Wilson's 1st TD came when the score was already 29-0. It was hardly a deciding factor. The right guy won the MVP. Smiths pick 6 helped them go up 15-0 and essentially took the fight out of Denver.
QBR, not passer rating, suggests that he did have a significant amount to do with that win; 88.1. Now if you want to argue that he did little to get his team to the superbowl, that would be correct as he posted QBR's of 25.9 and 38.9 in the first two playoff games which is far below the average of 50.0
Wilson played a lot better versus San Francisco than the stupid ESPN QBR says. His conventional passer rating was 104.6, which is of course very good.
I thought Wilson played well, but they just completely manhandled Peyton Manning and the highest scoring offense in history. They had to give the MVP award to someone the defensive side of the ball.I just read that the Seahawks only had one sack. That's crazy, it sure felt like a lot more.
Wilson plays a lot like Aikman used to. He isn't always piling up huge eye popping play station numbers but he is making the plays to help his team and not making the plays that kill his team.
Wilson's 1st TD came when the score was already 29-0.
So you don't think he had a hand in 15 of that 29?
Wilson's 1st TD came when the score was already 29-0.
So you don't think he had a hand in 15 of that 29?
I recall he was 3-3 on passing first downs the begin the game.
Saying Russell Wilson should have been MVP is like saying Trent Dilfer should have been MVP when Baltimore won!End of Thread.
MOST VALUABLE PLAYERThey could've played Tarvaris and won comfortably.
They could've played 2014 Jim Zorn and won comfortably.
Wilson did a great job on 3rd downs especially. But for me Avril was MVP.
Seattle won the TOP battle, had ZERO turnovers, and punted exactly ONCE. Keeping the ball out of a HOF QBs hands is a very key element in beating him. Kinda knew someone on D would get the MVP, but it was really the WHOLE D, not just one guy, who deserved it... And, supposing Wilson or the offense had turned the ball over several times, giving Manning more opportunities...
in short, the Hawks won in a way that is not supposed to happen in the new passing NFL . . . ball control, running, defense . . the way the Bucs used to win . . . which is why we should NOTbring back Lovie . . and should cut Martin . . . and trade Revis .. . and trade up for Bridgewater . . . because he could be the next Manning . . who lost . . . wait . . . what?
Seattle won the TOP battle, had ZERO turnovers, and punted exactly ONCE. Keeping the ball out of a HOF QBs hands is a very key element in beating him. Kinda knew someone on D would get the MVP, but it was really the WHOLE D, not just one guy, who deserved it... And, supposing Wilson or the offense had turned the ball over several times, giving Manning more opportunities...
in short, the Hawks won in a way that is not supposed to happen in the new passing NFL . . . ball control, running, defense . . the way the Bucs used to win . . . which is why we should NOTbring back Lovie . . and should cut Martin . . . and trade Revis .. . and trade up for Bridgewater . . . because he could be the next Manning . . who lost . . . wait . . . what?
Well I don't think anyone has ever said you can't win with defense, or at least I hope they didn't. As for the running part, it's worth noting Seattle won with unconventional running. Their "bellcow" running backs ran 15 times for 39 yards. His backup ran 9 times for 25 yards. They got 71 yards on 5 runs from their QB and WR.
Seattle won the TOP battle, had ZERO turnovers, and punted exactly ONCE. Keeping the ball out of a HOF QBs hands is a very key element in beating him. Kinda knew someone on D would get the MVP, but it was really the WHOLE D, not just one guy, who deserved it... And, supposing Wilson or the offense had turned the ball over several times, giving Manning more opportunities...
in short, the Hawks won in a way that is not supposed to happen in the new passing NFL . . . ball control, running, defense . . the way the Bucs used to win . . . which is why we should NOTbring back Lovie . . and should cut Martin . . . and trade Revis .. . and trade up for Bridgewater . . . because he could be the next Manning . . who lost . . . wait . . . what?
Well I don't think anyone has ever said you can't win with defense, or at least I hope they didn't. As for the running part, it's worth noting Seattle won with unconventional running. Their "bellcow" running backs ran 15 times for 39 yards. His backup ran 9 times for 25 yards. They got 71 yards on 5 runs from their QB and WR.
fair points, not sure what we make of it though because the stat for yards generated by running is only part of what running accomplishes in a football game. Running is also part of a ball control strategy, or I should say effective running. Perhaps this point is illustrated better by Denver's early offense, not sure? Also, the back up ran for those yards because the defense (and an efficient offense) put the team so far ahead. Wilson also ran for some of those yards (one play, I think) because, at least in part, the Denver defense had to account for the "bellcow." Probably the same argument, at least to some extent, on the WR run. In sum, Seattle ran the ball more than they passed this season. They were a team that played tough defense and ran the ball. They had a good QB who converted a bunch of 3rd downs, but the D and the running are the signatures of the team
Running isn't a ball control strategy. Getting first downs in a ball control strategy. That actually assumes ball control is a viable strategy. SEA held the ball about 4 minutes more than DEN -- and that gap woulda been smaller had DENs first possession lasted even just 3 downs and SEAs strategy had nada to do with the high snap. That spread is about as dominate as you get in the NFL. The thing is that that ball control approach still had fewer possessions than did DEN. Ball control isn't what won this game. It was an old story of turnovers, DEN had 4 turnovers and your win % falls below 10% if you have a minus 4 turnover ratio.
Running isn't a ball control strategy. Getting first downs in a ball control strategy. That actually assumes ball control is a viable strategy. SEA held the ball about 4 minutes more than DEN -- and that gap woulda been smaller had DENs first possession lasted even just 3 downs and SEAs strategy had nada to do with the high snap. That spread is about as dominate as you get in the NFL. The thing is that that ball control approach still had fewer possessions than did DEN. Ball control isn't what won this game. It was an old story of turnovers, DEN had 4 turnovers and your win % falls below 10% if you have a minus 4 turnover ratio.
Running is a key part of a ball control strategy because running keeps the clock moving and helps extend drives, particularly effective running. Running successfully also makes everything easier because the defense has to defend two forms of offense, not just passing (see Denver). Running well early also helps put a defense on its heels, as opposed to being unable to run. For the season, Seattle ran more than they passed and "Beast Mode" was a common refrain.The turnovers were definitely the key, but if the normal QB mantra one reads on these boards was to true then Denver wins the game hands down, we don't even waste time with the game. They lost, and they lost in the much the same way the Bucs used to beat the Saints and the Falcons . . . and yet to some on these boards all is lost until we have the best QB in the division. Passing games are great, but running passing and defense are better with the others. In short, its still a team game more than a QB driven game, as many suggest.By the way, Seattle beat a SanFran team that likely beats the Broncos too . . . also with defense and running.
