Fahey says Wilson, not Revis, took Baldwin out of Super Bowl

[Hawks46]

I wouldn't argue the points about the OL, but it's the OC and coaching staff putting players in place where they have to be.

Wilson can survive behind a terrible OL. Brady and Manning can't.

Manning has the quickest release in the NFL, at 2.24 seconds per pass on average. That will do a lot to improve your OL ranking. The Broncos struggled a bit in pass protection last year as they dealt with some injuries to the OL.

Yes, all these QBs have had great WR corps. So, quick quiz, which of Brady's WRs have left NE and done just as well else where ?

How about Mannings ? Rodgers ? Jennings went to the Vikings, got big money, and stunk.

Edelman is a #2 WR for half the teams in the league, and anyone that loses a player of Gronkowski's caliber is going to see a dip in production. Brady "struggled" without Gronk to the tune of 12-13 wins a year, even with Gronk being injured an entire year. That's the point. Elite QBs can do more with less. That's what we have to see if Wilson can do it now, because yes, I believe our terrible OL has caused some issues with his progression.

It's also helped him with an elite run game. The threat of Marshawn Lynch opens a lot up. Teams stack 8 in the box and we still can't always exploit that (STL and AZ routinely do it and cause us trouble if we can't establish the run).

 

[Anthony!]

I wouldn't argue the points about the OL, but it's the OC and coaching staff putting players in place where they have to be.

Wilson can survive behind a terrible OL. Brady and Manning can't.

Manning has the quickest release in the NFL, at 2.24 seconds per pass on average. That will do a lot to improve your OL ranking. The Broncos struggled a bit in pass protection last year as they dealt with some injuries to the OL.

Yes, all these QBs have had great WR corps. So, quick quiz, which of Brady's WRs have left NE and done just as well else where ?

How about Mannings ? Rodgers ? Jennings went to the Vikings, got big money, and stunk.

Edelman is a #2 WR for half the teams in the league, and anyone that loses a player of Gronkowski's caliber is going to see a dip in production. Brady "struggled" without Gronk to the tune of 12-13 wins a year, even with Gronk being injured an entire year. That's the point. Elite QBs can do more with less. That's what we have to see if Wilson can do it now, because yes, I believe our terrible OL has caused some issues with his progression.

It's also helped him with an elite run game. The threat of Marshawn Lynch opens a lot up. Teams stack 8 in the box and we still can't always exploit that (STL and AZ routinely do it and cause us trouble if we can't establish the run).

First to Brady the answer is Welker, also remember he has Randy Moss who was very very good even before Brady
As to Manning again Welker was very good before Manning, Also he had Faulk who went on to do great in St Louis, in 98 Manning had Pathon who went on to NO to have several season as good or better than with Manning. I can go on. Rodgers the problem is of his top Wr only Jennings has left. So we do not know yet.

You say "anyone that loses a player of Gronkowski's caliber is going to see a dip in production." I would agree but the point is Wilson has never had anyone of Gronks caliber. Edleman maybe a #2 on most teams but our best Wr Baldwin is barley a #3 on most teams. Your other statement of "That's the point. Elite QBs can do more with less." The problem is that is what Wilson has been doing, with a bottom 10 oline, and bottom 10 Wr corps and yet he is still winning, and producing, and setting records. Thank you, you just made my point and see below

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/11/6/716 ... elp-bandit
Thanks you proved my point.

 

[KiwiHawk]

It's basically true. It's been documented how much he was open and I'm one of the one's who's usually kind of annoyed with Baldwin's little brother syndrome.

Wilson generally plays pretty tight throughout the first 3.5 quarters, however; and when the game is on the line he'll sling it a little more, often with good results. The SB was no different in the former. The latter was a bit of a different story. Both in the poorly placed ball to Kearse that he caught and the poorly placed infamous last throw.

So there may be something to the idea that Wilson digs his own hole to heroically come back from in the 4th quarter?

Because I've long wondered why 4th-quarter comebacks are considered an indication of success when we have the NFL's best defense and really shouldn't be behind in the 4th-quarter if the offense is doing its job.

We're holding opponents to under 16 points per game - we really shouldn't need many 4th-quarter comebacks.

The median points-per game in the NFL in 2014 was the KC Chiefs at 22.1. So Joe Average QB should be able to lead his team to a little more than 22 points on the average weekend. We give up less than 16, which is only slightly higher than the worst offense in the league's average per game (Jacksonville at 15.6).

