QB Russell Wilson, NYG (3 Viewers)

[Neofight]

Wilson isn't playing that poorly. I think what some people forget is that when you run a conservative offense, you limit your QB's opportunities to situations where the D in large part knows what is coming.

They are limiting the offense because of his limited ability as a QB. He is a decent dink and dunk passer and can scramble decently, but he is short and lacks the arms strength.

I believe Wilson's arm strength is superior to Flynn's.

There is no question about that, as far as everyone in Seattle that followed the preseason is concerned.

 

[matttyl]

So again, it's not their offense that's winning them games.

In your opinion the offense gets no credit for dominating time of possession?

Nope. First off, they aren't "dominating in time of possession". How are you coming up with that?! Their average time of possession is right at 32 minutes (out of a possible 60, obviously). This puts them right at 10th in the league. They are decent at TOP, but no where near "dominate". And even if they were, just means they run the ball quite often (no credit given to the QB), and the QB makes short throws and the receiver is tackled in bounds (limited credit given to the QB). This can be backed up by the fact that they are 3rd in the game in rushing attempts, and 28th in yards per pass attempt. Normally TOP works hand in hand with total offensive plays run (New England, KC, and Atl all in top 9 in both; as would Houston, Pitt and Detroit if they each hadn't had a bye already), but Seattle isn't in the top half of the league in total offensive plays and will likely be 19th after tonight. That just proves that they use MORE TIME PER PLAY than nearly anyone. That's not the same at all.

 

[biju]

But for some reason people are going to keep saying that one play means Wilson isn't good. Get over it--that was week 3.

Wrong...people will say he is not good, well, because he is not very good. That int he threw yesterday where the DB ran it back was one of the worst NFL throws I've seen. He threw the ball to the inside shoulder of a WR who was breaking to the sideline and it was a late throw on top off that.The ONLY reason why Seattle is winning any games is because of the defense and running game. But keep on believing in your 5'10 boy from Wisconsin.

I'd agree that Seattle is winning because of the defense and running game. But that wasn't even the worst throw of the day (Matt Ryan's was worse). And by the way, of the 5 rookies who started this year he's the only one with a winning record. Gotta be really hard to swallow that one with so much hate in your mouth.

 

[biju]

Wilson isn't playing that poorly. I think what some people forget is that when you run a conservative offense, you limit your QB's opportunities to situations where the D in large part knows what is coming.

They are limiting the offense because of his limited ability as a QB. He is a decent dink and dunk passer and can scramble decently, but he is short and lacks the arms strength.

I believe Wilson's arm strength is superior to Flynn's.

There is no question about that, as far as everyone in Seattle that followed the preseason is concerned.

Agreed. Love these people who probably didn't even know Seattle had a team and suddenly think they know about the team. Stick to your East Coast teams (who all basically suck this year) where you can blindly follow ESPN and who they say is good.

 

[matttyl]

And by the way, of the 5 rookies who started this year he's the only one with a winning record. Gotta be really hard to swallow that one with so much hate in your mouth.

Not if games were called properly, but I guess I'm beating a dead horse with that.You give Luck or RG3 this Seattle defense, they would be 3-1 and 4-1, at least. Tanny would also have Miami right where Seattle is now.

 

[Joe Summer]

Dominates Time Of Possession!!!!

 

[ImTheScientist]

Awesome game by Wilson yesterday. One bad throw but other than that he was deadly accurate all day. Showed Newton what a true leader looks like.

 

[Hooper31]

So again, it's not their offense that's winning them games.

In your opinion the offense gets no credit for dominating time of possession?

Nope. First off, they aren't "dominating in time of possession". How are you coming up with that?! Their average time of possession is right at 32 minutes (out of a possible 60, obviously). This puts them right at 10th in the league. They are decent at TOP, but no where near "dominate".

Yesterday they did, particularly in the first half. LINK And they have in previous games for portions of it. They killed Dallas (almost literally, that was a physical crushing). And in the first half of the Green Bay game it was complete domination. I'm trying to help you understand the overall plan in Seattle. If you don't want to hear about it, okay. If you want to just defend your position and not seek to understand what's the point? Are they a perfect team killing the league? Of course not. The "plan" in Seattle is what it is. Is it a good plan? That's debatable. If you want to debate that I think that's a worthy discussion and worth the time, but if you want to blow it off and try to discuss Wilson without acknowledging the Seattle philosophy we're wasting time.

