There's probably at least 10 other QB's who could have won the Superbowl with that Seahawks team. Wilson wasn't only there for the ride, but let's not act like he was a huge reason they won the SB.
Sure, there are 10 other QBs. Brady, Rodgers, manning, Foles, Rivers, Brees, Rodgers, Romo, Rothlisberger...those are the types of QBs you expect to be able to win Super Bowls.
Sure the Hawks D played good but remember one thing, this was Manning they were facing, all time great in the regular season but he's never had a big time game he couldn't choke in.As for Russell the game manager talk, I'll take a game manager who manages to step up and produce when needed over a guy who manages to vanish for 80%+ of games no matter if he's needed or not (but has good stat lines).
All you guys who were on the Reach Wagon because , " QB is all that really matters anyways " , are you ready to reconsider after what Seattle's D has done to Manning ?
No because unless SEA has their QB playing well they don't get to the Super Bowl nor win it. They don't try and hide Wilson, he makes plays for them. The QB can't be a weak link and win games. So in the end, yes QB is still all that matters because without a good one your defense alone can't win. Once you have the QB then turning in a monsterous defensive game helps immensely.
lol
Right because if they had Glennon or Heene as their QB they'd be holding that trophy right? Keep laughing.
Instead, Seattle has their 2nd year, 3rd round QB that every other team passed up.....twice. Defense AND solid QB play got them there. Gotta have both.
Bortles or Manziel would take this team to another level. We should make it happen.
All you guys who were on the Reach Wagon because , " QB is all that really matters anyways " , are you ready to reconsider after what Seattle's D has done to Manning ?
No because unless SEA has their QB playing well they don't get to the Super Bowl nor win it. They don't try and hide Wilson, he makes plays for them. The QB can't be a weak link and win games. So in the end, yes QB is still all that matters because without a good one your defense alone can't win. Once you have the QB then turning in a monsterous defensive game helps immensely.
lol
Right because if they had Glennon or Heene as their QB they'd be holding that trophy right? Keep laughing.
Instead, Seattle has their 2nd year, 3rd round QB that every other team passed up.....twice. Defense AND solid QB play got them there. Gotta have both.
I agree that we don't necessarily need to spend our first on a QB. It is a team sport. Bring in competition at EVERY position, including QB, but don't panic and trade up to get one, or take one who is not rated as high. If the right guy is there, pull the trigger, otherwise roll with Glennon(and some veteran or later round competition) and upgrade other spots on the TEAM. One guy does not make any team complete, as we saw today.
What the fuck did Wilson do? He was 9/14 for 79 yards when the game was still remotely competitive. Keep laughing you fucking idiots. He didn't do shit except throw two TDs against a defense stacked against the run. Average QBs can win SBs on great teams.
The "Blazin' Caucasian" Boid Fink could go 9/14 for 79 yards on that team. Wilson is along for the ride. If you use this victory as a defense for your "mobile QB" argument, You're a god damn idiot. Believe it.
I think what is being lost here is that the defense scored 9 points and created 4 turnovers, even special teams kicked in with 7 points. The fact of the matter is, the Seattle offense could have been completely ineffective and the defense could have won this game so long as the offense didn't turn over the ball and converted some 3rd down plays to keep the play clock running. Lovie's plan for the Bucs was pretty much on display here. Build an elite defense, get a play maker on special teams and you have a pretty good chance. All your quarterback needs to be is smart enough to not turn the ball over, and good enough to convert enough 3rd down plays to keep the other teams offense off the field.Where I think a mobile quarterback like Wilson helps, is that you don't have to have an elite offensive line in front of him to protect him and when there isn't a play on 3rd down, he has a chance to make something happen and extend the drive with his feet. While, I'm not convinced that Glennon could have won last night running the Seattle offense, if the defense played the same way, I'm not convinced that he would have necessarily lost the game either. Would I rather have Wilson instead of Glennon? You bet! But with an elite defense, I think an efficient quarterback can still win the game. The better question here should be, if Payton was in charge of the Seattle offense and Wilson was on the other side, would Wilson still have beaten Payton? I'm betting no.
Russell Wilson's scrambling ability helped him on maybe one or two plays...Neither of those plays had an impact on the final score.
Russell Wilson's scrambling ability helped him on maybe one or two plays...Neither of those plays had an impact on the final score.
Well, it extended drives a couple of times (and also while the game was still theoretically in contest). I don't see how you could argue that doesn't significantly impact the final score?
He scrambled when the game was out of hand. Prove me wrong.
Spot Glennon 16 points and 4 turnovers, give him Lynch and Harvin and Tate and Kerse....and yes Glennon would have won that game.
He scrambled when the game was out of hand. Prove me wrong.
The Lynch flea-flicker attempt comes immediately to mind. I know they converted that 3rd down and scored there.
He threw an incomplete pass on the flea-flicker...
He threw an incomplete pass on the flea-flicker...
You are not that dense. That incomplete pass saved them 10-15 yards and gave them a legitimate chance of converting, which they did. Peyton Manning (or Mike Glennon) does not get that ball out of his hands w/out a flag imo.