If it wasn't for our defense, I bet most of those come-from-behind wins end up being losses.

If Wilson's not hitting open receivers for whatever reason, that explains why we dig a hole early, and that's not a good thing, no matter how exciting and awesome 4th-quarter comebacks are.

With our defense we should be coasting to a win most of the time.

This is not a Wilson bash. This is merely illustrating one of the weaknesses I see in his game, and one of my concerns as to his future potential.

I'm glad we basically have him sewn up for the next 3 years, because I still need to see more form him to determine if he's worth the money he's asking for. Cam Newton got 100/5, which I see as the appropriate ballpark for Wilson unless he can show that he can win games for us and not just depend on the defense turning our opponents into the worst offense in the league in order to win games in the 4th quarter.

This year there should be no gripes about him not having the tools around him, so let's be done with these heart-attack games and get back to the thrashings we saw in December of 2002 where we scored 42 points per game and the outcome was not in doubt.

 

[Anthony!]

It's basically true. It's been documented how much he was open and I'm one of the one's who's usually kind of annoyed with Baldwin's little brother syndrome.

Wilson generally plays pretty tight throughout the first 3.5 quarters, however; and when the game is on the line he'll sling it a little more, often with good results. The SB was no different in the former. The latter was a bit of a different story. Both in the poorly placed ball to Kearse that he caught and the poorly placed infamous last throw.

So there may be something to the idea that Wilson digs his own hole to heroically come back from in the 4th quarter?

Because I've long wondered why 4th-quarter comebacks are considered an indication of success when we have the NFL's best defense and really shouldn't be behind in the 4th-quarter if the offense is doing its job.

We're holding opponents to under 16 points per game - we really shouldn't need many 4th-quarter comebacks.

The median points-per game in the NFL in 2014 was the KC Chiefs at 22.1. So Joe Average QB should be able to lead his team to a little more than 22 points on the average weekend. We give up less than 16, which is only slightly higher than the worst offense in the league's average per game (Jacksonville at 15.6).

If it wasn't for our defense, I bet most of those come-from-behind wins end up being losses.

If Wilson's not hitting open receivers for whatever reason, that explains why we dig a hole early, and that's not a good thing, no matter how exciting and awesome 4th-quarter comebacks are.

With our defense we should be coasting to a win most of the time.

This is not a Wilson bash. This is merely illustrating one of the weaknesses I see in his game, and one of my concerns as to his future potential.

I'm glad we basically have him sewn up for the next 4 years, because I still need to see more form him to determine if he's worth the money he's asking for. Cam Newton got 100/5, which I see as the appropriate ballpark for Wilson unless he can show that he can win games for us and not just depend on the defense turning our opponents into the worst offense in the league in order to win games in the 4th quarter.

This year there should be no gripes about him not having the tools around him, so let's be done with these heart-attack games and get back to the thrashings we saw in December of 2002 where we scored 42 points per game and the outcome was not in doubt.

1 we really only have him sewn up for the nest 2 after that it gets way to expensive to the tunes of 25+ mil a year and all on that years cap. 2 once again your are forgetting our HC philosophy, low TO, low risk, get a lead and le the defense win it. ITs not until we are down late they open things up. The conservative offense and PCs philosophy is why we get in the wholes early. This is the way PC wants it. FYI Wilson has already shown he can win games for us.

 

[Hawks46]

I wouldn't argue the points about the OL, but it's the OC and coaching staff putting players in place where they have to be.

Wilson can survive behind a terrible OL. Brady and Manning can't.

Manning has the quickest release in the NFL, at 2.24 seconds per pass on average. That will do a lot to improve your OL ranking. The Broncos struggled a bit in pass protection last year as they dealt with some injuries to the OL.

Yes, all these QBs have had great WR corps. So, quick quiz, which of Brady's WRs have left NE and done just as well else where ?

How about Mannings ? Rodgers ? Jennings went to the Vikings, got big money, and stunk.

Edelman is a #2 WR for half the teams in the league, and anyone that loses a player of Gronkowski's caliber is going to see a dip in production. Brady "struggled" without Gronk to the tune of 12-13 wins a year, even with Gronk being injured an entire year. That's the point. Elite QBs can do more with less. That's what we have to see if Wilson can do it now, because yes, I believe our terrible OL has caused some issues with his progression.

