What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

QB Russell Wilson, PIT (6 Viewers)

And furthormore,In all of the drives where the Redskins scored touchdowns their average starting field position was their own 39.9 yard line.In all of the drives where the Seahawks scored touchdowns their average starting field position was their own 20.7 yard line.In conclusion, your position that Russel Wilsons higher TD total is due to having a shorter field is probably moot.Although I'm sure there is a short joke in there somewhere.

'Warrior said:
If Griffin or Luck got the ball in their opponents' territory half as often as Wilson, they'd lead him in TDs.
Click to expand...
The Redskins got the ball in opponents territory 18 times to the 25 that Seattle did. 18 is measurably more than half of 25. So this is wrong too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'ImTheScientist said:
'fatness said:
Seattle 2011: 7-9Seattle 2012: 11-5improvement under Wilson: 4 winsWashington 2011: 5-11Washington 2012: 10-6improvement under Griffin: 5 winsDivision titles: Griffin 1, Wilson 0
Click to expand...
Griffin accounted for 8 wins.... not 10.
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean that Griffin doesn't get credit for the win in the game Cousins started (which he doesn't/shouldn't), Griffin accounted for 9 wins, not 8. He started the Baltimore game, and thus gets credit for the win. If you are trying to discount that game because Griffin didn't finish the game, then you have to discount 3 wins from Wilson's total, since there were 3 games he didn't finish either.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make a lick of sense. I'm not pimping Wilson over RG3, but if you don't know the difference between leaving a game while behind and thus not getting the win vs leaving the game due to an unassailable point total in a win then you're just not thinking at all.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. Scientist discounted a win from RGIII b/c he didn't finish the game, despite the fact that the NFL gives Griffin credit for that win. I merely pointed out that if he chose to do that for Griffin; he should do the same for Wilson, who didn't finish 3 games (even though the NFL counts those as wins for Wilson). I wasn't saying discounting the wins was valid for either player, rather that Scientist was deciding which stats to count, based on it supporting his stance.
Click to expand...
It's still absurd. There are plenty of ways to bash ITS without relying on being ridiculous. It ruins any positive gains you may make in the matter.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion. The fact is that his argument was ridiculous, so I felt that making the same ridiculous argument, with the "shoe on the other foot," so to speak, demonstrated that nicely.
 
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'ImTheScientist said:
'fatness said:
Seattle 2011: 7-9Seattle 2012: 11-5improvement under Wilson: 4 winsWashington 2011: 5-11Washington 2012: 10-6improvement under Griffin: 5 winsDivision titles: Griffin 1, Wilson 0
Click to expand...
Griffin accounted for 8 wins.... not 10.
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean that Griffin doesn't get credit for the win in the game Cousins started (which he doesn't/shouldn't), Griffin accounted for 9 wins, not 8. He started the Baltimore game, and thus gets credit for the win. If you are trying to discount that game because Griffin didn't finish the game, then you have to discount 3 wins from Wilson's total, since there were 3 games he didn't finish either.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make a lick of sense. I'm not pimping Wilson over RG3, but if you don't know the difference between leaving a game while behind and thus not getting the win vs leaving the game due to an unassailable point total in a win then you're just not thinking at all.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. Scientist discounted a win from RGIII b/c he didn't finish the game, despite the fact that the NFL gives Griffin credit for that win. I merely pointed out that if he chose to do that for Griffin; he should do the same for Wilson, who didn't finish 3 games (even though the NFL counts those as wins for Wilson). I wasn't saying discounting the wins was valid for either player, rather that Scientist was deciding which stats to count, based on it supporting his stance.
Click to expand...
It's still absurd. There are plenty of ways to bash ITS without relying on being ridiculous. It ruins any positive gains you may make in the matter.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion. The fact is that his argument was ridiculous, so I felt that making the same ridiculous argument, with the "shoe on the other foot," so to speak, demonstrated that nicely.
Click to expand...
No it didn't. Common sense dictates that RG3 leaving a game while his team was behind is nothing anywhere near Wilson leaving a game that was completely out of hand already won. It doesn't do anything to advance your "ITS is being ridiculous argument". You've achieved the opposite and actually made his arguments seem far more valid than yours.
 
