Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
ImTheScientist

***Russell Wilson Bandwagon***

Recommended Posts

:lmao: 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.

Fantaasy irrelevant.

Smith

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=569728 & http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=577975 among others

White

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=466293 & http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=466116

Whole lot of stupid in this thread. Quality stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now have some very difficult decisions to make in my dynasty league. Nice problem to have, though. Go Wilson!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously thinking of moving Newton in my keeper league and keeping Wilson.

Unless you're playing with FBG members, I'd have to think you'll get the most for the "Cam" brand-name in a trade right now. I think in a Cam vs. Wilson debate, Wilson is the clear-cut winner long term in terms of his own talent and the talent that surrounds/supports him. But, good luck convincing anyone of this that doesn't yet believe. Let them regret it later. I'd get top dollar for Cam ASAP if I had Cam and Wilson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Flynn will work out for the Hawks so I'm not real excited that Russell landed with them, but I am glad he got drafted. I hope he eventually gets a shot at starting for someone.

:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously thinking of moving Newton in my keeper league and keeping Wilson.

Unless you're playing with FBG members, I'd have to think you'll get the most for the "Cam" brand-name in a trade right now. I think in a Cam vs. Wilson debate, Wilson is the clear-cut winner long term in terms of his own talent and the talent that surrounds/supports him. But, good luck convincing anyone of this that doesn't yet believe. Let them regret it later. I'd get top dollar for Cam ASAP if I had Cam and Wilson.
I'm a big fan of Wilson and but there is no way that Wilson is the "clear cut" winner over Cam in talent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So while on draft day "there's not a GM in the NFL that would take Wilson ahead of Luck, RG3, or Tanneyhill" that is meaningless NOW.....

It's not meaningless if you asked them now and they still would all take Luck and RG3 ahead of Wilson. Every single one would. Today. Tannehill I'm not sure about.
IMO if we could go back and hold the draft over knowing what we know now, Luck and RGIII would still go 1-2. And maybe Tannehill would go before Wilson.

But the important difference is Wilson would be a top 10-15 pick, not a third round pick. He's proven that he deserved to be picked in the first half of the first round, just as he would have been if he were 2-3 inches taller.

What order he and Tannehill would be taken in doesn't really matter with regard to how well Wilson is performing and how he looks for the future.

I highly doubt it
Update?
Does anyone disagree with the bolded statement now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my "argument" is that Wilson will not make a great FF QB, and you guys are making my argument for me. When you have a "dominate defense" and a great running game....if that's your team's "mindset", then you will continue to have low scoring games where your QB doesn't have to put up big numbers for your team to have "success" (wins). As this is a RW bandwagon thread, I thought the discussion would be about RW, and not about the Seattle Seahawks, though. When you look at the top FF QBs so far this year, you do see some similar traits, though....poor defense and poor running game. As such, as long as this "mindset" you talk about continues, RW will not be a great or likely even good FF QB (which is the argument this thread should be about).

Who are you arguing with? That is, who is taking the stance that Wilson will make a great FF QB?
Sorry, maybe I missed the middle 20 or so pages of this thread. I don't think that RW will be a great or even good FF QB this year, and for as long as the current regime and/or philosophy is in place. Further, I don't really see RW as being all that good of an NFL QB either. I know I can link any number of stats to go along with that claim, but all I'll hear back is more of the same "that's the philosophy we are using", and "that is what he's being asked to do". I get that, and if all it comes down to for you is winning games....then I guess last year in Denver Tebow was a great QB and Alex Smith has been an amazing QB in San Fran as well. That's why SF went after Peyton this offseason and why Denver actually signed him. Any claim that Seattle is winning games "because of" RW are just plain wrong. They are winning because of the type of game they are playing which continues to get posted here (T.O.P., amazing defensive performances) which is working for them. RW isn't winning them games at all, but he is causing them not to lose games either. To me, that's the definition of a game manager, and not of a great or even good NFL QB.
You seem to be looking for an argument. :shrug: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.
What do you think of Wilson now, mattty? Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be interesting to see how Flynn does in Oakland. The Flynn fans will probably continue to feast on crow for another year. At least Oakland will get a great pick next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a lame thread now. I mean, if a person is not a Wilson fan now, they never will be. No need to continue bringing this one back to the first page again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pumped for the Russell Wilson spotlight thread. I will be drafting him in all leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

It's very possible. He was QB3 for the second half of the season, which included several blowouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

It's very possible. He was QB3 for the second half of the season, which included several blowouts.

Is a season that long?

As a Badger fan, I like Wilson.

