Young QB debate - RWill stats vs ALuck stats

[blstoker]

Its refreshing to see a reasonable thread/discussion on this topic. to you Hawk fans.

Trying to have a Luck/RGIII discussion with Skins fans is about the worst thing I have ever experienced.

The week leading up to the Hawks/Skins playoff game was the same thing. Saw a lot of Skins fans, and the experience was less than pleasant.

 

[C.Adl.C.Hox.Fan]

Its refreshing to see a reasonable thread/discussion on this topic. to you Hawk fans...

Welcome, and welcome back if you would like.
It is good to promote the rational environment and you seem to be a bird of that feather... Err...

Sorry, poor choice of animal in allegory.
It is just that the tiger and the stripes reference is more alluding towards stubbornness, predictability and aversion to change. The birds and the feathers alludes towards like minds congregating.

So be it. Anyhow, I have always been a Bengals fan. Fuck Pitts, What is a Brown? SB Champs gotta go down !!

 

[CakesW]

What's up cakes.... I think Wilson will improve just do to the fact that he has another year under his belt with this offense... In the last 3 years including his college day's the guy has had to learn new play-books every year on the fly... Just being able to process the same playbook with the same coordinator and most of the same players should elevate his play.. I think the best of Wilson is yet to come... Wilson is a mentally strong dude...

Howdy Boogie !

I think the thing that is being misinterpreted is the "improvement" vs "Better Stats" debate. I expect Russell Wilson to improve as a player, I just don't think that his stats are going to be massively improved over last seasons. Does that make sense ?


Personally, I'd actually want him to be no more "opened up" than he was last season, but that is me. I want him to win a bunch of football games without risking him too much.

My point for that.. is that both San Francisco and Seattle are in the exact same boat.. there best chances to win a Title are RIGHT NOW. Both have built a fantastic roster, and are being led by very, very, very reasonably priced QB's.... at their projected pace, both Kaep and RWill are going to dramatically alter the Salary cap situations of their rosters when they get their next contract. There is no getting around that. The depth on both teams will be reduced, or the roster will be weaker in certain positions. That is almost a given.

 

[SeattleOspreys]

cakes, i know you like to debate because we've done it over the years but even recently you and
stupes would go at it and you'd try to bury the guy. Let's re-visit because you're bigger than trying
to waffle and switch what you said in your earlier comment to being stat based, which I'd never
have touched

That being... I don't see Russell Wilson EVER getting marketably better than he is right now. I know some will take that as a supreme slap in the face, but it isn't.

You and I know you weren't talking stats here. You were talking about the play on the field. Be
honest with yourself. Personally, I don't care but you should.

My response: "It's the experience of knowing the offense. It's the implementation of the read/option that he never used in college, it's the improved timing of receivers for 2013, it's the leadership and control he took of the team that starts from jumpstreet."


Hawks NEVER lose game #1 last year to Zona with an experienced RWill. 4 shots at the endzone with minimal time left. He finds a way to get the rock in the endzone and guess what? That's the difference from a 2 seed and a 5th seed. Based on those above improvement areas for a full season makes RWill "marketably better" in 2013.

He was one of the rare athletes where he came into the league as Ready as he would ever be, and played probably as good as he will ever play. I don't expect a significant improvement from him, but more importantly, I don't see a significant drop from him.

My Response: To say RWill has a "high floor" is accurate. To say RWill has a "low ceiling" is jumping the gun at this early tenure with the surrounding talent the Hawks have and the continuity he'll have in year
2. Again, it comes back to your definition of "significant improvement".

2012 is as good as he will ever play?

I knew what you meant by significant improvement but I was trying to be respectful and allow you
to answer. "Coming into the league as ready as he would ever be and played probably as good as
he will ever play" = How he plays, not the stats he puts up. Even a SF yossarian tried to say to you
not the 1st 5 games but the final 11.

Irrelevant.... His Final numbers were a 100 QB Rating... and a 69.4 QBR...
Which is high rent district for an entire season...Nobody is asking anybody to cherry pick his best games etc...If Russell Wilson ends up with a 100 QB Rating for 2013, with a 69.4 QBR.... I'm sure Seahawk Fans would be exstatic.

I mentioned that those stats don't mean squat because Tony Romo has a top 5 CAREER QB rating because he'll put up big numbers in some games and not others.

How can you say the first 5 games are irrelevant? It's very relevant because you can see the drastic improvement after game 5 and it didn't decline. 24 tds and 5 picks after game 5. That is VERY RELEVANT cakes.