It's also helped him with an elite run game. The threat of Marshawn Lynch opens a lot up. Teams stack 8 in the box and we still can't always exploit that (STL and AZ routinely do it and cause us trouble if we can't establish the run).

First to Brady the answer is Welker, also remember he has Randy Moss who was very very good even before Brady
As to Manning again Welker was very good before Manning, Also he had Faulk who went on to do great in St Louis, in 98 Manning had Pathon who went on to NO to have several season as good or better than with Manning. I can go on. Rodgers the problem is of his top Wr only Jennings has left. So we do not know yet.

You say "anyone that loses a player of Gronkowski's caliber is going to see a dip in production." I would agree but the point is Wilson has never had anyone of Gronks caliber. Edleman maybe a #2 on most teams but our best Wr Baldwin is barley a #3 on most teams. Your other statement of "That's the point. Elite QBs can do more with less." The problem is that is what Wilson has been doing, with a bottom 10 oline, and bottom 10 Wr corps and yet he is still winning, and producing, and setting records. Thank you, you just made my point and see below

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/11/6/716 ... elp-bandit
Thanks you proved my point.

Uh, yeah. Thanks for proving my point.

Welker did what before he teamed up with Brady ? Then he went to play with Manning. So it's not a good comparison.

Randy Moss did what exactly after the Patriots cut him/didn't resign him ? This was following record setting years.

So you named one above average player (no one is going to say Jerome Pathon was ever elite), and one elite player in Faulk, who was a RB, not WR (yes, still a skill position player) who was an elite player with a well rounded skill set that would fit in with most systems.

So, two players in a combined...what, 29 seasons between 2 QBs and that somehow proves your point and not mine ? Wow. Dude you must just like to argue with people. You are truly a Master Debater.

No one is saying that Wilson hasn't had an elite supporting cast. BSD made a point that it's hard to tell why Wilson hasn't quite "topped out" (yes I'm paraphrasing, I already quoted the man) and it would be wise to see what he can do with elite talent before gracing him with elite money, and I agreed. You're just going off on your typical WIlson rant/tangent and it's honestly not even the correct context with what I'm saying.

 

[KiwiHawk]

1 we really only have him sewn up for the nest 2 after that it gets way to expensive to the tunes of 25+ mil a year and all on that years cap. 2 once again your are forgetting our HC philosophy, low TO, low risk, get a lead and le the defense win it. ITs not until we are down late they open things up. The conservative offense and PCs philosophy is why we get in the wholes early. This is the way PC wants it. FYI Wilson has already shown he can win games for us.

I am quite certain that being behind in the 4th quarter is not part of PC's plan.

Wilson has shown that he can win games for us if backed up by the NFL's #1 defense. If Wilson gets a massive deal, we will have to make compromises, which means he may not be playing with the #1 defense anymore. There is no proof he can win games in the NFL without that defense, and certainly the number of times he has to come from behind even when the defense is doing its job is alarming.

Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. All we have to do to win games on offense is to be better than the worst team in the NFL. That's not a big ask, or high praise if the offense manages it.

 

[Hawks46]

1 we really only have him sewn up for the nest 2 after that it gets way to expensive to the tunes of 25+ mil a year and all on that years cap. 2 once again your are forgetting our HC philosophy, low TO, low risk, get a lead and le the defense win it. ITs not until we are down late they open things up. The conservative offense and PCs philosophy is why we get in the wholes early. This is the way PC wants it. FYI Wilson has already shown he can win games for us.

I am quite certain that being behind in the 4th quarter is not part of PC's plan.

Wilson has shown that he can win games for us if backed up by the NFL's #1 defense. If Wilson gets a massive deal, we will have to make compromises, which means he may not be playing with the #1 defense anymore. There is no proof he can win games in the NFL without that defense, and certainly the number of times he has to come from behind even when the defense is doing its job is alarming.

Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. All we have to do to win games on offense is to be better than the worst team in the NFL. That's not a big ask, or high praise if the offense manages it.

Yea, you beat me to it. I'm pretty sure Pete's offensive philosophy isn't to get behind early and work our way back in it. Anthony is correct though, in that due to our conservative philosophy that we don't blow a lot of teams out. Once we get up by 14 points, we typically pump the brakes....which I don't care for. There is nothing ungentlemanly about winning by 17-21 points. In today's NFL, too much can happen so quickly that a lead is almost never safe.