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'ImTheScientist said:
'fatness said:
Seattle 2011: 7-9

Seattle 2012: 11-5

improvement under Wilson: 4 wins

Washington 2011: 5-11

Washington 2012: 10-6

improvement under Griffin: 5 wins

Division titles: Griffin 1, Wilson 0
Click to expand...
Griffin accounted for 8 wins.... not 10.
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean that Griffin doesn't get credit for the win in the game Cousins started (which he doesn't/shouldn't), Griffin accounted for 9 wins, not 8. He started the Baltimore game, and thus gets credit for the win. If you are trying to discount that game because Griffin didn't finish the game, then you have to discount 3 wins from Wilson's total, since there were 3 games he didn't finish either.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make a lick of sense. I'm not pimping Wilson over RG3, but if you don't know the difference between leaving a game while behind and thus not getting the win vs leaving the game due to an unassailable point total in a win then you're just not thinking at all.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. Scientist discounted a win from RGIII b/c he didn't finish the game, despite the fact that the NFL gives Griffin credit for that win. I merely pointed out that if he chose to do that for Griffin; he should do the same for Wilson, who didn't finish 3 games (even though the NFL counts those as wins for Wilson). I wasn't saying discounting the wins was valid for either player, rather that Scientist was deciding which stats to count, based on it supporting his stance.
Click to expand...
It's still absurd. There are plenty of ways to bash ITS without relying on being ridiculous. It ruins any positive gains you may make in the matter.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion. The fact is that his argument was ridiculous, so I felt that making the same ridiculous argument, with the "shoe on the other foot," so to speak, demonstrated that nicely.
Click to expand...
No it didn't. Common sense dictates that RG3 leaving a game while his team was behind is nothing anywhere near Wilson leaving a game that was completely out of hand already won. It doesn't do anything to advance your "ITS is being ridiculous argument". You've achieved the opposite and actually made his arguments seem far more valid than yours.
Click to expand...
COMMON SENSE says that a DB won't get flagged for dislodging the ball from a WR with a perfectly legal hit. COMMON SENSE says that a automatic video review won't be negated by a coach throwing a red flag when he isn't allowed to. COMMON SENSE says that a LB won't get an unsportsmanlike penalty for tackling the QB around his knees.We aren't talking about COMMON SENSE; we are talking about the NFL, and how the award wins to QBs. And, they award wins to QBs who start the game. They don't award wins via the "baseball save rule" as Scientist wants to pretend they do. His contention that this should be done is ridiculous, as is the argument that Wilson shouldn't get wins for the 3 games he failed to finish.

 
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
'Bayhawks said:
'ImTheScientist said:
'fatness said:
Seattle 2011: 7-9