But no way I take him over Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Brees, Ryan, Cam, Stafford (will bounce back on TDs IMO), Kaep (even with Crabtree's injury)...thats just quickly off the top of my head guys I think finish ahead of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rotoworld:

ESPN's John Clayton believes Russell Wilson's pass attempts will be capped at 26-28 per game this season.

It's an extremely low number in today's NFL. Last season, 21 quarterbacks averaged at least 30 attempts per game while Wilson was at 24.5. Still, he finished as fantasy's No. 10 quarterback thanks to 489 rushing yards, four rushing scores and a 26:10 TD-to-INT ratio. Wilson is a poor bet to throw for 4,000 yards in Seattle's run-heavy scheme, but he's firmly inside the QB1 tier.
Source: ESPN.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

It's very possible. He was QB3 for the second half of the season, which included several blowouts.

He was damn near perfect in the 2nd half, I won't take that away from him. However, I do think it will be tough for him to repeat that performance. A very good QB though, I'm just not sold on him being able to consistently produce elite stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good QB though, I'm just not sold on him being able to consistently produce elite stats.

I'm on board with this thought too. If the team is successful the real beneficiary will be Lynch and the running game. The team is built to pummel teams into submission and win by running the ball and playing solid defense. If the coaching staff gets their way they will be thrilled to beat teams 20-3 every week. It just doesn't smell like a recipe that creates opportunities for Wilson to post big fantasy stats. I'm sure it will happen sometimes that Wilson will put up some big numbers, but I think fantasy owners will struggle to see consistently big numbers from Wilson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

Oh great. The ultimate homer vs the ultimate homer. Can we just call it a draw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

Oh great. The ultimate homer vs the ultimate homer. Can we just call it a draw?

Oh great...a comment that has nothing to do with anything.

Thanks for your contribution though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

Oh great. The ultimate homer vs the ultimate homer. Can we just call it a draw?

Oh great...a comment that has nothing to do with anything.

Thanks for your contribution though.

Same could be said for you. Tell me again what you brought to the table....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

Oh great. The ultimate homer vs the ultimate homer. Can we just call it a draw?

Oh great...a comment that has nothing to do with anything.

Thanks for your contribution though.

Same could be said for you. Tell me again what you brought to the table....

A discussion on if Wilson is a top 5 QB...and when I was questioned about it provided who I would put ahead of him.

But I guess putting Rodgers (and established top 5 QB) ahead of him made me a homer right?

Now...back to you unwitty comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread never dies..... He will be a top 5 qb this year....

No...no he won't.

It's very possible. He was QB3 for the second half of the season, which included several blowouts.

Is a season that long?

As a Badger fan, I like Wilson.

But no way I take him over Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Brees, Ryan, Cam, Stafford (will bounce back on TDs IMO), Kaep (even with Crabtree's injury)...thats just quickly off the top of my head guys I think finish ahead of him.

No, the season isn't that long. But wouldn't it be a bit foolish to ignore the change in his utilization over the course of a rookie season? Fantasy football is all about prognistication. Is it more likely that his 2013 utilization will look more like the first half of his rookie season or the second half...when everyone on the team has confirmed that they took the training wheels off as the season progressed. The fact that he was a rookie and should make strides as the season progresses tells me which half I should rely upon.

Is he top 5? Not in my book. I barely have him in the top 10. But your point that the "good game" sample size is less than a full season long is a bit ridiculous. So is the "ho-hum game" sample size. But with a rookie, the learning curve can be a significant factor in first half vs. second half performance debates when it obviously wouldn't be in play for a player that has been in the league for a while that suddenly has a hot streak.

That's the way fantasy football is when it comes to rookies. You just don't have the benefit of a veteran sized sample. But you have to take a side on the issue because the clock is ticking and you inevitably rank players within a position.

Rotoworld:

ESPN's John Clayton believes Russell Wilson's pass attempts will be capped at 26-28 per game this season.

It's an extremely low number in today's NFL. Last season, 21 quarterbacks averaged at least 30 attempts per game while Wilson was at 24.5. Still, he finished as fantasy's No. 10 quarterback thanks to 489 rushing yards, four rushing scores and a 26:10 TD-to-INT ratio. Wilson is a poor bet to throw for 4,000 yards in Seattle's run-heavy scheme, but he's firmly inside the QB1 tier.
Source: ESPN.com

So Clayton's support for this statement is either 1) info gleened from an unnamed source or 2) some unstated logical reasoning on his part?

Thanks, Clayton!

A very good QB though, I'm just not sold on him being able to consistently produce elite stats.