He was a green rookie that didn't get any time until the first half of pre-season game 3 vs the Chiefs. Nobody is cherry picking his best games. What Harold, Yosarian and I are saying is that the first 5 games were conservative, not knowing the playbook, the routes, receivers, etc, so those games should have a lower allocation and the final 11's consistency is more of what you'll see in 2013. RWill showed that and it's not cherry picking.

I'm not going to go on and on because it will get into how you then switched his "play", "his ceiling"
into more stat quotes and QB ratings and it's already War & Peace.

This isn't about being right or wrong but you and I know what you initially meant. Don't take it as a slight but you're bigger than that.

 

[SeattleOspreys]

Howdy Boogie !

I think the thing that is being misinterpreted is the "improvement" vs "Better Stats" debate. I expect Russell Wilson to improve as a player, I just don't think that his stats are going to be massively improved over last seasons. Does that make sense ?

Heck, the corroboration above shows what you said and meant. Be real. It's NOT misinterpreted in "improvement" vs "better stats" debate, cakes.

You know what you meant and reason I said you're bigger than to waffle and then switch what you said and call it misinterpretation. C'mon, guy, STL Card fans don't pull this. Own up to it. Who do you think you're debating with, cakes? This isn't stuper.




Hopefully, the STL Cards start fast and we'll see what Mozeliak has up his sleeve. I still want Garza. I have no trust in Westbrook or Lynn at all. Love Miller but a rookie in a tight playoff spot... We don't need a bullpen. We just need Matheny to figure out how to utilize 'em.

 

[CakesW]

Heck, the corroboration above shows what you said and meant. Be real. It's NOT misinterpreted in "improvement" vs "better stats" debate, cakes.

You know what you meant and reason I said you're bigger than to waffle and then switch what you said and call it misinterpretation. C'mon, guy, STL Card fans don't pull this. Own up to it. Who do you think you're debating with, cakes? This isn't stuper.




Hopefully, the STL Cards start fast and we'll see what Mozeliak has up his sleeve. I still want Garza. I have no trust in Westbrook or Lynn at all. Love Miller but a rookie in a tight playoff spot... We don't need a bullpen. We just need Matheny to figure out how to utilize 'em.

The Cardinals are the best organization in Baseball Osprey... I don't even think it's close right now. I could live with, or pass on Garza... he doesn't really impress me that much...

And I don't subscribe to the "we don't need a bullpen" sentiments...

I'm in the "if you don't have a bullpen, you don't have ANYTHING" camp. Always have been.

I expect the D'backs to obtain Garza any minute now....


I think the Cardinals will be 100% fine without a move...

They will probably make a small tweak, but we have virtually everything we need right now... especially when you consider what we have done in the farm system waiting...

 

[CakesW]

In reguards to the Rwill statements... I'm trying to clarify them...

What I meant to say is that I don't expect his stats to be better. I do expect him to be better as a QB. That is what I meant to say in my first post. I think he came into the league putting up the kind of stats we are going to expect from him throughout his career. I don't see a quantum leap in them.

I just don't see a 4500 yard passer, 35 TD guy.... that isn't his game.

In Seattle's scheme, with their current personel.... he's going to give you what he gave you last year, and it was exceptional. I don't see him suddenly transcending into Aaron Rodgers numbers though. That isn't his game.

 

[CakesW]

Remember... I have history with this guy... hell, I stood next to him on the Sidelines back in 2009 when he lit up Gardner Webb, in Raleigh.

His "Sweet Spot" is EXACTLY where the Seahawks had him last season... and it has so far held true for him.... Have him as your secondary focus, and he excells.... as he was asked to throw more in NC State, his numbers started to drop somewhat.... When he went to Wisconsin... Bingo, all of a sudden he was doing just what he excels at again, and he was one of the best QB's in College.

Start getting "loosey goosey" with him, and despite his great head, entagibles etc... his numbers are the team are going to start suffering. That can almost be said for any QB...

Seahawks game is Run First... let Wilson kill you second....

 

[jdwills126]

Ability with talent around them......

Andy Dalton.

As for Luck / Wilson / RG3 - RG3 highest upside, Luck safest pick for longevity, and I can't see Wilson as having a huge impact. SHort QBs tend not to have lasting careers.

 

[SonnyCID]

Ability with talent around them......

Andy Dalton.

As for Luck / Wilson / RG3 - RG3 highest upside, Luck safest pick for longevity, and I can't see Wilson as having a huge impact. SHort QBs tend not to have lasting careers.