Seattle 2012: 11-5

improvement under Wilson: 4 wins

Washington 2011: 5-11

Washington 2012: 10-6

improvement under Griffin: 5 wins

Division titles: Griffin 1, Wilson 0
Click to expand...
Griffin accounted for 8 wins.... not 10.
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean that Griffin doesn't get credit for the win in the game Cousins started (which he doesn't/shouldn't), Griffin accounted for 9 wins, not 8. He started the Baltimore game, and thus gets credit for the win. If you are trying to discount that game because Griffin didn't finish the game, then you have to discount 3 wins from Wilson's total, since there were 3 games he didn't finish either.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make a lick of sense. I'm not pimping Wilson over RG3, but if you don't know the difference between leaving a game while behind and thus not getting the win vs leaving the game due to an unassailable point total in a win then you're just not thinking at all.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. Scientist discounted a win from RGIII b/c he didn't finish the game, despite the fact that the NFL gives Griffin credit for that win. I merely pointed out that if he chose to do that for Griffin; he should do the same for Wilson, who didn't finish 3 games (even though the NFL counts those as wins for Wilson). I wasn't saying discounting the wins was valid for either player, rather that Scientist was deciding which stats to count, based on it supporting his stance.
Click to expand...
It's still absurd. There are plenty of ways to bash ITS without relying on being ridiculous. It ruins any positive gains you may make in the matter.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion. The fact is that his argument was ridiculous, so I felt that making the same ridiculous argument, with the "shoe on the other foot," so to speak, demonstrated that nicely.
Click to expand...
No it didn't. Common sense dictates that RG3 leaving a game while his team was behind is nothing anywhere near Wilson leaving a game that was completely out of hand already won. It doesn't do anything to advance your "ITS is being ridiculous argument". You've achieved the opposite and actually made his arguments seem far more valid than yours.
Click to expand...
COMMON SENSE says that a DB won't get flagged for dislodging the ball from a WR with a perfectly legal hit. COMMON SENSE says that a automatic video review won't be negated by a coach throwing a red flag when he isn't allowed to. COMMON SENSE says that a LB won't get an unsportsmanlike penalty for tackling the QB around his knees.We aren't talking about COMMON SENSE; we are talking about the NFL, and how the award wins to QBs. And, they award wins to QBs who start the game. They don't award wins via the "baseball save rule" as Scientist wants to pretend they do. His contention that this should be done is ridiculous, as is the argument that Wilson shouldn't get wins for the 3 games he failed to finish.
Click to expand...
I'm AWARE that you're not talking about common sense. We're not talking about common sense in the rules or on the field. We're talking about interpreting stats and analyzing play. No matter how many times you say it, your attempted correlation is 1000 times more ridiculous than ITS' because it doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense behind it. If you were interpreting the impact of a QB on each win of the season then Wilson's 3 games and Griffin's 1.5 (you can make arguments for it counting because of the NFL stat line but not for causation) then it's extremely clear how beyond the absurd your attempt is. Like I said, there's plenty to pick apart about ITS' posts, your way is about as far away from being a good one as you can get.
 
'mad sweeney said:
I'm AWARE that you're not talking about common sense.
Click to expand...
Then I don't understand why you brought it up.
'mad sweeney said:
We're talking about interpreting stats and analyzing play.
Click to expand...
You might be, I'm not. All I'm posting about is Scientist's attempt to discount one of the wins credited to Griffin. For some reason, you decided to lump that into some analysis of Griffin's & Wilson's play this year.For the record, I feel that Griffin had a better year, largely due to the much smaller amount of INTs he threw. When you couple that with the fact that Seattle had a much better defense, Wilson was not asked to do as much, especially early on.
'mad sweeney said:
No matter how many times you say it, your attempted correlation is 1000 times more ridiculous than ITS' because it doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense behind it.
Click to expand...
If you were reading my post(s), IN CONTEXT, and not trying to assimilate them into your discussion of the stat interpretation and play analysis you are talking about, it's not ridiculous. If Scientist (or you) want to argue that Griffin doesn't deserve to get credit for the Baltimore win, that's a different story. But the fact is that he is credited, by the NFL, with the win (just as Wilson is credited with the 3 wins I referenced), so Scientist claiming he "doesn't get" that win is ridiculous.
 
'Incogneto said:
I don't think any team in the league can match the 1/2time adjustments the seahawks make.
Click to expand...
That's one thing I really noticed this season... so much so that I was expecting it every game towards the end of the season. Going into halftime in the Rams game I literally said, 'ok guys, go fix this' and was confident that they would. I can't speak to how they compare to other teams as I don't neurotically focus on anyone but the Seahawks, but they certainly are MUCH improved in this area.
 
'CapnJB said:
'Incogneto said:
I don't think any team in the league can match the 1/2time adjustments the seahawks make.
Click to expand...
That's one thing I really noticed this season... so much so that I was expecting it every game towards the end of the season. Going into halftime in the Rams game I literally said, 'ok guys, go fix this' and was confident that they would. I can't speak to how they compare to other teams as I don't neurotically focus on anyone but the Seahawks, but they certainly are MUCH improved in this area.
Click to expand...
Wilson is amazing in that he learns from his mistakes really quick and corrects.
 