And even if they were, just means they run the ball quite often (no credit given to the QB), and the QB makes short throws and the receiver is tackled in bounds (limited credit given to the QB). This can be backed up by the fact that they are 3rd in the game in rushing attempts, and 28th in yards per pass attempt.

Yesterday Wilson had an 8.8 ypa. I think Seattle can live with that. For a Seattle QB efficiency is key. Its not about cumulative stats. Yesterday Wilson made one horrific throw. It wasn't just bad, it was awful bad. However, he looked like the QB Seattle is looking for on the other attempts. Nearly all of them. He was the model of efficiency. 76% completion? 8.8 per attempt? 9/10 on third down? Those are great stats. Was it more a factor of a bad Panthers defense? Perhaps. Time will tell as he's going to get more chances. This is a choice by the Seattle front office. How do you stay competitive without an elite QB. How do you avoid mediocrity and worse? Do you just sit back and wait for a franchise QB?

 

[matttyl]

Showed Newton what a true leader looks like.

THIS, we can agree on. Time of possession "domination", and Seattle not winning games because of their defense are things that I and others won't see eye to eye on.....

 

[mad sweeney]

But for some reason people are going to keep saying that one play means Wilson isn't good. Get over it--that was week 3.

Wrong...people will say he is not good, well, because he is not very good. That int he threw yesterday where the DB ran it back was one of the worst NFL throws I've seen. He threw the ball to the inside shoulder of a WR who was breaking to the sideline and it was a late throw on top off that.The ONLY reason why Seattle is winning any games is because of the defense and running game. But keep on believing in your 5'10 boy from Wisconsin.

Yeah, it was a terrible throw and it's one that every single HoF QB or league MVP has thrown more than once in their careers. I don't know where you're getting that Wilson has a lack of arm strength (or whoever posted that comment), because Wilson has a much stronger arm than Flynn. Wilson's first big completion (called back on a penalty) was somewhere around 60 yards in the air.

 

[biju]

And by the way, of the 5 rookies who started this year he's the only one with a winning record. Gotta be really hard to swallow that one with so much hate in your mouth.

Not if games were called properly, but I guess I'm beating a dead horse with that.You give Luck or RG3 this Seattle defense, they would be 3-1 and 4-1, at least. Tanny would also have Miami right where Seattle is now.

I'm sure you think that last call was the only bad call that affected the outcome of that game. You can keep believing it if you'd like, but that isn't going to change the fact that Seattle won that game.You're right in that I'd much rather have Luck or an unhurt Griffin. (I'm not totally sold on Tannehill personally.) For that matter, I'd rather have Aaron Rodgers too while we're dreaming up different QBs to stick back there. Ultimately, Seattle didn't have a top two pick so I'm not sure where you're going with this other than it's too bad that good players end up on crappy teams. Feel free to continue to moan about it though, as I'm sure you will.

 

[FDC]

Terrible game from RW from a fantasy perspective

Carolina started Captain Munnerlyn and Josh Norman at CB and Goddfrey and Nakamura at safety and they stacked the box to stop the run

RW should of torched them and all he could manage was 220 1td 2ints. yuck

 

[Hooper31]

Dominates Time Of Possession!!!!

Carolina's possession yesterday by quarter:0:53 punt

1:32 punt

4:13 punt

0:53 punt

2:44 fg

1:33 punt

3:44 punt

0:00 fumble

1:35 punt

6:40 downs

0:14 fumble

Sea: 35:19

Car 24:41

What else can you call it? Yes, its one game. No, they don't get to play Carolina each week. Again, this is the plan. Is it a good plan? Again, that's debatable.

 

[Tau837]

Wilson isn't playing that poorly. I think what some people forget is that when you run a conservative offense, you limit your QB's opportunities to situations where the D in large part knows what is coming.

They are limiting the offense because of his limited ability as a QB. He is a decent dink and dunk passer and can scramble decently, but he is short and lacks the arms strength.

He does not lack arm strength, and saying he does makes it appear that you haven't watched him play and don't know what you are talking about.From Sideline Scouting:

Above-average arm strength, gets good velocity on his throws... Has a nice, tight spiral... Good accuracy, completes a very high percentage of his passes and he does throw down the field... Tremendous accuracy when throwing on the run, makes some of the toughest throws appear routine...

