Game Thread: AFC/NFC Championships.

[jdwills126]

Everyone wants to paint Russell Wilson as a running QB who can throw a little but he's a pocket passer. Was a pocket passer at NC State, was a pocket passer at Wisconsin and is a pocket passer in Seattle. Yes, he has an RB who takes some pressure off of him and a garbage WR corps who puts the pressure right back on him. The guy lost his TWO best receivers this offseason and still had better numbers than the year before. I'm not sure why so many people are slow to give this guy his due. I don't give the elite tag lightly so I'm not putting him in the elite catagory but the guy has a strong, accurate arm, he can run, he has guts, and he performs his best when he's needed most. The sad part is Andrew Luck hasn't accomplished half of what Wilson has and damn near everyone wants to act like he's already arrived. This was just like the Manning/Brady debates when Manning was putting up numbers and Brady was leading his teams to championships.

He was the 15th leading rusher in the NFL this season out gaining Joquie Bell. Seattle ran the read option as an offensive staple. He is a good game manager and is perfect for what Seattle needs.

 

[TwoCents22]

My bad on the stat I was looking at a different number.

Again, about the GB, sure they fucked up, but don't act like Wilson's play after half didn't redeem himself

He threw 1 key pass. He redeemed himself???? The punter had a better game going but the argument is he is an average QB and a great athlete. Without having to put 8 in the box Wilson is an average thrower.

Vick with passed for 2400 yards and rushed for over 1000. Has Wilson rushed for over 1000. Again stats you place a high value on do not mean much.

Stafford threw for over 4000 yards and had 60% stats that most point out as a poor season. So if it is a poor season for Stafford why is it great for Wilson?

But again it's my bad on the 30 passes for a career I believe he is 9-5.

Wait, you make a ridiculous statement about Vick being better in his prime(1 good year) than Wilson (not even close to his prime), to which I bring up his 4 total TD to 1 interception rate, then literally, to make a point, round RW's career efficiency rate down that blows out Vick, to which your rebuttal is: A) Vick rushed for 1000 yards, and B) people say Stafford had a poor season.

Ok, you got me. I'm done with the debate. You win.

 

[jdwills126]

Wait, you make a ridiculous statement about Vick being better in his prime(1 good year) than Wilson (not even close to his prime), to which I bring up his 4 total TD to 1 interception rate, then literally, to make a point, round RW's career efficiency rate down that blows out Vick, to which your rebuttal is: A) Vick rushed for 1000 yards, and B) people say Stafford had a poor season.

Ok, you got me. I'm done with the debate. You win.

Whats ridiculous is you take stats you like and put some magical meaning to them that makes Wilson great. I point out stats of others that have a different meaning and you immediately fluff Wilson even harder.

When I point out Stafford's stats this year and they are better to equal and say he had a bad year that doesn't translate to Wilson because you don't want it to?

And Stafford's 5000 yard year doesn't make him great or elite the same way Wilson's best year of which he has never thrown for over 3500 yards.

Wilson is Trent Dilfer that can run sorry I don't agree with you that he is some great QB.

 

[TwoCents22]

Putting Wilson in the same category as Alex Smith, Mike Vick, and Trent Dilfer is crazy. That's worse than saying Stafford is just another Cutler. So I'm not going to argue with anyone who thinks RW is nothing more than a "game manager".

But, speaking of Vick. The guy was a great RB. Who happened to have a cannon for an arm. Too fragile, though. I remember when he was either 2nd or 3rd year, he beat the Lions, had his first ever 300 yard passing game, didn't run much. After the game, in an interview, all he talked about was that he silenced his critics that said he couldn't pass. And I'm thinking yea ok, because you beat the Lions with 300 yards passing, THAT definitely puts you on the map.

 

[tpaulus_2]

Wilson = good QB, average-level passer, imo. He simply doesn't have the arm talent of the elite NFL passers. Nothing wrong with that, though. He's in a system that maximizes his strengths and allows him to be a an effective QB.

 

[TwoCents22]

Wilson = good QB, average-level passer, imo. He simply doesn't have the arm talent of the elite NFL passers. Nothing wrong with that, though. He's in a system that maximizes his strengths and allows him to be a an effective QB.

The only thing I would agree with is he doesn't have elite arm strength. I would describe it as "good enough". But I hate to break it to any Lions fan, arm strength is not at the top of the list when it comes to being an elite QB in the NFL. Wilson shows elite accuracy, pocket mobility and awareness, intelligence, and leadership. Like TBB said, he's not a run first quarterback. The fact he has less than average WRs has attributed him to run more. Its funny. If Stafford gets sacked more, its because "he's not forcing it". When RW runs more its " he's a running QB". Ok ok, I said it once already, I'm done with this debate. Lol

 

[tpaulus_2]

Elite accuracy? I don't agree there.