'Bayhawks said:
'mad sweeney said:
I'm AWARE that you're not talking about common sense.
Click to expand...
Then I don't understand why you brought it up.
'mad sweeney said:
We're talking about interpreting stats and analyzing play.
Click to expand...
You might be, I'm not. All I'm posting about is Scientist's attempt to discount one of the wins credited to Griffin. For some reason, you decided to lump that into some analysis of Griffin's & Wilson's play this year.For the record, I feel that Griffin had a better year, largely due to the much smaller amount of INTs he threw. When you couple that with the fact that Seattle had a much better defense, Wilson was not asked to do as much, especially early on.
'mad sweeney said:
No matter how many times you say it, your attempted correlation is 1000 times more ridiculous than ITS' because it doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense behind it.
Click to expand...
If you were reading my post(s), IN CONTEXT, and not trying to assimilate them into your discussion of the stat interpretation and play analysis you are talking about, it's not ridiculous. If Scientist (or you) want to argue that Griffin doesn't deserve to get credit for the Baltimore win, that's a different story. But the fact is that he is credited, by the NFL, with the win (just as Wilson is credited with the 3 wins I referenced), so Scientist claiming he "doesn't get" that win is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Sure thing boss. Good luck with your lawyering career.
 
'CapnJB said:
The Redskins average starting field position was their own 23.8 yard line.The Seahawks average starting field position was their own 26.6 yard line. Less than three yards difference.
Click to expand...
Was that for scoring drives or just all drives? Just curious.
 
'Ghost Rider said:
'CapnJB said:
The Redskins average starting field position was their own 23.8 yard line.The Seahawks average starting field position was their own 26.6 yard line. Less than three yards difference.
Click to expand...
Was that for scoring drives or just all drives? Just curious.
Click to expand...
That was all drives. I also listed the average position for all TD drives in the follow up post. I still have the data in a spreadsheet and could probably grab the average for all scoring drives and/or just FGs if you'd like.
 
'cacksman said:
Russell Wilson highlights from last season in Wisconsin.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8r7wLnb1xc&feature=player_embeddedSome notes from watching: His play action? Sick, seems like everyone on D bites. Could be important with Lynch and Turbin. Way faster than I expected. Great pocket skills (granted these are highlights but judging from his numbers, most of his plays were highlights)+ arm strength and touch on his throws.I've also read that Wilson had maybe the biggest hands of any QB in the draft, which can help in rainy Seattle for holding on to the ball. Also, due to his high release point, his release point compares to RGIII and last season he had less passes batted down than Luck and Griffin.The reason he fell in the draft is solely on height but Wilson is superb at finding throwing lanes, something Brees has been able to do in his time in the NFL. I haven't even covered his character yet, he was named team captain within 20 days of being on the Wisonsin football team. One of the huge things Pete Carroll preaches is limiting turnovers and Wilson is a master at this. His freshman year at NC State the dude threw for 17 TDs and 1 INT! Last year, 39 total TDs, 4 INTs. :moneybag: :moneybag: :moneybag: :moneybag:
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
'Hooper31 said:
We all knew Wilson was too good to be true. Scandal finally hits Wilson and Carrill.http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/1/3/3832960/shocking-scandal-russell-wilson-and-pete-carroll-are-scamming-the-nfl
Click to expand...
That's 3 of the stupidest minutes I've ever seen on the innernetz.
 
From Mike Sando's recent article:http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... -ryan-leafTony Pauline, SI.com:"The Seahawks made another questionable decision, tabbing Wilson in the third frame. Wilson is destined to sit behind newly-signed Matt Flynn and will struggle to see the field at any point over the next three years."Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports:"The Seahawks spent a third-round pick on Wilson even though the history of QBs under 6-foot is poor, to say the least. You don't spend a third-round pick on a guy who'll be lucky to be Seneca Wallace. You also don't do that after signing Matt Flynn as a free agent. The Seahawks are no closer to solving the QB situation now than they were before 2011."Pete Prisco, CBSSports.com:"Why does Seattle take him? They paid Matt Flynn and have two others. Strange pick."Joseph Fell, Cold Hard Football Facts:"Just as soon as Seahawks fans began to shell out their hard-earned money for jerseys with Flynn’s name on the back, Carroll once again demonstrated his flair for the dramatic by announcing that Wilson would be the Seahawks’ starting quarterback this fall. This experiment will prove a disaster. … Starting Wilson will most likely lead to another wasted season, and this move may be the one that leads owner Paul Allen to fire Carroll."Wes Bunting, National Football Post:"Wilson is a plus athlete who can spin the football and gives you a nice run/pass threat. However he's undersized, is going to struggle to consistently make plays from the pocket and is still learning how to work his way through defenses. He is worth a pick late, but I don't see the guy as a potential starter in the NFL. Reserve only."Mel Kiper Jr., ESPN:"Russell Wilson is a great test case for shorter QBs, because he has everything else, but did they need him in the third round after grabbing Matt Flynn to come in and likely start?"
Click to expand...
 