It's why Pete and John make the big money....is our offensive inconsistency due to lack of skill players ? Is Wilson at his ceiling, or does he just need more help ? There's a lot of cause and effect type problems there, and I'm with the few that think we need to see a bit more before we sell the farm.

 

[Anthony!]

I wouldn't argue the points about the OL, but it's the OC and coaching staff putting players in place where they have to be.

Wilson can survive behind a terrible OL. Brady and Manning can't.

Manning has the quickest release in the NFL, at 2.24 seconds per pass on average. That will do a lot to improve your OL ranking. The Broncos struggled a bit in pass protection last year as they dealt with some injuries to the OL.

Yes, all these QBs have had great WR corps. So, quick quiz, which of Brady's WRs have left NE and done just as well else where ?

How about Mannings ? Rodgers ? Jennings went to the Vikings, got big money, and stunk.

Edelman is a #2 WR for half the teams in the league, and anyone that loses a player of Gronkowski's caliber is going to see a dip in production. Brady "struggled" without Gronk to the tune of 12-13 wins a year, even with Gronk being injured an entire year. That's the point. Elite QBs can do more with less. That's what we have to see if Wilson can do it now, because yes, I believe our terrible OL has caused some issues with his progression.

It's also helped him with an elite run game. The threat of Marshawn Lynch opens a lot up. Teams stack 8 in the box and we still can't always exploit that (STL and AZ routinely do it and cause us trouble if we can't establish the run).

First to Brady the answer is Welker, also remember he has Randy Moss who was very very good even before Brady
As to Manning again Welker was very good before Manning, Also he had Faulk who went on to do great in St Louis, in 98 Manning had Pathon who went on to NO to have several season as good or better than with Manning. I can go on. Rodgers the problem is of his top Wr only Jennings has left. So we do not know yet.

You say "anyone that loses a player of Gronkowski's caliber is going to see a dip in production." I would agree but the point is Wilson has never had anyone of Gronks caliber. Edleman maybe a #2 on most teams but our best Wr Baldwin is barley a #3 on most teams. Your other statement of "That's the point. Elite QBs can do more with less." The problem is that is what Wilson has been doing, with a bottom 10 oline, and bottom 10 Wr corps and yet he is still winning, and producing, and setting records. Thank you, you just made my point and see below

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/11/6/716 ... elp-bandit
Thanks you proved my point.

Uh, yeah. Thanks for proving my point.

Welker did what before he teamed up with Brady ? Then he went to play with Manning. So it's not a good comparison.

Randy Moss did what exactly after the Patriots cut him/didn't resign him ? This was following record setting years.

So you named one above average player (no one is going to say Jerome Pathon was ever elite), and one elite player in Faulk, who was a RB, not WR (yes, still a skill position player) who was an elite player with a well rounded skill set that would fit in with most systems.

So, two players in a combined...what, 29 seasons between 2 QBs and that somehow proves your point and not mine ? Wow. Dude you must just like to argue with people. You are truly a Master Debater.

No one is saying that Wilson hasn't had an elite supporting cast. BSD made a point that it's hard to tell why Wilson hasn't quite "topped out" (yes I'm paraphrasing, I already quoted the man) and it would be wise to see what he can do with elite talent before gracing him with elite money, and I agreed. You're just going off on your typical WIlson rant/tangent and it's honestly not even the correct context with what I'm saying.

Actually Welker was good before Brady

2006 he had 687 yards, on 67 rec and a 10.3 ypa
2077 with Brady he had 1175 yards but he also had 112 receptions and his YPA only went up to 11.5. So basically going to a great QB like Brady and getting more attempts only added .3 to his YPA.

So as you can see the only real change was opportunity which is just as mush a by product of the system as the QB or WR. So yes thanks for proving my point.

 

[KiwiHawk]

I'm with the few that think we need to see a bit more before we sell the farm.

I'm definitely in this camp.

The atrocious first halves of the NFCCG and Super Bowl really have me wondering is Wilson is putting too much emphasis on sandlot football and not enough on hitting receivers when they come out of their breaks.

His average per completion may be quite high, but unless it's consistent enough to sustain drives, it's all for naught.