I'm on board with this thought too. If the team is successful the real beneficiary will be Lynch and the running game. The team is built to pummel teams into submission and win by running the ball and playing solid defense. If the coaching staff gets their way they will be thrilled to beat teams 20-3 every week. It just doesn't smell like a recipe that creates opportunities for Wilson to post big fantasy stats. I'm sure it will happen sometimes that Wilson will put up some big numbers, but I think fantasy owners will struggle to see consistently big numbers from Wilson.

The team is built to run, pass and defend. The way any NFL team should be. This debate too often sounds like the old "football vs. basketball school" deabte. A university can't be both for some inexplicable reason.

They added Percy Harvin! Was that so he could block on sweeps or give some help in the return game?

This team is built to be dangerous in ALL aspects of the game. They aren't at a point where they have to compromise one for the other. So a strong running game is not a limiting factor, especially since the game has evolved over the last several years. This isn't the old days anymore. The power running game doesn't protect a lead via clock control like it used to. We've all seen the game were QB _____ has few points through the first half and his owners are nervous and suddenly he explodes in the second half to put up a monster game. That's because within a game the game plan changes. The quality of the running game means that there is less chance that the opposing defense can stop the offense as a whole and make it one dimensional and thus predicatable.

Edited by JamesTheScot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The power running game doesn't protect a lead via clock control like it used to.

Can you elaborate on this claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Are there any teams on that list that don't employ that same style of offense? Yes. And that's the point. You don't have to run a power running game to keep other teams from scoring or to maintain leads. That used to be the conventional wisdom. And it probably worked when teams waited until 3rd and long to pass or let themselves get 2-3 scores down in the late 3rd quarter before they started throwing bombs down field. But teams don't throw that way anymore. So you don't really force them into low-percentage, deep ball passing situations like you used to do. They have a one minute offense that can go 70 yards on passes within 10 yards of the LOS and use only one timeout. And since teams as a whole are better at moving the ball through the air and can move down the field quickly, the clock isn't the opponent it used to be.

Having an offense that scores efficiently and having a defense that keeps points off the board are the keys. But whether you score by passing or running doesn't seem to matter. If you combine a defense that contains your opponent and you have an offense that scores efficiently, whether it moves through the air or the ground isn't much of a concern.

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?

But it's not even an either/or question. Look at where the Patriots, Giants, Ravens and Texans and ranked. They all had relatively balanced strength in terms of rushing and passing production and all made the top 10 in terms of scoring margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that people think this team is built to run and not pass?

Because they are built to run and play solid defense. I've been following my team closely since they first took the field in the 70s. I know this current roster and coaching staff a lot better than most. I've been to many training camps. I've watched too many interviews to count.

I get what you're saying about the evolution of the NFL into a predominantly passing league. That's very true. No debate there. However, isn't a recent development. The league has been predominantly a passing league for a long time now. That said, there are a few teams that built to play more of a ground and pound style. Carroll and Schneider haven't been coy about this. They've been building the team for three years now to do exactly what they said over and over. Control the offense with the run game. Play physical defense. They won't care if Harvin gets his numbers. They want to win and have been clear on their philosophy about how to best make that happen.

We watched the Cowboys of the early 90s do the same thing (again, this isn't a new phenomenon). When we were playing fantasy football before the internet was available we used to ##### and complain about how Aikman was a great quarterback, but a crappy fantasy quarterback. Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled to have Wilson as our quarterback here in Seattle. He may well be the best quarterback in franchise history. We're all excited to see what happens. Maybe he won't be. I don't know. I hope so, but I won't be shocked to see fantasy owners disappointed at the end of the season. I believe most Wilson projections are on the high side. Just my take on the issue. We'll see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm with this sentiment and it will probably be defensive game plan against that dictates what Seattle does in a "pick your poison" kind of offense. Of course they're going to want to establish the run and they'll commit to it like some other teams might not, but I definitely think that Russell Wilson is going to evolve into one of those QBs that has the freedom to make calls on the line based on what he's reading from the D. And when QBs are able to to that successfully it leads to numbers for everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

I'm sure "rate" is a rock-solid judge of best performances ever.

Oh, and at least this gulls fan has some common sense (2nd comment at the bottom):

Edited by Warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Squawk fan pointing to a subjective, non-quantifiable list as evidence of their team's greatness?

Didn't see that coming....

:tebow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

I'm sure "rate" is a rock-solid judge of best performances ever.