This was also one of Wilson's worst games in a while(he still played well). I fully expect him to play much better next weekend. He doesn't usually not see wide open players streaking upfield, or overthrow his receivers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'ImTheScientist said:
From Mike Sando's recent article:http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... -ryan-leafTony Pauline, SI.com:"The Seahawks made another questionable decision, tabbing Wilson in the third frame. Wilson is destined to sit behind newly-signed Matt Flynn and will struggle to see the field at any point over the next three years."Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports:"The Seahawks spent a third-round pick on Wilson even though the history of QBs under 6-foot is poor, to say the least. You don't spend a third-round pick on a guy who'll be lucky to be Seneca Wallace. You also don't do that after signing Matt Flynn as a free agent. The Seahawks are no closer to solving the QB situation now than they were before 2011."Pete Prisco, CBSSports.com:"Why does Seattle take him? They paid Matt Flynn and have two others. Strange pick."Joseph Fell, Cold Hard Football Facts:"Just as soon as Seahawks fans began to shell out their hard-earned money for jerseys with Flynn’s name on the back, Carroll once again demonstrated his flair for the dramatic by announcing that Wilson would be the Seahawks’ starting quarterback this fall. This experiment will prove a disaster. … Starting Wilson will most likely lead to another wasted season, and this move may be the one that leads owner Paul Allen to fire Carroll."Wes Bunting, National Football Post:"Wilson is a plus athlete who can spin the football and gives you a nice run/pass threat. However he's undersized, is going to struggle to consistently make plays from the pocket and is still learning how to work his way through defenses. He is worth a pick late, but I don't see the guy as a potential starter in the NFL. Reserve only."Mel Kiper Jr., ESPN:"Russell Wilson is a great test case for shorter QBs, because he has everything else, but did they need him in the third round after grabbing Matt Flynn to come in and likely start?"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Whole lotta Oof there.
 
'ImTheScientist said:
Wilson proved last night....he should be ROY. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I like Wilson, and I think he's going to be a good to great pro QB. I also think that he should be (at worst) 2nd in the ROY voting, but will probably finish behind both Luck and RGIII.That being said, how does his game last night "prove" anything with regards to ROY? :confused: He completed just 58% of his passes, fumbled once, should have had a pick in the end zone (Baldwin, I think prevented the INT with what should have been offensive PI), and wasn't accurate at all. The Seahawks outplayed the Redskins, and the Seahawks won. I don't think you can say Wilson carried them to that victory.
 
'Bayhawks said:
'ImTheScientist said:
Wilson proved last night....he should be ROY. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I like Wilson, and I think he's going to be a good to great pro QB. I also think that he should be (at worst) 2nd in the ROY voting, but will probably finish behind both Luck and RGIII.That being said, how does his game last night "prove" anything with regards to ROY? :confused: He completed just 58% of his passes, fumbled once, should have had a pick in the end zone (Baldwin, I think prevented the INT with what should have been offensive PI), and wasn't accurate at all. The Seahawks outplayed the Redskins, and the Seahawks won. I don't think you can say Wilson carried them to that victory.
Click to expand...
Russell Wilson made a lot of plays. He didn't turn the ball over. He did outstanding for a rookie down 14 in a road playoff game to keep his composure and lead a 4th quarter comeback win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Bayhawks said:
'ImTheScientist said:
Wilson proved last night....he should be ROY. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I like Wilson, and I think he's going to be a good to great pro QB. I also think that he should be (at worst) 2nd in the ROY voting, but will probably finish behind both Luck and RGIII.That being said, how does his game last night "prove" anything with regards to ROY? :confused:

He completed just 58% of his passes, fumbled once, should have had a pick in the end zone (Baldwin, I think prevented the INT with what should have been offensive PI), and wasn't accurate at all. The Seahawks outplayed the Redskins, and the Seahawks won. I don't think you can say Wilson carried them to that victory.
Click to expand...
With regard to the bolded, that's overstating it at least a little bit. I remember at least two drops by Seattle players. Had they not dropped those, he would have completed 17/26 (65%). Certainly not one of his most accurate games but not as bad as you are saying here. Especially considering that he was under heavy pressure at times in the game.You also ignored his rushing here, as well as his blocking (yes, blocking).