He's pretty accurate, better than Stafford for sure, but the guys hitting around 67% to 70% are the ones with what I consider to be "elite" accuracy...

 

[TwoCents22]

Elite accuracy? I don't agree there.


He's pretty accurate, better than Stafford for sure, but the guys hitting around 67% to 70% are the ones with what I consider to be "elite" accuracy...

So you mean guys like Tannehill and Cutler? Ok.

 

[tpaulus_2]

So you mean guys like Tannehill and Cutler? Ok.

Did I name either of those two? Have either ever exceeded 67% completion percentage in a season?

No and no? Ok then.

Cutler undeniably has elite talent, but no heart, no drive, imo.

Tannehill had a surprisingly strong season, but he also took very few deep shots, so that helps in the accuracy ratings.


When I think of QBs with elite accuracy Drew Brees is the first one that comes to mind. Phillip Rivers is also right up there.

 

[TwoCents22]

TP, I do think completion percentage is a big indicator of accuracy, but definitely not all of it.

Completion percentage is a result of 3 things:

1. Accuracy
2. Simple throws to RBs
3. Guys who can get open

The Seahawks hardly run screens, because they face 8-man boxes so often. And their WRs are amongst the worst at getting open. So I'd say under those circumstances, 63% is solid.

 

[tpaulus_2]

63% is solid under any circumstances, no argument there. There's a notable gap, though, between solid and elite...

 

[Dr. Evil-er]

Tannehill had a surprisingly strong season

He could throw the ball into the stands every other play and he still gets to go home and bang that wife of his. He's elite on that part alone.

Perhaps the better way to examine the debate on RW's skill is to look at the fact that he is playing in back to back SB's and will probably be the highest paid player in the league soon.

I'll call Stafford elite if he wins us a Super Bowl. I'll call him Sir if he wins a couple of them even if he has a 15% completion rate. Al Davis is laughing at both of you and saying, "Just win baby, just win". Wilson winning and playing on Feb 1, Stafford eating ice cream and watching the game. Tannehill also watching the game. Probably with an ice pack on his sore junk.

 

[themuzzer]

When Russell Wilson won his first SB last year it was because the Defense carried him......If I'm not mistaken Detroits Defense was just as good this according to lots of posters.....So it must of Carried Stafford? Hmm, something doesn't add up....Detroit has way more weapons on offense then Seattle does.....

Stafford should be shredding defenses......that's where accuracy comes in......Wilson has it in spades and Stafford lacks in it.

 

[LPinSLC]

Russell Wilson is great at what he is asked to do. People bring up his WR's or lack there of. He had the same Golden Tate that Stafford did, Tate didn't produce like he did this year and that's with him being their number1 for most of the year. Wilson isn't asked to do those things regularly. The Seahawks are a run first team with a strong defense. When asked to make a play whether it be a throw or a run, he makes it. The dude is clutch. At the end of the day, I'll take winning, however it happens.

 

[BUD]

Stafford should be shredding defenses......that's where accuracy comes in......Wilson has it in spades and Stafford lacks in it.

Sad but true

 

[TBBishop]

He was the 15th leading rusher in the NFL this season out gaining Joquie Bell. Seattle ran the read option as an offensive staple. He is a good game manager and is perfect for what Seattle needs.

Wilson takes more snaps undercenter than Matt Stafford. He's a pocket passer who can run. Seattle may have a few spread option plays but they only do it because Wilson is a threat to run, not because that's what he is.

 

[tpaulus_2]

When Russell Wilson won his first SB last year it was because the Defense carried him......If I'm not mistaken Detroits Defense was just as good this according to lots of posters.....So it must of Carried Stafford? Hmm, something doesn't add up....Detroit has way more weapons on offense then Seattle does.....

Stafford should be shredding defenses......that's where accuracy comes in......Wilson has it in spades and Stafford lacks in it.

Lol at the blatant homerism on that one. Fortunately there's a stat that tracks completion percentage, and Wilson is a bit better than Stafford in that regard, as we've covered already, but he hardly has accuracy in "spades."

Remeber how good Mark Sanchez was when he took the Jets deep into the playoffs two or three years in a row to start his career? I'm not saying Wilson is Sanchez (Wilson is drastically better), but team success tends to enhance the perception of a QB.

 

[themuzzer]

 

[themuzzer]

Again TP, were going to agree to disagree again on this one......

 

[tpaulus_2]

Again TP, were going to agree to disagree again on this one......

Bullshit we are.

If Wilson has accuracy in spades, then Stafford is highly accurate, at the very least. By your standards, that is.