From CBS:

Arm Strength: Arguably Wilson's most impressive trait, especially considering his lack of ideal size. Can easily make every NFL throw, showing the ability to drive the football to the sideline on a line from the opposite hash. Can send the ball 40-50 yards downfield with a flick of his wrist.

From PFW:

Has a quick, high release and very good arm strength. Nice touch. Throws naturally on the move or off balance and can alter his arm slot.

From NFL.com:

He has the arm strength to make the deep throws and the touch to put it on a receiver in stride.

 

[matttyl]

So again, it's not their offense that's winning them games.

In your opinion the offense gets no credit for dominating time of possession?

Nope. First off, they aren't "dominating in time of possession". How are you coming up with that?! Their average time of possession is right at 32 minutes (out of a possible 60, obviously). This puts them right at 10th in the league. They are decent at TOP, but no where near "dominate".

Yesterday they did, particularly in the first half. LINK And they have in previous games for portions of it. They killed Dallas (almost literally, that was a physical crushing). And in the first half of the Green Bay game it was complete domination. I'm trying to help you understand the overall plan in Seattle.

Seriously?! You want to link to the TOM in the first half and give that credit to the OFFENSE?! Yeah, I guess the THREE 3-and-outs had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the top ranked defense in the NFL, right?Posted Today, 10:47 AM

View PostHooper31, on 08 October 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Quote

The ONLY reason why Seattle is winning any games is because of the defense and running game. But keep on believing in your 5'10 boy from Wisconsin.

This is very wrong and shows little to no understanding of what is going on in Seattle.

#edit - sorry about the above quote not really showing up as a "quote", I don't know how to post your above comment that shows you saying that Seattle isn't winning games (and TOM) due to their DEFENSE, and not the OFFENSE that you seem on wanting to give that credit to.

 

[matttyl]

Dominates Time Of Possession!!!!

Carolina's possession yesterday by quarter:0:53 punt

1:32 punt

4:13 punt

0:53 punt

2:44 fg

1:33 punt

3:44 punt

0:00 fumble

1:35 punt

6:40 downs

0:14 fumble

Sea: 35:19

Car 24:41

What else can you call it? Yes, its one game. No, they don't get to play Carolina each week. Again, this is the plan. Is it a good plan? Again, that's debatable.

I get this, and I've seen these numbers. What confuses me is why you want to give the credit to the OFFENSE for "dominating time of possession", when it's clearly the defense causing 3-and-outs giving Seattle the edge in this statistical category.

 

[matttyl]

You're right in that I'd much rather have Luck or an unhurt Griffin. (I'm not totally sold on Tannehill personally.) For that matter, I'd rather have Aaron Rodgers too while we're dreaming up different QBs to stick back there. Ultimately, Seattle didn't have a top two pick so I'm not sure where you're going with this other than it's too bad that good players end up on crappy teams. Feel free to continue to moan about it though, as I'm sure you will.

The OP, or someone else a few pages back, saying that Wilson will end up as a top 2 rookie QB from this class, or that he will be better than RG3. You just said both of those are wrong.

 

[Neofight]

But for some reason people are going to keep saying that one play means Wilson isn't good. Get over it--that was week 3.

Wrong...people will say he is not good, well, because he is not very good. That int he threw yesterday where the DB ran it back was one of the worst NFL throws I've seen. He threw the ball to the inside shoulder of a WR who was breaking to the sideline and it was a late throw on top off that.The ONLY reason why Seattle is winning any games is because of the defense and running game. But keep on believing in your 5'10 boy from Wisconsin.

I'd agree that Seattle is winning because of the defense and running game. But that wasn't even the worst throw of the day (Matt Ryan's was worse). And by the way, of the 5 rookies who started this year he's the only one with a winning record. Gotta be really hard to swallow that one with so much hate in your mouth.

I thought Cam's 4th & 1 one-hopper for the win was the worst throw of the game. Ugly.

 

[biju]

Dominates Time Of Possession!!!!