If we do our typical run on 1st and 2nd, we need that 3rd-down conversion whether it's a 3-yard pass (or run) or a spectacular 10 seconds of eluding the pass rush before firing it way down field. Sometimes I think he needs to take the 3 yards on offer.

If he can't correct that, then he's basically plateaued as an NFL quarterback and not a top-tier one at that. It won't stop him from having some amazing streaks that will dazzle everyone, but it's consistency that wins championships.

On the other hand if he can rely more on his receivers and not put everything on his own shoulders, he could be the brilliant, consistent QB we all want.

 

[Anthony!]

1 we really only have him sewn up for the nest 2 after that it gets way to expensive to the tunes of 25+ mil a year and all on that years cap. 2 once again your are forgetting our HC philosophy, low TO, low risk, get a lead and le the defense win it. ITs not until we are down late they open things up. The conservative offense and PCs philosophy is why we get in the wholes early. This is the way PC wants it. FYI Wilson has already shown he can win games for us.

I am quite certain that being behind in the 4th quarter is not part of PC's plan.

Wilson has shown that he can win games for us if backed up by the NFL's #1 defense. If Wilson gets a massive deal, we will have to make compromises, which means he may not be playing with the #1 defense anymore. There is no proof he can win games in the NFL without that defense, and certainly the number of times he has to come from behind even when the defense is doing its job is alarming.

Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. All we have to do to win games on offense is to be better than the worst team in the NFL. That's not a big ask, or high praise if the offense manages it.

Hmm really is it amazing that in the 7 of the 9 losses were our defense gave up 24 or more points we had leads going in late into the 4th qtr only to have the defense give it up. FYI you statement of "Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. " is ridiculous for one it is an avg, we do not hold every team to that and again top 10 scoring offense. That was a ridiculous statement. Add to that we have been a top 10 scoring offense for the last 3 years. And again I bring back this stats which clearly shows that if we had an Offense with a passing game that was avg in efficiency we would loose 5-6 more games a year, despite our great defense which benefits form our offense as well, to the tune of 6 less minutes on the field compared to 2011

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

The team is built and runs the way PC wants it he has said on numerous occasion he wants a lead and to let the defense win it. When it works that's great when it does not more often than not Wilson gets us the win. What that means is the play calling on offense changes. They are already a risk averse offense, with lead they are even worse, when behind late hey let the reigns loose. So sorry you really have not shown or proven anything other than just how important Wilson is tour team, to be able to do what he does, with the lack of weapons, and n a system not designed for it and yet he does.

 

[Anthony!]

:17:

I'm with the few that think we need to see a bit more before we sell the farm.

I'm definitely in this camp.

The atrocious first halves of the NFCCG and Super Bowl really have me wondering is Wilson is putting too much emphasis on sandlot football and not enough on hitting receivers when they come out of their breaks.

His average per completion may be quite high, but unless it's consistent enough to sustain drives, it's all for naught.

If we do our typical run on 1st and 2nd, we need that 3rd-down conversion whether it's a 3-yard pass (or run) or a spectacular 10 seconds of eluding the pass rush before firing it way down field. Sometimes I think he needs to take the 3 yards on offer.

If he can't correct that, then he's basically plateaued as an NFL quarterback and not a top-tier one at that. It won't stop him from having some amazing streaks that will dazzle everyone, but it's consistency that wins championships.

On the other hand if he can rely more on his receivers and not put everything on his own shoulders, he could be the brilliant, consistent QB we all want.

ukeface:

Glad you camp has a low population as all the facts and stats show it should have a population of ZERO.

 

[Melencause]

Baldwin was constantly open because Revis couldn't mirror his movement from the slot. The receiver didn't produce because his quarterback, Russell Wilson, played with the same hesitation and fear that was way too common throwing the ball in 2014.

Despite what the statistics suggest, Revis didn't take Baldwin out of the game. Wilson did.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2392 ... -his-prime

Fahey does excellent and exhaustive analysis. If he says it, it's probably true.

This wasn't just a superbowl problem. This was all season. Hesitation

 

[Anthony!]

Baldwin was constantly open because Revis couldn't mirror his movement from the slot. The receiver didn't produce because his quarterback, Russell Wilson, played with the same hesitation and fear that was way too common throwing the ball in 2014.

