Russell Wilson is starting a pretty impressive list

[WizardHawk]

There were many other bad calls in that game that benefited or hurt both teams and TBH it would be best to just forget this game ever happened and move on.

They can't and they won't. We will hear about that game, which didn't have any impact on their post season BTW, for the next 20 years at least. Just like Wisky fans are still complaining about their ASU outcome at the beginning of this season. Some of the people from that region just can't get over stuff it seems. I mean we would understand if it cost them a chance to get in the post season or it was a post season game that this play happened in, but it didn't mean a thing and yet they bring up time and time again. Tells you a lot about their supposed football knowledge.

 

[WizardHawk]

And in line with comparing Wilson only against others in their first two years as a starter:
Most TD's over first two seasons in NFL history -
Marino (83-84) 68
Manning (98-99) 52
Wilson (12-13) 48... with 4 games left to go in the regular season.

Safe to say he will likely pass Manning as having the most TD's thrown over his first two years and he is doing it with average WR's at best and on a team that features the run well above the passing game.

I don't see RGIII or Kaepernick on that list.

Luck? 38 so far. Long, long way behind Wilson.

But do tell us why Wilson should be listed so far below every other QB in the league. It is at least amusing.

 

[packerzrule]

They can't and they won't. We will hear about that game, which didn't have any impact on their post season BTW, for the next 20 years at least. Just like Wisky fans are still complaining about their ASU outcome at the beginning of this season. Some of the people from that region just can't get over stuff it seems. I mean we would understand if it cost them a chance to get in the post season or it was a post season game that this play happened in, but it didn't mean a thing and yet they bring up time and time again. Tells you a lot about their supposed football knowledge.

It's time for Seattle Seahawks fans to stop whining about Super Bowl XL loss - Spokane Sports | Examiner.com


don't you just hate it when fans won't let shit go??

 

[cwood]

No, he didn't. That's not even in the ballpark of reality.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7NuNIL07tE]Packers vs Seahawks final play on Sports Science - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JDM]

The entire segment is making the claim he had more possession, which is entirely irrelevant. They completely ignored who had the ball first because reality doesn't sell as hard.

ESPN is useless as always.

 

[packfancjh]

This is the only thing I will say about the fail mary. The replacement refs were booted the day after that game for a reason. The NFL knew the replacement refs fucked up big time on that call and had to save face.

 

[David_son]

And yet Seattle is pressured more (as my chart shows). Which means that (gasp) Russell is more elusive than 2013 RG3.

So again, all you are doing is proving my point. A healthy RG3 is a great, top eight quarterback. A healthy RG3 on the Seahawks is probably leading a 10-2 or 11-1 team. But when you say that 2013 RG3 is as good as Russell and that he is brought down by his supporting cast, you are dead and indefensibly wrong. And when your argument bringing down Russell is "his offensive line is too good" when he has the WORST passing protecting in in the NFL, you look stupid.

I dont believe I ever said that 2013 RG3 was as good as RW I said if they switched position and RW was on the Redskins and RG3 was on the Seahawks RG3 would be having a great year and RW probably would not be. Which I think you just agreed with me.

 

[Smart]

I dont believe I ever said that 2013 RG3 was as good as RW I said if they switched position and RW was on the Redskins and RG3 was on the Seahawks RG3 would be having a great year and RW probably would not be. Which I think you just agreed with me.

Unless you are saying RG3's injury never would have happened, I do not agree with you. I think Russell's supporting cast is fairly equal to RG3's. Marshawn is the better running back, obviously. But Washington has a better pass protecting line, a better #1 WR, and a better tight end. If RG3 was the QB for the Seahawks, their offense would be about as good as the Redskins. Right now, Seattle has 70 more offensive points, and it would be more if they quit trying in garbage time. I don't know what Seattle's record would be with RG3, but my hunch is it would be in the 7-5 or 8-4 range.

If RG3 was never injured, he would likely put up numbers in Seattle like those he put up in Washington last year. They are worse than Russell's but only slightly. If your point is that a healthy RG3 would be doing very well in Seattle, then I agree with you. But he isn't healthy now.

 

[Wedgie]

This. Thread. Will. Not. Die.

:ballchain:

 

[JDM]

The supporting casts are comparable? If you swap them neither team changes records at all.

 

[Smart]

The supporting casts are comparable? If you swap them neither team changes records at all.

For a guy who claims to be intelligent, you sure miss simple logic puzzles.

If Seattle has the #32 pass protection based on the amount of pressure points per snap, and Washington is #12, doesn't that go very strongly against the conclusion that Seattle has a much better supporting cast?

 

[JDM]

So Washington would be 11-1 with Wilson, then, obviously.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Since when does the supporting cast not ALSO include STs and defense?

Btw, I'm not arguing 2013 RW vs. 2013 Griff performance with this comment. Simply the absurd thought that anyone in their right mind would conclude that Seattle = Redskins in terms of supporting cast.

 

[David_son]

Unless you are saying RG3's injury never would have happened, I do not agree with you. I think Russell's supporting cast is fairly equal to RG3's. Marshawn is the better running back, obviously. But Washington has a better pass protecting line, a better #1 WR, and a better tight end. If RG3 was the QB for the Seahawks, their offense would be about as good as the Redskins. Right now, Seattle has 70 more offensive points, and it would be more if they quit trying in garbage time. I don't know what Seattle's record would be with RG3, but my hunch is it would be in the 7-5 or 8-4 range.

If RG3 was never injured, he would likely put up numbers in Seattle like those he put up in Washington last year. They are worse than Russell's but only slightly. If your point is that a healthy RG3 would be doing very well in Seattle, then I agree with you. But he isn't healthy now.

