Point being Hawks didn't need a top performance from their QB. They won with their defense. Throughout the year, with the exception of the NO game, I believe their defense kept them in it. Not a knock against Wilson. I just don't think he is top 10 in the league right now and they still won. Back to Mark's column, does the Hawks win change minds about a mobile qb? I say no, in my opinion. You win with defense and sell tix with offense.
Point being Hawks didn't need a top performance from their QB. They won with their defense. Throughout the year, with the exception of the NO game, I believe their defense kept them in it. Not a knock against Wilson. I just don't think he is top 10 in the league right now and they still won. Back to Mark's column, does the Hawks win change minds about a mobile qb? I say no, in my opinion. You win with defense and sell tix with offense.
I disagree. Are you typing that Matt Flynn could have done the same? No. The Seahawks won with Russell Wilson and their defense. That is not to type Marshawn Lynch and the rest of the offense were not a big part of it, only that I believe the Seahawks would not have made it to the Super Bowl without Russell Wilson. As for his not being a "top ten" QB? Well, based on his first two seasons I'd have to disagree with that as well. Starting a team today and wanting to win for the rest of the decade? He's top five at the least............................IMO.
Thanks, Garv. Respectfully, we will agree to disagree. I believe they got there with their defense and Lynch. I understand your point and others, I just wouldn't use my 1st rd pick on a game manager (my opinion only)
Thanks, Garv. Respectfully, we will agree to disagree. I believe they got there with their defense and Lynch. I understand your point and others, I just wouldn't use my 1st rd pick on a game manager (my opinion only)
Well done. And I don't want a game manager at the 7 pick either. It really all comes down to what the Buccaneers decide after evaluating Mike Glennon over the next couple of months. At least he's the only QB on the roster worth evaluating now! Then maybe look at a Kirk Cousins maybe? I can't see Vick here, just not a good fit IMO. After that it's the draft to find competition or at least a suitable backup. Right now we're all guessing, part of the fun of it.
Point being Hawks didn't need a top performance from their QB. They won with their defense. Throughout the year, with the exception of the NO game, I believe their defense kept them in it. Not a knock against Wilson. I just don't think he is top 10 in the league right now and they still won. Back to Mark's column, does the Hawks win change minds about a mobile qb? I say no, in my opinion. You win with defense and sell tix with offense.
I disagree. Are you typing that Matt Flynn could have done the same? No. The Seahawks won with Russell Wilson and their defense. That is not to type Marshawn Lynch and the rest of the offense were not a big part of it, only that I believe the Seahawks would not have made it to the Super Bowl without Russell Wilson. As for his not being a "top ten" QB? Well, based on his first two seasons I'd have to disagree with that as well. Starting a team today and wanting to win for the rest of the decade? He's top five at the least............................IMO.
Agree, individual stats unfortunately are the stuff for fantasy football players. Russell Wilson is far more than just a Game manager. The critical 3rd down conversions and a close to 70% completion average are not the stats of just a game manager. IMO. Peyton and his dink and dunk just didn't cut it. To Denver's credit they did shut down Seattle's running game which again shows the overall value of Wilson at QB. Sure the defense was the dominating factor but the MVP certainly could have gone to Wilson and if the roles were reversed you can guarantee Manning would have gotten the award. JMO but that is the sad truth of the matter.Wilson is indeed in the conversation of a top 5 qb in the NFL at this time despite his youth.
As you say, though, Tog, yards and attempts are not important stats. QB rating is a much better stat, and he nails that one. Why? Because he plays virtually mistake free. He's very hard to sack, and rarely throws INTs, and he kicks butt on third down. Equally important, he is a winner -- he plays his best under pressure, and he has tremendous leadership skills.So if that's not elite, then I would say -- then we don't need an elite QB. But whatever Wilson is, it's worlds beyond what our current QB can offer.And with regard to the Vick comparison: Wilson is not running nearly as much as Vick did early in his career. I agree we don't need a Vick-style QB. But what we DO need is a guy who has Jeff Garcia level scrambling ability, because that allows you to compete with teams that have great pass rush, and in the playoffs, most teams do.
Quickly - Spartan's point (which I agree with) wasn't a critique of mobile QBs but a statement that it's irrelevant on its own whether your QB is mobile or not. What matters is: Does the team around him complement his skill set? Manning would not be as good on the Seahawks and Wilson wouldn't be as good on the Broncos. ie. don't dump Glennon because he's immobile and the current fad is mobile QBs, dump him if the rest of the offence would complement a mobile QB.Anyways.I think QBR is just as limited as looking at quality QB play. My argument is that attempts/yards/etc. indicate what type of QB Wilson is - as does his high efficiency (QBR) rating. Because he plays in a run first offence that relies heavily on defence, he's not asked to make a lot of throws (makes some of the fewest in the NFL). Rather, he's put in a position to make high efficiency throws (which helps boost his completion %/QBR). He does a good job avoiding turnovers and converting 3rd downs (ranked 11th this past year). He's a smart, efficient, mobile QB -and I agree with everything you said about him (including him being head and shoulders above our current QB) except one thing.But I struggle to rank him as elite. I understand this seems initially seems contradictory but until I see Wilson reach the passing proficiency of other "elite" QBs (Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, etc.) I don't believe he's in that conversation yet. His season avg of 210 yds/game (29th in the league, but better than Glennon!) I mean look at this playoff performance - as good as he was he only averaged 175 yds/game (which was only better than Rivers)! When those QBs lose players, they are able to elevate their game to accommodate. Rodgers, Brady et al. can win without a strong running game, with key injuries on offence. I don't believe Wilson can do that (or hasn't demonstrated it yet). If he loses Lynch, if the defence falls off a cliff, can Wilson win a lot of games? I don't think so.
Point being Hawks didn't need a top performance from their QB. They won with their defense. Throughout the year, with the exception of the NO game, I believe their defense kept them in it. Not a knock against Wilson. I just don't think he is top 10 in the league right now and they still won. Back to Mark's column, does the Hawks win change minds about a mobile qb? I say no, in my opinion. You win with defense and sell tix with offense.
Not at all. You look at how well Wilson threw the ball, he had a rating over 100 which isn't just pro bowl material it is HoF material. Wilson gets dinged in people's minds because SEA wasn't throwing the ball 600+ times like Brees and Manning. Not throwing it a lot isn't a "we don't want to lose" type move like when the Jags were running so much so Gabbert didn't have to throw. They get ahead, they were ahead at halftime in most of their wins so he didn't have throw throw like mad to win and with the defense they could actually hold a lead...but His passer rating in Q2 was 123 with 11 TD's and 0 INT's for example. His QBR on 3rd down was 90...so he wasn't just throwing at unexpected times. His passer rating was 104 when blitzed. Wilson was good, really really good.
If you want to fill the stands, find that sexy type of pick with a mobile QB. If you want to win SB's then build on your Defense and running game. The Seattle model is simple - strong running/ defense and an average, game managing QB.
A statement like that assures that you haven't actually watched him play