Carolina's possession yesterday by quarter:0:53 punt

1:32 punt

4:13 punt

0:53 punt

2:44 fg

1:33 punt

3:44 punt

0:00 fumble

1:35 punt

6:40 downs

0:14 fumble

Sea: 35:19

Car 24:41

What else can you call it? Yes, its one game. No, they don't get to play Carolina each week. Again, this is the plan. Is it a good plan? Again, that's debatable.

I get this, and I've seen these numbers. What confuses me is why you want to give the credit to the OFFENSE for "dominating time of possession", when it's clearly the defense causing 3-and-outs giving Seattle the edge in this statistical category.

If you're measuring by 3 and outs, the Seattle offense didn't have one. Sustaining drives is how you have TOP. Does the defense help? Absolutely. But Seattle only had 4 possessions in the first half and had the ball for ~19.5 minutes, nearly twice the amount CAR had.

 

[biju]

You're right in that I'd much rather have Luck or an unhurt Griffin. (I'm not totally sold on Tannehill personally.) For that matter, I'd rather have Aaron Rodgers too while we're dreaming up different QBs to stick back there. Ultimately, Seattle didn't have a top two pick so I'm not sure where you're going with this other than it's too bad that good players end up on crappy teams. Feel free to continue to moan about it though, as I'm sure you will.

The OP, or someone else a few pages back, saying that Wilson will end up as a top 2 rookie QB from this class, or that he will be better than RG3. You just said both of those are wrong.

So one fan (and a delusional one at that) is the basis of your argument? Ok.

 

[Hooper31]

What confuses me is why you want to give the credit to the OFFENSE for "dominating time of possession", when it's clearly the defense causing 3-and-outs giving Seattle the edge in this statistical category.

Its a team game. The Seattle offense had the same number of possessions as Carolina did, but Seattle remained on the field by moving the ball incrementally and gaining first downs. The Seattle defense got to rest on the sideline while the Carolina defense had to be out there longer.Is the Seattle defense dominating? You bet. Again, I think this makes a better discussion. If you were a GM in the league today how would you proceed? If you took over a down and out team with little hope how would you build your franchise? Pray to your choice of deity that an elite franchise QB falls into your lap? After you rule that out, how would you go about building your team? Where would you focus your limited resources at the start?

 

[Hooper31]

You're right in that I'd much rather have Luck or an unhurt Griffin. (I'm not totally sold on Tannehill personally.) For that matter, I'd rather have Aaron Rodgers too while we're dreaming up different QBs to stick back there. Ultimately, Seattle didn't have a top two pick so I'm not sure where you're going with this other than it's too bad that good players end up on crappy teams. Feel free to continue to moan about it though, as I'm sure you will.

The OP, or someone else a few pages back, saying that Wilson will end up as a top 2 rookie QB from this class, or that he will be better than RG3. You just said both of those are wrong.

So one fan (and a delusional one at that) is the basis of your argument? Ok.

I've lost count of how many times I've tried to tell people that Scientist is a blind homer. We all have them. Every team. He's over the top. If you want direct an argument at him, please direct it at him. There's a much larger fan base that would have a rational discourse with you.

 

[FDC]

What confuses me is why you want to give the credit to the OFFENSE for "dominating time of possession", when it's clearly the defense causing 3-and-outs giving Seattle the edge in this statistical category.

Its a team game. The Seattle offense had the same number of possessions as Carolina did, but Seattle remained on the field by moving the ball incrementally and gaining first downs. The Seattle defense got to rest on the sideline while the Carolina defense had to be out there longer.Is the Seattle defense dominating? You bet. Again, I think this makes a better discussion. If you were a GM in the league today how would you proceed? If you took over a down and out team with little hope how would you build your franchise? Pray to your choice of deity that an elite franchise QB falls into your lap? After you rule that out, how would you go about building your team? Where would you focus your limited resources at the start?

I would focus on upside. You aren't winning it all playing like Seattle is right now. So throw RW into the fire now and if you miss draft a QB next year.

 

[matttyl]

If you're measuring by 3 and outs, the Seattle offense didn't have one. Sustaining drives is how you have TOP. Does the defense help? Absolutely. But Seattle only had 4 possessions in the first half and had the ball for ~19.5 minutes, nearly twice the amount CAR had.

And they wouldn't have if their defense didn't cause so many 3 and outs. That's painfully obvious, not sure why anyone is arguing that point, or why you would give any credit to the offense (or even perhaps Wilson in a Wilson thread) for leading in TOM.It's also not like "winning TOM" nearly 2:1 in the first half did much for them, they were up 3 at the half.