Despite what the statistics suggest, Revis didn't take Baldwin out of the game. Wilson did.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2392 ... -his-prime

Fahey does excellent and exhaustive analysis. If he says it, it's probably true.

This wasn't just a superbowl problem. This was all season. Hesitation

You know what I am finally convinces let Wilson go any QB we get could do what he has done. I mean we have all the evidence, we know exactly what PC asked him to do, we know exactly what he sees on every play, we know exactly what the play is, we know everything, to include how any QB cold have taken us to 3 straight playoffs, 2 straight SBs and win one. Any QB could do that with out Defense and run game, and great WR and oline any QB could do it.

 

[LymonHawk]

:17:

I'm with the few that think we need to see a bit more before we sell the farm.

I'm definitely in this camp.

The atrocious first halves of the NFCCG and Super Bowl really have me wondering is Wilson is putting too much emphasis on sandlot football and not enough on hitting receivers when they come out of their breaks.

His average per completion may be quite high, but unless it's consistent enough to sustain drives, it's all for naught.

If we do our typical run on 1st and 2nd, we need that 3rd-down conversion whether it's a 3-yard pass (or run) or a spectacular 10 seconds of eluding the pass rush before firing it way down field. Sometimes I think he needs to take the 3 yards on offer.

If he can't correct that, then he's basically plateaued as an NFL quarterback and not a top-tier one at that. It won't stop him from having some amazing streaks that will dazzle everyone, but it's consistency that wins championships.

On the other hand if he can rely more on his receivers and not put everything on his own shoulders, he could be the brilliant, consistent QB we all want.

ukeface:

Glad you camp has a low population as all the facts and stats show it should have a population of ZERO.

Wrong!

 

[Anthony!]

:17:

I'm with the few that think we need to see a bit more before we sell the farm.

I'm definitely in this camp.

The atrocious first halves of the NFCCG and Super Bowl really have me wondering is Wilson is putting too much emphasis on sandlot football and not enough on hitting receivers when they come out of their breaks.

His average per completion may be quite high, but unless it's consistent enough to sustain drives, it's all for naught.

If we do our typical run on 1st and 2nd, we need that 3rd-down conversion whether it's a 3-yard pass (or run) or a spectacular 10 seconds of eluding the pass rush before firing it way down field. Sometimes I think he needs to take the 3 yards on offer.

If he can't correct that, then he's basically plateaued as an NFL quarterback and not a top-tier one at that. It won't stop him from having some amazing streaks that will dazzle everyone, but it's consistency that wins championships.

On the other hand if he can rely more on his receivers and not put everything on his own shoulders, he could be the brilliant, consistent QB we all want.

ukeface:

Glad you camp has a low population as all the facts and stats show it should have a population of ZERO.

Wrong!

Thanks for admitting your wrong

 

[KiwiHawk]

Hmm really is it amazing that in the 7 of the 9 losses were our defense gave up 24 or more points we had leads going in late into the 4th qtr only to have the defense give it up. FYI you statement of "Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. " is ridiculous for one it is an avg, we do not hold every team to that and again top 10 scoring offense. That was a ridiculous statement. Add to that we have been a top 10 scoring offense for the last 3 years. And again I bring back this stats which clearly shows that if we had an Offense with a passing game that was avg in efficiency we would loose 5-6 more games a year, despite our great defense which benefits form our offense as well, to the tune of 6 less minutes on the field compared to 2011

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

The team is built and runs the way PC wants it he has said on numerous occasion he wants a lead and to let the defense win it. When it works that's great when it does not more often than not Wilson gets us the win. What that means is the play calling on offense changes. They are already a risk averse offense, with lead they are even worse, when behind late hey let the reigns loose. So sorry you really have not shown or proven anything other than just how important Wilson is tour team, to be able to do what he does, with the lack of weapons, and n a system not designed for it and yet he does.

Of course it's an average - I never presented it to be anything other than an average, hence "points per game". if you take overall points and divide ("per") by number of games, you get an average. Points per game IS AN AVERAGE.

"Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average.

If you want stats, then please look at the stats of the NFC Championship game, first half. Explain to me how digging that large a hole helped us win the game, and explain how our super-efficient offense kept the ball from Green Bay. Because what I saw is that if Green Bay had been able to convert their opportunities they would have stomped us. Our defense kept us in the game which allowed the miraculous comeback to happen.