I also think it is fair to note that he is a rookie who got his first possession in his first NFL playoff game on the road across the country from home, went three and out on the first possession, and was down 14-0 to begin his second possession. A lot of players in that situation would have lost their cool and made a lot of mental errors. Particularly with Haslett blitzing frequently and creatively. But Wilson didn't. He stayed calm and led the team to 24 points in the last 3 quarters.

Playoff games obviously do not factor into ROY voting, since it is already completed, but Wilson proved last night why people have been saying that he deserves consideration.

 
'Riversco said:
'Bayhawks said:
'ImTheScientist said:
Wilson proved last night....he should be ROY. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I like Wilson, and I think he's going to be a good to great pro QB. I also think that he should be (at worst) 2nd in the ROY voting, but will probably finish behind both Luck and RGIII.That being said, how does his game last night "prove" anything with regards to ROY? :confused: He completed just 58% of his passes, fumbled once, should have had a pick in the end zone (Baldwin, I think prevented the INT with what should have been offensive PI), and wasn't accurate at all. The Seahawks outplayed the Redskins, and the Seahawks won. I don't think you can say Wilson carried them to that victory.
Click to expand...
Russell Wilson made a lot of plays. He didn't turn the ball over. He did outstanding for a rookie down 14 in a road playoff game to keep his composure and lead a 4th quarter comeback win.
Click to expand...
Actually, he didn't really make a lot of plays. He should have had two turnovers. He fumbled a ball that happened to bounce funny, away from 2 Redskins and right into Lynch's hands. He threw a horrible pass in the redzone that should have been intercepted if Baldwin doesn't mug the Redskin defender (which he was right to do). He had one TD (after the fumble) on a blown coverage to a wide-open Robinson; he didn't have to make a great pass to Robinson for the TD, in fact, he almost missed him-Robinson had to snag the pass that was low and away. He had two good scrambles when the Redskins left the middle of the field wide open; on one of those scrambles, it was ABSOLUTELY the wrong choice, as he had Rice (I think it was Rice) streaking, WIDE OPEN down the field for a TD.Did he stay calm under pressure? Absolutely, many players may have wilted after being down 14-0 so early. But staying calm under pressure and managing a game doesn't=ROY.
 
'Just Win Baby said:
'Bayhawks said:
'ImTheScientist said:
Wilson proved last night....he should be ROY. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I like Wilson, and I think he's going to be a good to great pro QB. I also think that he should be (at worst) 2nd in the ROY voting, but will probably finish behind both Luck and RGIII.That being said, how does his game last night "prove" anything with regards to ROY? :confused:

He completed just 58% of his passes, fumbled once, should have had a pick in the end zone (Baldwin, I think prevented the INT with what should have been offensive PI), and wasn't accurate at all. The Seahawks outplayed the Redskins, and the Seahawks won. I don't think you can say Wilson carried them to that victory.
Click to expand...
With regard to the bolded, that's overstating it at least a little bit. I remember at least two drops by Seattle players. Had they not dropped those, he would have completed 17/26 (65%). Certainly not one of his most accurate games but not as bad as you are saying here. Especially considering that he was under heavy pressure at times in the game.You also ignored his rushing here, as well as his blocking (yes, blocking).

I also think it is fair to note that he is a rookie who got his first possession in his first NFL playoff game on the road across the country from home, went three and out on the first possession, and was down 14-0 to begin his second possession. A lot of players in that situation would have lost their cool and made a lot of mental errors. Particularly with Haslett blitzing frequently and creatively. But Wilson didn't. He stayed calm and led the team to 24 points in the last 3 quarters.

Playoff games obviously do not factor into ROY voting, since it is already completed, but Wilson proved last night why people have been saying that he deserves consideration.
Click to expand...
It's not over-stating it at all. He completed 58% of his passes. Every QB has to deal with drops. Wilson also benefited from at least two catches of badly thrown balls that I can remember, so that cancels out the drops you cite.As stated before, he had two big scrambles when the Skins left the middle of the field open. Those two scrambles were for 47 of his 67 yards. Furthermore, on the second scramble, he failed to see a WR streaking down the right side, WIDE OPEN for a TD. Since the Seahawks failed to score on that drive, Wilson's scramble actually cost them a TD.