 

[matttyl]

You're right in that I'd much rather have Luck or an unhurt Griffin. (I'm not totally sold on Tannehill personally.) For that matter, I'd rather have Aaron Rodgers too while we're dreaming up different QBs to stick back there. Ultimately, Seattle didn't have a top two pick so I'm not sure where you're going with this other than it's too bad that good players end up on crappy teams. Feel free to continue to moan about it though, as I'm sure you will.

The OP, or someone else a few pages back, saying that Wilson will end up as a top 2 rookie QB from this class, or that he will be better than RG3. You just said both of those are wrong.

So one fan (and a delusional one at that) is the basis of your argument? Ok.

I've lost count of how many times I've tried to tell people that Scientist is a blind homer. We all have them. Every team. He's over the top. If you want direct an argument at him, please direct it at him. There's a much larger fan base that would have a rational discourse with you.

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).

 

[biju]

If you're measuring by 3 and outs, the Seattle offense didn't have one. Sustaining drives is how you have TOP. Does the defense help? Absolutely. But Seattle only had 4 possessions in the first half and had the ball for ~19.5 minutes, nearly twice the amount CAR had.

And they wouldn't have if their defense didn't cause so many 3 and outs. That's painfully obvious, not sure why anyone is arguing that point, or why you would give any credit to the offense (or even perhaps Wilson in a Wilson thread) for leading in TOM.It's also not like "winning TOM" nearly 2:1 in the first half did much for them, they were up 3 at the half.

So the defense is the reason the offense didn't have a three and out? That's your argument right now?

 

[Hooper31]

It's also not like "winning TOM" nearly 2:1 in the first half did much for them, they were up 3 at the half.

You're discounting that a team will get worn down through a game. Again, this is the Seattle philosophy. Beat the crap out of your opponent physically and keep the game close. You won't normally win by a lot, but you're pretty sure you will be in every game. If you're disciplined and avoid turnovers you'll come out ahead more often than not. This is how they plan to win. Is it a good plan? We'll see. Its been working well in SF for two years now. I've mentioned it before, but I find it ironic that Carroll and Harbaugh loathe each other, but their teams are close to mirror images when it comes to philosophy. As a fan I like it. They've found a way to be competitive without an elite franchise QB. Further, they've built a team that doesn't rely on only QB play. They built their franchise from the OL and DL out. I love they they assembled personnel with an complete team concept in mind. Get giant over-sized physical CBs to play press man on the outside. Get a monster strong safety that brings the hammer. Move a DT to DE to create an enormous D-line that shuts down the run. Bring in pass rushing specialist to get after the quarterback after you creating passing downs. And this is just the defense. Their offensive plan complements the defense. Be ball control. Give the defense time to rest. Acquire physical and mean OL with attitude. Bring in a pounder at RB to grind out tough yards. They even drafted a similar RB in Turbin to compliment him. Add TEs that can block and block very well. Find a quarterback that plays efficient making good choices. All this said, they still have holes (WR is the most glaring need). Will they be able to keep the talent they've accumulated and fill those holes. I don't know, but it will be fun to watch for this fan.

 

[Hooper31]

I guess my "argument" is that Wilson will not make a great FF QB, and you guys are making my argument for me.

Agree 100% as I've said so many times. If Seattle is successful as a team Wilson will not be posting big numbers. I like to think he will be closer to Aikman numbers-wise if Seattle wins games. But you have to realize that this goes the same for Flynn. No Seattle QB is going to be posting fantasy worthy stats.

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).

Fair enough. It is a fantasy football board, but I'm more interested in real football. To each their own.

 

[biju]

I guess my "argument" is that Wilson will not make a great FF QB, and you guys are making my argument for me.

Agree 100% as I've said so many times. If Seattle is successful as a team Wilson will not be posting big numbers. I like to think he will be closer to Aikman numbers-wise if Seattle wins games. But you have to realize that this goes the same for Flynn. No Seattle QB is going to be posting fantasy worthy stats.

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).

Fair enough. It is a fantasy football board, but I'm more interested in real football. To each their own.