Also please provide an explanation for how our passing game in the first half of the Super Bowl was consistent with the idea of establishing and maintaining a lead. Because what I saw was a QB who made rather poor choices, never utilized his tight ends, missed open receivers, and looked generally hesitant out there. Once again our defense kept us in the game and allowed a comeback that eventually failed, which is the way when you depend on comebacks to win games (which you shouldn't have to do with the #1 defense if your offense was worth a damn).

There is a very frustrating pattern of Wilson starting slow and digging a hole for us. Is it too much to want to see that addressed before signing the man to huge deal?

 

[bigskydoc]

You know what I am finally convinces let Wilson go any QB we get could do what he has done. I mean we have all the evidence, we know exactly what PC asked him to do, we know exactly what he sees on every play, we know exactly what the play is, we know everything, to include how any QB cold have taken us to 3 straight playoffs, 2 straight SBs and win one. Any QB could do that with out Defense and run game, and great WR and oline any QB could do it.

It's all or nothing with you isn't it? It isn't Wilson vs Any QB off the street. It is Wilson vs other QBs in the top 2-3 tiers. Obviously, he is worth significantly more than Henne, Fitzpatrick, or Manuel, but is his value closer to Rodgers or Roethlisberger ?

Wilson is currently an undisputed top 15 QB who is comfortably above the Dalton Line.* There is little doubt that he will remain above the Dalton Line for the foreseeable future. The question is, where does he belong within the top 2-3 tiers of QBs once he has another couple of seasons on his legs. To me, he is the smartest, safest, and best of the running quarterbacks in the NFL ever. However, like running backs, running quarterbacks generally have a steep dropoff as they lose a little speed, and the hits take their toll. Without the strong running foundation, their passing game looks weaker than it was thought to be.

IMHO Wilson has not proved that he can carry the team on his arm absent Lynch, I honestly think that he can but he hasn't proved it yet. (This very well may be because he hasn't been given the chance.) He is definitely above the Dalton line, but how far above it is he?

I would happily pay him 5 year 20 million right now, and if I was the Seahawks, that is what I would offer. I think he is worth more than this. Wilson thinks he is worth more than this. But before I pay him more than Aaron Rodgers, he needs to show me that he can generate a passing attack that will outlive his legs. Otherwise, I would give him a heavily incentive based contract more akin to Kaepernick's deal than Newton's new deal, although that would be insulting to Wilson as he is much better than that.

-bsd

* The Dalton Line is an idea introduced by Chris Wesseling with Andy Dalton being the metric for measuring QBs in the league. If your QB is better than Dalton, they he is "The Guy" and you should stick with him. Worse than Dalton, you should be looking for a replacement.

**For reference, my top tiers of QBs look something like this (and yes, you get points for longevity). 1 - Aaron Rodgers 2 - Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers 3 - Peyton Manning, Russell Wilson, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Tony Romo.

 

[Anthony!]

Hmm really is it amazing that in the 7 of the 9 losses were our defense gave up 24 or more points we had leads going in late into the 4th qtr only to have the defense give it up. FYI you statement of "Again our defense holds our opponent to within .3 points per game of the worst team in the NFL. " is ridiculous for one it is an avg, we do not hold every team to that and again top 10 scoring offense. That was a ridiculous statement. Add to that we have been a top 10 scoring offense for the last 3 years. And again I bring back this stats which clearly shows that if we had an Offense with a passing game that was avg in efficiency we would loose 5-6 more games a year, despite our great defense which benefits form our offense as well, to the tune of 6 less minutes on the field compared to 2011

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

The team is built and runs the way PC wants it he has said on numerous occasion he wants a lead and to let the defense win it. When it works that's great when it does not more often than not Wilson gets us the win. What that means is the play calling on offense changes. They are already a risk averse offense, with lead they are even worse, when behind late hey let the reigns loose. So sorry you really have not shown or proven anything other than just how important Wilson is tour team, to be able to do what he does, with the lack of weapons, and n a system not designed for it and yet he does.

Of course it's an average - I never presented it to be anything other than an average, hence "points per game". if you take overall points and divide ("per") by number of games, you get an average. Points per game IS AN AVERAGE.

"Top 10 scoring offense" is a nice spin - problem is far closer to average (by 2.5 points) than first (by 5.6 points). Just say we're 10th, which in a league of 32 is pretty close to average.

