1430 yards.

That's a difference of 42 points and 568 yards. While the gap between Struggle and Stouffer has widened in the last two weeks (against two teams), it still falls short of the 66-point and 872-yard difference between the average 1992 offense and the average 2015 offense.

Bottom line: this year's Struggle "led" offense still looks more like Stouffer & co. than a good 1992 offense, let alone a good offense in today's pass-happy, video-game-stats league.

Bottom line is only a rookie uses the first 4 weeks of a season to mean anything. As we see every season.

ONE MORE TIME

Last season the Falcons were flting high at 6-1, they ended up......8-8
The Chiefs were sucking at 1-5, they ended up........11-5