I agree with this. There were claims he was a bad QB, not a bad FF QB and that is wrong based on what he's being asked to do. Every time he's been asked to drive the team down the field to win at the end of the game he's done it (although not successfully scoring in two of those times, one due to stone hands and another due to a trip of the receiver).

 

[Tau837]

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?

 

[matttyl]

So the defense is the reason the offense didn't have a three and out? That's your argument right now?

No, I'm saying that the defense had more to do than the offense in terms of TOP in not only this game, but for the entire season thus far....and that Seattle isn't "dominating" TOP.

 

[lod01]

Awesome game by Wilson yesterday. One bad throw but other than that he was deadly accurate all day. Showed Newton what a true leader looks like.

Still drunk this morning I see.

 

[matttyl]

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.

 

[cstu]

Seahawks passing yards: 735

Seahawks rushing yards: 701

 

[matttyl]

Seahawks passing yards: 735 Seahawks rushing yards: 701

Is this attempting to say that the passing game is stronger than the running game?This ratio (51.1% of total yards from passing) puts Seattle closer to a 50:50 split in passing yards to rushing yards than any team in the league. To me, in today's NFL, that shows that you have a poor QB (or at least below average). If Seattle is running that much, then they are seeing a lot of 8 and 9 in the box which you would think is opening up the passing game, right?Seahawks passing yards - 31st in the leagueSeahawks rushing yards - 6th in the leagueSeahawks pass completions - 79 (30th in the league, but would be dead last if TB and Jets both had 5 full games right now)Seahawks running plays - 172 (3rd in league)

 

[cstu]

Is this attempting to say that the passing game is stronger than the running game?This ratio (51.1% of total yards from passing) puts Seattle closer to a 50:50 split in passing yards to rushing yards than any team in the league. To me, in today's NFL, that shows that you have a poor QB (or at least below average). If Seattle is running that much, then they are seeing a lot of 8 and 9 in the box which you would think is opening up the passing game, right?

No, I completely agree with you. Wilson's completion percentage looks nice but he's only taken advantage of teams expecting the run. On 3rd down and 5+ yards to go, when teams are expecting a pass, he's 15 of 26 and only 7 of those were 1st downs.

 

[Hooper31]

Is this attempting to say that the passing game is stronger than the running game?This ratio (51.1% of total yards from passing) puts Seattle closer to a 50:50 split in passing yards to rushing yards than any team in the league. To me, in today's NFL, that shows that you have a poor QB (or at least below average). If Seattle is running that much, then they are seeing a lot of 8 and 9 in the box which you would think is opening up the passing game, right?

No, I completely agree with you. Wilson's completion percentage looks nice but he's only taken advantage of teams expecting the run. On 3rd down and 5+ yards to go, when teams are expecting a pass, he's 15 of 26 and only 7 of those were 1st downs.

No question he was poor on third down over the two previous games, but yesterday he was 9/10 for 73 yards converting 5 first downs. The team was 7/14 on third down as a whole. His numbers were much worse before yesterday. Is it a matter of a poor opponent, or a trend? Time will tell.

 

[Tau837]

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. 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.

 

[Hooper31]

How long can they maintain the strong defense and strong running game?

This is an excellent question. Yesterday I was sifting through the salaries of the Seattle players noticing how many of the defensive starters are low level salary guys because of where they were drafted.

LINK to yahoo roster that includes salaries for every player.

On the defensive line they have locked up several guys to deals (Clemons, Mebane, Irvin, Bryant), but the linebackers and DBs are another story. Seattle absolutely nailed their drafts the past few years and many of those players are going to have their initial contracts end at the same time.

Both safeties Thomas and Chancellor were drafted together in 2010.

LB Wright and CB Sherman were drafted together in 2011.

LB Wagner and DE Irvin were drafted together in 2012.

Who will they keep? Who will get paid? Its not a decision they have to answer soon, but I can see some of these guys being let go because they aren't going to be able to pay them all.

 

[cstu]

Is this attempting to say that the passing game is stronger than the running game?This ratio (51.1% of total yards from passing) puts Seattle closer to a 50:50 split in passing yards to rushing yards than any team in the league. To me, in today's NFL, that shows that you have a poor QB (or at least below average). If Seattle is running that much, then they are seeing a lot of 8 and 9 in the box which you would think is opening up the passing game, right?

