Because teams are more efficient at passing now. Thank the WCO, athletic QB's and rules changes for that. Teams that can't run the ball aren't at near the disadvantage they were back in the old days. As teams have evolved from one dimensional deep, vertical passing games, they've increased in efficiency. So "forcing a team to pass" to catch up isn't the obstacle it used to be.
Scoring Margin Leaders for 2012 - rank in passing yards - rank in scoring % - rank in rushing yards - rank in points allowed
1) Patriots 4th - 1st - 7th - 9th
2) Broncos 5th - 4th - 16th - 4th
3) Seahawks 27th - 5th - 3rd - 1st
4) 49ers 23rd - 7th - 4th - 2nd
5) Falcons 6th - 2nd - 29th - 5th
6) Bears 29th - 22nd - 10th - 3rd
7) Packers 9th - 9th - 20th - 11th
8) Giants 12th - 3rd - 14th - 12th
9) Ravens 15th - 13th - 11th - 13th
10) Texans 11th - 14th - 8th - 10th
There's an interesting correlation between scoring efficiency, points allowed and scoring margin.
After glancing over your numbers here I don't understand the point you were trying to make earlier. I think the coaching staffs in SF and SEA would both be happy to disagree with your assessment that a power running game doesn't protect a lead. Both of those teams played a very specific style of football. I don't see anything changing for the coming season.
Hence, there is no real reason to adhere to a power running game unless your personnel are ill suited to running another type of offense. You can have just as much success slinging it around as you can pounding it into your opponent's mouth.
And that's why I'm not convinced that Seattle will be running the same boring offense they ran in early 2012. Heck, they didn't even run it in late 2012. They aren't the same team they were in early 2012.
They have the best QB they've had in a while and they've added the best WR they've had in a while.
Why is it that people think this team is built to run and not pass? Look at what Denver, Atlanta and Green Bay did last year with a pretty pedestrian (or even poor) running games.
So why would we assume that Carroll thinks he has to feed Lynch and put handcuffs on Wilson to win? Particularly when Seattle exploded after letting Wilson do more?
You seem to be arguing with yourself on all these points.
How so?
I point out in the first statement that Seattle has already shown a tendency to open things up for Wilson as the season progressed and that he did nothing but show that it was a good thing to do.
I point out in the second that offenses are out there that win by passing even when they can't run, if they have a good defense as well, and that if other teams' examples aren't enough, Carroll's own personal experience now is that Wilson can deliver and that they can win by passing and playing good D.
So how is that arguing against myself? The debate is ultimately about what Carroll and Co. are going to do with Wilson this year. I'm saying that they are flexible and when they end up with very capable passing personnel, whether by accident (Wilson) or design (Harvin), they are smart enough to exploit that capability.
Before last year, Carroll didn't know what he had in Wilson. I don't dispute what bringing in Lynch meant. But Wilson showed him something and I think he's going to use Wilson. That's how good coaches operate in the NFL. If you end up with a weapon, you use it. And then they bring in Harvin. How is that different than when they brought in Lynch?
So it's a bit puzzling to me why people think he will ignore what he has in Wilson/Harvin and adhere to what he has in Lynch. Unless he's an idiot, he recognizes that Wilson and Harvin now mean he has a team built to pass as well as run. And that balance is something that all coaches pay lip service too. It's what BB and the Patriots have quietly done over the past two years.
5'-11"...maybe. He will go the way of Troy Smith and Pat White, both thought of as potential NFL starters yet failed miserably. His best case scenario is backup and injury fill in like that Wallace bum who I saw that they likened him to during the draft.
I think most people understand and agree with the following:1. Seattle runs a conservative offense.2. Seattle has a strong defense and strong running game, which minimizes the need for a strong passing game.3. QBs in situations like this (conservative offense, strong passing game not needed) are not typically good fantasy QBs.4. Wilson is a rookie who has just 5 games of NFL experience.5. Rookie QBs are not typically good NFL or fantasy QBs; players like Luck and RGIII are not the norm.These factors largely explain why Wilson's performance has been subpar from both a NFL (numbers) perspective and fantasy perspective.It's what to expect going forward where opinions tend to diverge. I think Wilson will hold onto the job. I think he will improve with more experience, and the coaching staff will open up the offense a bit more as he earns their confidence.I think he has the talent and makeup to be an above average NFL QB. IMO the Seattle leadership shares this expectation about how Wilson will develop. Given that he is performing well enough for them to win games right now, I think they are content to ride out his growing pains.Whether or not he will ever become a useful fantasy QB will depend on the situation. How long does Carroll stay? How long can they maintain the strong defense and strong running game? How long does it take to add a top notch receiving threat? Who gets hurt? etc.ETA: We're also operating on a pretty small sample size here. Also, I wanted to note that I'm a Chargers fan, not a Seattle fan. But I am a big Wilson fan.