As for his blocking, I assume you are referring to the block on the Lynch TD. I saw Wilson sprint down the field to block for Lynch, and I loved seeing that hustle and effort. However, he missed the block. The defender he whiffed on tried to tackle Lynch, but got dragged the last few yards.

Again, I like Wilson, and I believe he definitely deserves consideration for the ROY, but Sunday's game didn't "prove" that he deserved it; if anything his perfomance (on a national stage) may have made people who were unfamiliar with him wonder what the fuss was about him.

 
Despite having only a modest game by his standards, Wilson was the only rookie QB to finish his wildcard matchup with a positive DYAR. On the road and with his line once again having issues containing the pass rush that was no small feat. He was instrumental in the Seahawks victory and didn't turn the ball over, despite Bayhawks passionate (and revisionist) reminders of lucky bounces and muggings.It is a good thing for the Seahawks that their third round QB already has one playoff victory under his belt; it is likely even better still that he inspires these types of reactions. The Seahawks' future is bright.ETA: This is a previously glossed over gem, "...he didn't have to make a great pass to Robinson for the TD, in fact, he almost missed him-Robinson had to snag the pass that was low and away." What game was this guy watching?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Neofight said:
He was instrumental in the Seahawks victory and didn't turn the ball over, despite Bayhawks passionate (and revisionist) reminders of lucky bounces and muggings.
Click to expand...
How is it revisionist? Wilson did fumble, the ball did take a funny bounce away from a Redskins defender, right into the hands of Lynch for a big gain, and the Seahawks scored a TD on that drive. Wilson did throw a horrible pass right into the chest of a Redskins DB, and the only thing that saved the INT was Baldwin (I think it was him) just running through the DB before the ball got there. That's was Baldwin should have done; risk the PI call to prevent the INT, but it still happened. I'm not revising anything.
'Neofight said:
ETA: This is a previously glossed over gem, "...he didn't have to make a great pass to Robinson for the TD, in fact, he almost missed him-Robinson had to snag the pass that was low and away." What game was this guy watching?
Click to expand...
I was watching the game, without any homer glasses on. Robinson was wide open in the left flat; Wilson had no pressure on him at all, and there were no defenders between Robinson and the end zone. All Wilson had to do was throw a 5 yard pass and hit Robinson in the chest. Instead he threw the ball low and behind him; Robinson made a fingertip grab of a ball that was around his knees/mid-thigh before he turned up field and scored. Watch the game again, it wasn't a good pass; Robinson made a good catch, then was able to walk into the redzone. There was no reason for the pass to be perfect, but it wasn't.
 
All kinds of sadness in your post mate, but perhaps you should go look at the video once again (without whatever colored glasses you may be sporting). Your assumptions are false as well. I'm a Cowboys fan living in the Sound who actually wanted RGIII to come to Seattle (before his epic Heisman run made it apparent that would not happen). I thought he'd be more fun to watch in person and would have the best career of the rookie QB's. I was wrong on one of those and may well be on the other. I can admit when I am wrong, however, and am still batting a might bit better than you in this thread.

 
'Neofight said:
All kinds of sadness in your post mate, but perhaps you should go look at the video once again (without whatever colored glasses you may be sporting). Your assumptions are false as well. I'm a Cowboys fan living in the Sound who actually wanted RGIII to come to Seattle (before his epic Heisman run made it apparent that would not happen). I thought he'd be more fun to watch in person and would have the best career of the rookie QB's. I was wrong on one of those and may well be on the other. I can admit when I am wrong, however, and am still batting a might bit better than you in this thread.
Click to expand...
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? :confused: What "sadness" is in my post?What assumptions did I make?What are you batting, and how is it better than anyone else in this thread?
 