No, I completely agree with you. Wilson's completion percentage looks nice but he's only taken advantage of teams expecting the run. On 3rd down and 5+ yards to go, when teams are expecting a pass, he's 15 of 26 and only 7 of those were 1st downs.

No question he was poor on third down over the two previous games, but yesterday he was 9/10 for 73 yards converting 5 first downs. The team was 7/14 on third down as a whole. His numbers were much worse before yesterday. Is it a matter of a poor opponent, or a trend? Time will tell.

That was definitely an improvement, but there was a big difference between short and long 3rd downs. He was 3 for 3 with 3 first downs with 3rd and 5 or less, but 6 of 7 with 2 first downs on 3rd and 6+. He's certainly improving but I still have my doubts whether he'll ever be more than a game manager.

 

[flc735]

his point is that "The guy just wins games" is not relevant, which you just restated in your reply. (you two agree)

Correct, but you have to realize you're just being fished here. People are saying this to get a rise out of others.

wilson is not playing well.

This is wrong. Overall he did play well yesterday. He had one horrible throw in that game and many many good throws. Not sure where you're getting this, but yesterday was his best outing so far. He contributed to a win. The team didn't win in spite of him. He was 19/25 with 8.8 yards per attempt. That's getting it done.

More importantly, he was 9/10 on third down for 73 yards. That's getting it done on the money down.

i didn't watch him yesterday. CAR was his easiest matchup so far, i'm not sure 9/10 vs them is saying much. i did over his first 4 games and don't think he played very well. he is playing too conservative and is not using his legs to the extent that he should to extend drives which to me, is the main advantage he has over flynn.

the seahawks have another qb that may be able to play better. some think they should find out.

This just isn't going to happen. Its not like a fantasy squad where you can try different players. In the team game that the NFL plays tinkering with the starting quarterback has huge ramifications. Wilson earned the starting job and hasn't played poorly enough to lose it. That said, the NFL means "not for long" when it comes to poor play. He's not close to losing his job as the starter.yes you can. the cardinals do it all the time. the broncos did it last year and that got them to the playoffs.

"hasn't played poorly enough to lose it" <---i don't agree with that

im not saying they should flip between qb's after every interception, i am only saying that i don't think wilson is playing well enough. i think its in the seahawks best interest to see if flynn can be better. flynn is not going to be any worse than wilson has, whats the downside here?

EDIT: To add some numbers.

 

[Hooper31]

Holy crap I've posted in this thread a lot, and I wouldn't consider myself on the a Wilson bandwagon. I believe that Carroll and Schnieder have developed a good plan for how to win in the NFL, and I'm excited to see where that goes as a fan of the Seahawks. I guess I'm just thrilled to see people discussing the Seahawks for any reason.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Is this attempting to say that the passing game is stronger than the running game?This ratio (51.1% of total yards from passing) puts Seattle closer to a 50:50 split in passing yards to rushing yards than any team in the league. To me, in today's NFL, that shows that you have a poor QB (or at least below average). If Seattle is running that much, then they are seeing a lot of 8 and 9 in the box which you would think is opening up the passing game, right?

No, I completely agree with you. Wilson's completion percentage looks nice but he's only taken advantage of teams expecting the run. On 3rd down and 5+ yards to go, when teams are expecting a pass, he's 15 of 26 and only 7 of those were 1st downs.

Is he not supposed to take advantage of teams expecting the run?

 

[Hooper31]

Is he not supposed to take advantage of teams expecting the run?

Both of these past two weeks Seattle has marched down the field quickly using play-action on their first drives resulting in scores. I was surprised.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Seattle really needs to give Flynn a shot. RW is awful.

You are anything but the voice of reason. The Seahawks win. Wilson gives them steady QB play with a chance to explode. They win. He is not putting up 5000/50 anytime soon but he does not need to do that to win. Control the ball, move the ball, score. Simple.

He's on pace for 1900 yards passing and 16 touchdowns. So I think you meant to say he's not putting up 2500 yards passing / 20 touchdowns anytime soon.

The only stat that matters is a "W". And, if he gets 10+ of those "W's", he might be a keeper.

But Flynn has more career "W's" than Wilson.

No he doesn't. Wilson is 3-2 as a starter; Flynn is 1-1. WTF are you talking about?

http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-11/2011-green-bay-packers-football-schedule.php

 

[Mario Kart]

Seattle really needs to give Flynn a shot. RW is awful.