I cant wait for the height argument about Wilson to be put to bed. He has already proven that its irrelevant. Yet some still say that he somehow has much more to prove than Luck at this point.

 

[SonnyCID]

I cant wait for the height argument about Wilson to be put to bed. He has already proven that its irrelevant. Yet some still say that he somehow has much more to prove than Luck at this point.

Wont let me edit for some reason.

Yet some still say that he somehow has much more to prove than Luck at this point simply because he's short.

It's truly uniformed. He's proven he can play at his height. I seriously doubt that it will all catch up to him at some point and then he will be 'too short to be effective'.

 

[CakesW]

I cant wait for the height argument about Wilson to be put to bed. He has already proven that its irrelevant. Yet some still say that he somehow has much more to prove than Luck at this point.

Totally agree.... I think the Height argument is 100% out the window now...

I think anybody who brings it up is foolish at this point.

With Wilson's success las season, I want to see somebody prove they can play QB over the height of 6'6... as opposed to being shorter than 6'0.

 

[France_Steve]

what I find strange is the idea that height has anything to do with longevity. I don't think shorter qb's have any more propensity to be injured.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

As stated by many here, the height argument is null and void and anybody using it just doesn't get it. You can bet some posters will still bring it up thou.

 

[dude82]

The height thing should have gone out the window when Brees started putting up video game numbers years ago. If you can play, you can play.

Cakes... I don't know how you can say that Wilson can get better as a quarterback but that his numbers won't improve much. Obviously he won't be chucking the ball a ton like Luck or Brees or Brady, but within the framework of the offense, he can still increase his numbers from last year. The Seahawks went the first half of the season in a very vanilla, "don't take any chances" type of offense and they kinda eased Wilson into things so that when they did open up the playbook, he was ready to excel. I would expect the kid gloves to be off this season and while they're still gonna run the ball a lot, he's not gonna be handcuffed by the playbook anymore like he was in the first half of last season. So when he does pass, it won't just be the safe, "just don't turn the ball over" passes he was throwing early last year. They still don't want him turning the ball over, but I think he showed as the season progressed that they could open it up and let him throw more and he could still keep the turnovers to a minimum, so that won't be an issue.

 

[Kingdome fan]

and the mirror that you are holding should reflect that

 

[Kingdome fan]

sorry, my last post was for
"robotic dreams"

 

[Kingdome fan]

kdwills126:

Fran Tarkenton 18 years, Johnny Unitas 18 years, Drew Brees 13 years (and counting)

perhaps quality is the question not height

 

[dude82]

Meanwhile... on the other end of the height argument, there's this:

Dan McGwire - 6'8" Terrible quarterback who ended up backing up Stan Gelbaugh and Kelly Stauffer a year into his career.

Derek Anderson - 6'6" Got beat out for the job in Cleveland by Charlie freaking Frye... twice! Frye was also fairly tall at 6'4" and if he hadn't been competing against Derek Anderson for a job all the time, he probably would have barely seen the field.

JaMarcus Russell - 6'6" Trying to make a comeback, but was terrible when he played in the NFL. His weight was more the problem than his height, but he's a tall QB that bombed in the NFL, so he makes the list.

Ryan Leaf - 6'5" - Too many issues to say that height was necessarily a hindrance, but like JaMarcus Russell, he was a tall QB that bombed in the NFL.

Vince Young - 6'5" - Wasn't horrible and is still in the league, but is a backup now and wasn't particularly good when he did start.

Obviously there have been some very good taller QBs (Joe Flacco comes immediately to mind at 6'6") over the years in the NFL and it's not fair to suggest that taller QBs can't make it in the NFL because of their height based on the list I provided, but that's the point. Just because there are instances of quarterbacks of a certain height not making it in the NFL doesn't mean that every person in that range, whether it be "too short" or "too tall" is automatically going to be terrible too. Whether a quarterback should be given an opportunity to play should be based on each individual quarterback's abilities, regardless of height.

 

[CakesW]

I think that Russell Wilson is in that "Troy Aikman" Category... and that clearly is good company...
When Aikman was a 25-30 pass per game QB, he was virtually unstoppable... when you started to stretch him out, and he was the focal point of the offense, instead of the run/pass split, then he became less effective. The more the Cowboys asked Aikman to throw, the less effective he became. That is kind of how I see Russell Wilson.

Like I said, I don't think his numbers will decline... I just don't think that he's going to blossom into a 4500 yard, 35 TD QB ( a big leap over last year) - That just isn't, nor shouldn't be his game.