'Bayhawks said:
Furthermore, on the second scramble, he failed to see a WR streaking down the right side, WIDE OPEN for a TD. Since the Seahawks failed to score on that drive, Wilson's scramble actually cost them a TD.
Click to expand...
People keep saying this, and Rice was certainly open, but IMO I don't think Wilson had the opportunity to see him or, even if he had, to get him the ball. He scrambled up the middle on that play specifically because he was under heavy pressure from his right side. He did not have time to throw the ball before being sacked and certainly wouldn't have been able to step into it.
'Bayhawks said:
As for his blocking, I assume you are referring to the block on the Lynch TD. I saw Wilson sprint down the field to block for Lynch, and I loved seeing that hustle and effort. However, he missed the block. The defender he whiffed on tried to tackle Lynch, but got dragged the last few yards.
Click to expand...
He did it on two different runs. On the first one, he actually made a block on a nice gain for Lynch. On the second one, which is the one you are referring to, it's true that he didn't make a block, but he got in the way of the defenders in the last 5 yards and kept them from establishing better position to try to take Lynch down/out of bounds. I certainly think he made a small contribution to that being a TD rather than a first and goal. In the big picture, they may have scored anyway (but then again that is no given, as shown by Lynch's fumble).
 
'Neofight said:
Your sadness is in your need to misrepresent.Your assumption was I am a homer.Balls.
Click to expand...
Okay, so no sadness then, since I misrepresented nothing.Reading comprehension issue on your part, since I never assumed you were a homer.And, you like balls, I guess.Okay, I got it. Good luck to you.
 
'Just Win Baby said:
'Bayhawks said:
Furthermore, on the second scramble, he failed to see a WR streaking down the right side, WIDE OPEN for a TD. Since the Seahawks failed to score on that drive, Wilson's scramble actually cost them a TD.
Click to expand...
People keep saying this, and Rice was certainly open, but IMO I don't think Wilson had the opportunity to see him or, even if he had, to get him the ball. He scrambled up the middle on that play specifically because he was under heavy pressure from his right side. He did not have time to throw the ball before being sacked and certainly wouldn't have been able to step into it.
Click to expand...
We can agree to disagree, I guess. There was no one in front of Wilson. He could have stepped up in the pocket to avoid the pressure and hit a wide-open Rice. However, as soon as he stepped up, he tucked the ball; he wasn't looking to throw anymore. As a result, he missed an easy TD, and later on that drive took a sack, preventing any score at all.
'Just Win Baby said:
'Bayhawks said:
As for his blocking, I assume you are referring to the block on the Lynch TD. I saw Wilson sprint down the field to block for Lynch, and I loved seeing that hustle and effort. However, he missed the block. The defender he whiffed on tried to tackle Lynch, but got dragged the last few yards.
Click to expand...
He did it on two different runs. On the first one, he actually made a block on a nice gain for Lynch. On the second one, which is the one you are referring to, it's true that he didn't make a block, but he got in the way of the defenders in the last 5 yards and kept them from establishing better position to try to take Lynch down/out of bounds. I certainly think he made a small contribution to that being a TD rather than a first and goal. In the big picture, they may have scored anyway (but then again that is no given, as shown by Lynch's fumble).
Click to expand...
Again, we can agree to disagree. I see your argument about Wilson preventing the defender from establishing better position, but the way Lynch was running on Sunday (& the piss-poor Washington tackling), I think Lynch would've still scored. Regardless, while his effort, hustle, and possible blocking contribution is fun to see, as a football fan, it's not going to be a factor in him winning awards (ROY this year, or MVP in the future).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Bayhawks said:
Instead he threw the ball low and behind him; Robinson made a fingertip grab of a ball that was around his knees/mid-thigh before he turned up field and scored. Watch the game again, it wasn't a good pass; Robinson made a good catch, then was able to walk into the redzone. There was no reason for the pass to be perfect, but it wasn't.
Click to expand...
I just went to NFL.com and watched the clip of this play. It gets shown from two different camera angles. It wasn't low and behind him. It was softly lobbed. It was an easy reception. Feels like you're searching for an argument that just isn't there.http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2013010601/2012/POST18/seahawks@redskins#menu=highlights&tab=recap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Soulfly3
Shoot Your Shot - NFL Draft Edition
Replies
18
Views
519
titusbramble
titusbramble
ignatiusjreilly
How many first-round QBs will actually pan out?
Replies
12
Views
370
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
dschuler
DSchuler’s QB Change Probability: 4 new starters, more on the way? Packers accumulate draft assets, Cardinals back in play for #1 pick
2 3
Replies
103
Views
5K
Long Ball Larry
Long Ball Larry

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top