My point is that Seattle over the course of the two years RW have been in the league the only thing the team has lacked a dominant number 1 receiver. He had great blocking last year when the line is healthy this year RW has all day to throw and Seattle has had a top five defense the last 3+ years. Which is something that Brady Rodgers or even RG3 or Luck do not have. So to say hey look RW beat all these great QBs he must be just as great is a bit inaccurate.

 

[Smart]

Since when does the supporting cast not ALSO include STs and defense?

Btw, I'm not arguing 2013 RW vs. 2013 Griff performance with this comment. Simply the absurd thought that anyone in their right mind would conclude that Seattle = Redskins in terms of supporting cast.

We're talking about Russell's numbers versus RG3's and Luck's. The defense has nothing to do with Russell being in the top five in virtually every important efficiency-based stat. Nothing suggests that either Luck or RG3, in their current form, are playing anywhere near the level of Russell. And while RG3 has played at Wilson's level in the past (both in college and last year), Luck has never been as good.

 

[WizardHawk]

It's time for Seattle Seahawks fans to stop whining about Super Bowl XL loss - Spokane Sports | Examiner.com


don't you just hate it when fans won't let shit go??

Don't you just hate it when someone makes a post that was already answered in the quote they replied to?

I mean we would understand if it cost them a chance to get in the post season or it was a post season game that this play happened in, but it didn't mean a thing and yet they bring up time and time again. Tells you a lot about their supposed football knowledge.

So you tell me how any seattle fan thinking they got jobbed in a super bowl compares to GB fans whining about an early regular season game botched by the replacement refs that didn't end up hurting their post season run?

Right, your point was rendered entirely moot.

 

[Smart]

My point is that Seattle over the course of the two years RW have been in the league the only thing the team has lacked a dominant number 1 receiver. He had great blocking last year when the line is healthy this year RW has all day to throw and Seattle has had a top five defense the last 3+ years. Which is something that Brady Rodgers or even RG3 or Luck do not have. So to say hey look RW beat all these great QBs he must be just as great is a bit inaccurate.

That line was the #21 ranked line by PFF last year, and the were ranked higher against the run than the pass. They were also the most penalized line in the league.

And you are STILL implying Wilson's stats are better than RG3's because he has more time to throw. This is such absolute bullshit because he doesn't. No quarterback in the league has been more pressured than Russell. I gave you the fucking numbers to prove it.

I will say this one last time: You are literally saying Russell is succeeded because of something his team is the WORST IN THE ENTIRE NFL at. It'd be a bad argument to say it about the 16th best pass protection team, but you are actually making it about the worst one. It is eminently laughable.

 

[David_son]

That line was the #21 ranked line by PFF last year, and the were ranked higher against the run than the pass. They were also the most penalized line in the league.

And you are STILL implying Wilson's stats are better than RG3's because he has more time to throw. This is such absolute bullshit because he doesn't. No quarterback in the league has been more pressured than Russell. I gave you the fucking numbers to prove it.

I will say this one last time: You are literally saying Russell is succeeded because of something his team is the WORST IN THE ENTIRE NFL at. It'd be a bad argument to say it about the 16th best pass protection team, but you are actually making it about the worst one. It is eminently laughable.

As I have shown his line has not given up as much QB hits or Sacks as other lines in the league and those are the stats the NFL tracks so I dont know how you can say Seattle has the worst line in the league.... And I dont know why you keep bringing in RG3 into the conversation. The title of the thread is QBs that RW have beat which means over his entire career. Thats the point as previously stated RW has done well a lot better then a lot of people thought he was going to do, but again as previously stated the whole of the team has more to do with some of those successes then just RW..... and since you like to bring up the Redskins, if you give the Seahawks the Redskins defense RW wouldnt have half the wins against these QBs. So I will repeat what I stated to claim that RW must be better then these QB just because the team won is a bit inaccurate.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

We're talking about Russell's numbers versus RG3's and Luck's. The defense has nothing to do with Russell being in the top five in virtually every important efficiency-based stat. Nothing suggests that either Luck or RG3, in their current form, are playing anywhere near the level of Russell. And while RG3 has played at Wilson's level in the past (both in college and last year), Luck has never been as good.

Stats have to be taken in context or they are useless and can support any statement.

Are you implying field position does not affect QB play or game calling? Playing from behind? TOs? Dropped passes? It's not only pressures and sacks that determine good QB play and accuracy. All these things must be taken into account. And they include performAnce by the defense and STs.

I have already stated that currently RW is playing at a higher level than Griff. That doesn't mean I think he is better than griff, but he is certainly playing better right now. I have all the respect in the world for RW.

I just think this supporting cast comment absurd.

 

[Smart]

As I have shown his line has not given up as much QB hits or Sacks as other lines in the league and those are the stats the NFL tracks so I dont know how you can say Seattle has the worst line in the league.... And I dont know why you keep bringing in RG3 into the conversation. The title of the thread is QBs that RW have beat which means over his entire career. Thats the point as previously stated RW has done well a lot better then a lot of people thought he was going to do, but again as previously stated the whole of the team has more to do with some of those successes then just RW..... and since you like to bring up the Redskins, if you give the Seahawks the Redskins defense RW wouldnt have half the wins against these QBs. So I will repeat what I stated to claim that RW must be better then these QB just because the team won is a bit inaccurate.

My conversation with you has nothing to do with the OP. I specifically called you out for you stupid statement that Russell owes much of his success to his "stellar offensive line play."

I showed you a link from a reputable source that he was the most pressured QB in the NFL. Even using QB hits as a metric, Wilson is the 11th most hit QB on the team that passes the 31st most.

Saying his success is due to his O-Line play is the functional equivalent of saying it is due to his "stellar height." Just admit you are hopelessly wrong and move along.