Oh, and at least this gulls fan has some common sense (2nd comment at the bottom):

SB Nation blogs are fan blogs. I used to write a few articles back in the day for one of them. There is a bit of bias that has to baked in there just for 'brand' purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 in his own cherry-picked-best-weeks-ever performance graph.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Edited by MaxThreshold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 despite the cherry-picking of his best weeks.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Best 8-17 week performance for a rookie QB, ever

Best 8-17 week performance for a 1st year starting QB, ever

Better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 despite the cherry-picking of his best weeks.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Best 8-17 week performance for a rookie QB, ever

Best 8-17 week performance for a 1st year starting QB, ever

Better?

And STILL not #1. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 despite the cherry-picking of his best weeks.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Best 8-17 week performance for a rookie QB, ever

Best 8-17 week performance for a 1st year starting QB, ever

Better?

And STILL not #1. :lol:

Why did Aaron Rodgers have the most losses in that group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 despite the cherry-picking of his best weeks.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Best 8-17 week performance for a rookie QB, ever

Best 8-17 week performance for a 1st year starting QB, ever

Better?

And STILL not #1. :lol:

Why did Aaron Rodgers have the most losses in that group?

And yet he still won the SuperBowl that year. Guess it didn't really matter.

Edited by MaxThreshold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 despite the cherry-picking of his best weeks.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Best 8-17 week performance for a rookie QB, ever

Best 8-17 week performance for a 1st year starting QB, ever

Better?

And STILL not #1. :lol:

Why did Aaron Rodgers have the most losses in that group?

And yet he still won the SuperBowl that year. Guess it didn't really matter.

You're good at avoiding answering basic questions "best rookie QB/best 1st year starter/losses in that group" and you mention Super Bowl...:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 despite the cherry-picking of his best weeks.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Best 8-17 week performance for a rookie QB, ever

Best 8-17 week performance for a 1st year starting QB, ever

Better?

And STILL not #1. :lol:

Why did Aaron Rodgers have the most losses in that group?

And yet he still won the SuperBowl that year. Guess it didn't really matter.

You're good at avoiding answering basic questions "best rookie QB/best 1st year starter/losses in that group" and you mention Super Bowl... :rolleyes:

AND NOW YOU'RE CHERRY-PICKING TITLES! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 despite the cherry-picking of his best weeks.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Best 8-17 week performance for a rookie QB, ever

Best 8-17 week performance for a 1st year starting QB, ever

Better?

And STILL not #1. :lol:

Why did Aaron Rodgers have the most losses in that group?

And yet he still won the SuperBowl that year. Guess it didn't really matter.

You're good at avoiding answering basic questions "best rookie QB/best 1st year starter/losses in that group" and you mention Super Bowl... :rolleyes:

AND NOW YOU'RE CHERRY-PICKING TITLES! :lol:

More like you're cherry picking what to troll here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best week 8-17 performances ever.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/11/4515222/the-six-best-week-8-17-performances-ever

Wilson made the list.

How about that? Wilson couldn't even come in at #1 despite the cherry-picking of his best weeks.

Hey! Is that Aaron Rodgers at #3?

Best 8-17 week performance for a rookie QB, ever

Best 8-17 week performance for a 1st year starting QB, ever

Better?

And STILL not #1. :lol:

Why did Aaron Rodgers have the most losses in that group?

And yet he still won the SuperBowl that year. Guess it didn't really matter.

You're good at avoiding answering basic questions "best rookie QB/best 1st year starter/losses in that group" and you mention Super Bowl... :rolleyes:

AND NOW YOU'RE CHERRY-PICKING TITLES! :lol:

More like you're cherry picking what to troll here.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are on the subject of cherry picking, can someone please tell me what QB has the best passer rating of all time in the 2nd quarter of road games when the game time temperature was between 36 and 55 degrees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are on the subject of cherry picking, can someone please tell me what QB has the best passer rating of all time in the 2nd quarter of road games when the game time temperature was between 36 and 55 degrees?

I thought that was in that Chase Stuart thread a while back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are on the subject of cherry picking, can someone please tell me what QB has the best passer rating of all time in the 2nd quarter of road games when the game time temperature was between 36 and 55 degrees?

I would guess Russell Wilson.

Anyways, do you really feel weeks 8-17 are cherry picking? Thats half the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are on the subject of cherry picking, can someone please tell me what QB has the best passer rating of all time in the 2nd quarter of road games when the game time temperature was between 36 and 55 degrees?

I would guess Russell Wilson.

Anyways, do you really feel weeks 8-17 are cherry picking? Thats half the season.

Anything that attempts to put Wilson in the same sentence as QB's who have HOF careers in a Fanshot is cherry picking. You should had seen what Niners Nation was trying to do with Alex Smith.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.