You are anything but the voice of reason. The Seahawks win. Wilson gives them steady QB play with a chance to explode. They win. He is not putting up 5000/50 anytime soon but he does not need to do that to win. Control the ball, move the ball, score. Simple.

He's on pace for 1900 yards passing and 16 touchdowns. So I think you meant to say he's not putting up 2500 yards passing / 20 touchdowns anytime soon.

The only stat that matters is a "W". And, if he gets 10+ of those "W's", he might be a keeper.

But Flynn has more career "W's" than Wilson.

No he doesn't. Wilson is 3-2 as a starter; Flynn is 1-1. WTF are you talking about?

http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-11/2011-green-bay-packers-football-schedule.php

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Seattle really needs to give Flynn a shot. RW is awful.

You are anything but the voice of reason. The Seahawks win. Wilson gives them steady QB play with a chance to explode. They win. He is not putting up 5000/50 anytime soon but he does not need to do that to win. Control the ball, move the ball, score. Simple.

He's on pace for 1900 yards passing and 16 touchdowns. So I think you meant to say he's not putting up 2500 yards passing / 20 touchdowns anytime soon.

The only stat that matters is a "W". And, if he gets 10+ of those "W's", he might be a keeper.

But Flynn has more career "W's" than Wilson.

No he doesn't. Wilson is 3-2 as a starter; Flynn is 1-1. WTF are you talking about?

http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-11/2011-green-bay-packers-football-schedule.php

Flynn was member of teams that won more games. Winner!

 

[Neofight]

Seattle really needs to give Flynn a shot. RW is awful.

You are anything but the voice of reason. The Seahawks win. Wilson gives them steady QB play with a chance to explode. They win. He is not putting up 5000/50 anytime soon but he does not need to do that to win. Control the ball, move the ball, score. Simple.

He's on pace for 1900 yards passing and 16 touchdowns. So I think you meant to say he's not putting up 2500 yards passing / 20 touchdowns anytime soon.

The only stat that matters is a "W". And, if he gets 10+ of those "W's", he might be a keeper.

But Flynn has more career "W's" than Wilson.

No he doesn't. Wilson is 3-2 as a starter; Flynn is 1-1. WTF are you talking about?

http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-11/2011-green-bay-packers-football-schedule.php

Flynn was member of teams that won more games. Winner!

Flynn will have plenty of opportunity to earn more wins riding Wilson's coattails too. Winner!

 

[Mario Kart]

Seattle really needs to give Flynn a shot. RW is awful.

You are anything but the voice of reason. The Seahawks win. Wilson gives them steady QB play with a chance to explode. They win. He is not putting up 5000/50 anytime soon but he does not need to do that to win. Control the ball, move the ball, score. Simple.

He's on pace for 1900 yards passing and 16 touchdowns. So I think you meant to say he's not putting up 2500 yards passing / 20 touchdowns anytime soon.

The only stat that matters is a "W". And, if he gets 10+ of those "W's", he might be a keeper.

But Flynn has more career "W's" than Wilson.

No he doesn't. Wilson is 3-2 as a starter; Flynn is 1-1. WTF are you talking about?

http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-11/2011-green-bay-packers-football-schedule.php

Flynn was member of teams that won more games. Winner!

Flynn played in how many of those games? You must be confused with how this works.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Seattle really needs to give Flynn a shot. RW is awful.

You are anything but the voice of reason. The Seahawks win. Wilson gives them steady QB play with a chance to explode. They win. He is not putting up 5000/50 anytime soon but he does not need to do that to win. Control the ball, move the ball, score. Simple.

He's on pace for 1900 yards passing and 16 touchdowns. So I think you meant to say he's not putting up 2500 yards passing / 20 touchdowns anytime soon.

The only stat that matters is a "W". And, if he gets 10+ of those "W's", he might be a keeper.

But Flynn has more career "W's" than Wilson.

No he doesn't. Wilson is 3-2 as a starter; Flynn is 1-1. WTF are you talking about?

http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-11/2011-green-bay-packers-football-schedule.php

Flynn was member of teams that won more games. Winner!

Flynn played in how many of those games? You must be confused with how this works.

I must be. Both guys had their teams carry them to victories. What is the difference.