Jimmy Graham?

[Tech_God]

oddly, i joined here long before you...and youre telling me where the threads are.

cute.

We had a good convo going on here and then we got you taking a massive dump on this topic which is on the SEAHAWKS forum. That, is what we call a troll. Good luck lasting long here......

 

[Uhsplit]

Rocko, shouldn't you be shoveling some snow or making a snowman?

 

[Rock Strongo]

We had a good convo going on here and then we got you taking a massive dump on this topic which is on the SEAHAWKS forum. That, is what we call a troll. Good luck lasting long here......

i'm just replying to threads. pull up your panties.

if you cant handle me you must be in trouble in the real world.

 

[blstoker]

i know wilson was well under 50% in the redzone. man, i wish i could find the stat i had from another site a few days ago. it was ugly.

Wilson is far from the worst QB in the red zone, and in fact, according to my stats he completed more than 50% of his passes in the red zone.

30 of 59 for 252 yards 15 touchdowns and an interception, which puts him squarely middle of the road, not even considering the 5 rushing tds. Having Graham should help with those numbers as well, since having Baldwin, Kearse and Harvin wasn't much help at all (7 of his 15 red zone td passes were to his RBs, where he was 10/14 for 91 yards). Hell, Luke Willson and Jermaine Kearse were horrible in the red zone (2/14 35 2) and he'd've had much better numbers had he not thrown it to them.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Wilson is far from the worst QB in the red zone, and in fact, according to my stats he completed more than 50% of his passes in the red zone.

30 of 59 for 252 yards 15 touchdowns and an interception, which puts him squarely middle of the road, not even considering the 5 rushing tds. Having Graham should help with those numbers as well, since having Baldwin, Kearse and Harvin wasn't much help at all (7 of his 15 red zone td passes were to his RBs, where he was 10/14 for 91 yards). Hell, Luke Willson and Jermaine Kearse were horrible in the red zone (2/14 35 2) and he'd've had much better numbers had he not thrown it to them.

wilson was one of 5 eligible QB's to throw for under 50% in the red zone last year. (49.1%)

 

[Rock Strongo]

Rocko, shouldn't you be shoveling some snow or making a snowman?

hi cotton

 

[blstoker]

wilson was one of 5 eligible QB's to throw for under 50% in the red zone last year. (49.1%)

DId you check the stats, or did you get it from an article. Wilson completed 50.8% of his passes in the red zone.

 

[Rock Strongo]

DId you check the stats, or did you get it from an article. Wilson completed 50.8% of his passes in the red zone.

no he didnt.

49.1%

 

[blstoker]

Game Play Finder & Super Bowl Play Finder | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[blstoker]

no he didnt.

49.1%

Check the link, 50.8.

 

[Rock Strongo]

dont get me wrong, i like wilson. his game needs a LOTof work, but the skillset...and "the it factor" are there. shit, the guy nearly won a SB where he completed TWO first half passes.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Game Play Finder & Super Bowl Play Finder | Pro-Football-Reference.com

PFR is incorrect, as they are a lot of the time.

i correct those guys a lot, usually with a "thanks"

Russell Wilson: Situational Stats at NFL.com

they have 48.1% here (31 for 64 'opponent 1-19')

i forgot where i got my 49.1%

 

[blstoker]

PFR is incorrect, as they are a lot of the time.

i correct those guys a lot, usually with a "thanks"

Russell Wilson: Situational Stats at NFL.com

they have 48.1% here (31 for 64 'opponent 1-19')

i forgot where i got my 49.1%

THere's your problem, the red zone is from the 20 yard line in, not the 19. So of course your stats would be different if you don't actually use the entire red zone.

 

[Rock Strongo]

*note

PFR uses "20 and in" for the redzone, its actually "inside the 20" so, from the 19 in. PFR counted a few passes on the 20 that werent red zone passes.

 

[Rock Strongo]

THere's your problem, the red zone is from the 20 yard line in, not the 19. So of course your stats would be different if you don't actually use the entire red zone.

the redzone is inside the 20, not at the 20.

 

[PolarVortex]

hi cotton

Hey Rock. Que pasa?

 

[Rock Strongo]

Hey Rock. Que pasa?

nada mucho.

PS i have googled "red zone" and some call it the 20 and in, some say "from the 19"

its ambiguous at best.

 

[blstoker]

the redzone is inside the 20, not at the 20.

Not true, red zone is not official anywhere. I have always had the red zone from the 20 in. If you want to make it for the 19 in, that's good for you, but it's nice to know we're arguing different definitions, instead of websites having different numbers (I googled it also, so came to same conclusion, some think it one way, others think it another).

 

[Rock Strongo]

Not true, red zone is not official anywhere. I have always had the red zone from the 20 in. If you want to make it for the 19 in, that's good for you, but it's nice to know we're arguing different definitions.

why does the nfl (nfl.com)...you know, the league...show the red zone as "1-19" on their proprietary stats?

i may have a good guess...

 

[Rock Strongo]

i believe the nfl (nfl.com) over you, sorry.