If you want stats, then please look at the stats of the NFC Championship game, first half. Explain to me how digging that large a hole helped us win the game, and explain how our super-efficient offense kept the ball from Green Bay. Because what I saw is that if Green Bay had been able to convert their opportunities they would have stomped us. Our defense kept us in the game which allowed the miraculous comeback to happen.

Also please provide an explanation for how our passing game in the first half of the Super Bowl was consistent with the idea of establishing and maintaining a lead. Because what I saw was a QB who made rather poor choices, never utilized his tight ends, missed open receivers, and looked generally hesitant out there. Once again our defense kept us in the game and allowed a comeback that eventually failed, which is the way when you depend on comebacks to win games (which you shouldn't have to do with the #1 defense if your offense was worth a damn).

There is a very frustrating pattern of Wilson starting slow and digging a hole for us. Is it too much to want to see that addressed before signing the man to huge deal?

That's all great but again what you have not shown or proved is, is it truly Wilson or is it the game plan, play calling, or other players. Point in case last SB He did not even try a pass till half way through the 2nd qtr. The question was how much of that was play call, play design and how much was Wilson and how much was no one open. My issue is not what you are saying but the reality that we do not have enough info to see were, what or who is the problem. To just say its Wilson is very short sighted.

 

[Anthony!]

You know what I am finally convinces let Wilson go any QB we get could do what he has done. I mean we have all the evidence, we know exactly what PC asked him to do, we know exactly what he sees on every play, we know exactly what the play is, we know everything, to include how any QB cold have taken us to 3 straight playoffs, 2 straight SBs and win one. Any QB could do that with out Defense and run game, and great WR and oline any QB could do it.

It's all or nothing with you isn't it? It isn't Wilson vs Any QB off the street. It is Wilson vs other QBs in the top 2-3 tiers. Obviously, he is worth significantly more than Henne, Fitzpatrick, or Manuel, but is his value closer to Rodgers or Roethlisberger ?

Wilson is currently an undisputed top 15 QB who is comfortably above the Dalton Line.* There is little doubt that he will remain above the Dalton Line for the foreseeable future. The question is, where does he belong within the top 2-3 tiers of QBs once he has another couple of seasons on his legs. To me, he is the smartest, safest, and best of the running quarterbacks in the NFL ever. However, like running backs, running quarterbacks generally have a steep dropoff as they lose a little speed, and the hits take their toll. Without the strong running foundation, their passing game looks weaker than it was thought to be.

IMHO Wilson has not proved that he can carry the team on his arm absent Lynch, I honestly think that he can but he hasn't proved it yet. (This very well may be because he hasn't been given the chance.) He is definitely above the Dalton line, but how far above it is he?

I would happily pay him 5 year 20 million right now, and if I was the Seahawks, that is what I would offer. I think he is worth more than this. Wilson thinks he is worth more than this. But before I pay him more than Aaron Rodgers, he needs to show me that he can generate a passing attack that will outlive his legs. Otherwise, I would give him a heavily incentive based contract more akin to Kaepernick's deal than Newton's new deal, although that would be insulting to Wilson as he is much better than that.

-bsd

* The Dalton Line is an idea introduced by Chris Wesseling with Andy Dalton being the metric for measuring QBs in the league. If your QB is better than Dalton, they he is "The Guy" and you should stick with him. Worse than Dalton, you should be looking for a replacement.

**For reference, my top tiers of QBs look something like this (and yes, you get points for longevity). 1 - Aaron Rodgers 2 - Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers 3 - Peyton Manning, Russell Wilson, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Tony Romo.

I agree with your top tier

 

[KiwiHawk]

That's all great but again what you have not shown or proved is, is it truly Wilson or is it the game plan, play calling, or other players. Point in case last SB He did not even try a pass till half way through the 2nd qtr. The question was how much of that was play call, play design and how much was Wilson and how much was no one open. My issue is not what you are saying but the reality that we do not have enough info to see were, what or who is the problem. To just say its Wilson is very short sighted.

So you feel quite attributing 5-6 wins per year directly to Wilson vs ANY OTHER QB WE COULD TRADE FOR, and it's inarguable STATS and FACT, yet when he has two lousy performance that *continue a trend* of slow starts, you suddenly reach for excuses. It's the game plan. It's the other players. How short-sighted I must be to single out one guy when it's a team game...

Bunch of BS.