It's all in the wrist(band)s

Why is Pete Carroll being a little more transparent, maybe even provocative in his references to Russell Wilson? We've got theories!

On Wednesday, I wrote about the way in which Pete Carroll has been more provocative in his comments about Russell Wilson compared to what he’s said about other former players.

Today, we’re going to explore some theories on why, crowd-sourcing from the Apostrophians who chimed in with their thoughts on the subject. But first, here’s a link to this week’s “Say Who, Say Pod” with Christian Caple of The Athletic.

OK. Now as we prepare to psychoanalyze Seattle’s coach, a disclaimer: I am aware of how much I’m microanalyzing Carroll’s words and their implications. I’m not doing this in an effort to determine if he’s wrong. Not only does he have every right to say it, but I think that most coaches would be more outspoken than Carroll has been if they were in a similar situation.

But it’s very clear to me that Carroll is a little more transparent and provocative in his references to Wilson than he has with other stars who’ve went on to play elsewhere. That is interesting to me. I’ve got my own theory at the bottom, but first, we start with subscriber suggestions, which I’ve lumped into three categories.