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

[Anthony!]

For the record, when talking about those 7 games, the only one where I think you can point directly at the defense and say, "You failed at your job" was the Lions game in 2012.

There's shared blame in all of those other games.

So the Atlanta playoff game the defense did fine?

It amazes me how there is always blame to share when the defense is questioned but not when the offense is, unless of course it is Lynch.

I would like you and WilsonMVP to note that I said there is shared blame in all of those other games, and I absolutely believe that the offense deserves plenty of blame for that Atlanta game.

You don't go into the half with zero points if your offense has been performing admirably. You just don't.

Now I'm going to say this next part in small words so it can be understood by all.

If I say that blame is shared, that means I think that you can't point at one unit and say they were the cause of a loss. So that means that if I say blame is shared, I am not only blaming Wilson. I know that might be hard for you to accept.

Dude it is easy to understand but what you do not understand is that while you may see it that way there is a prevail group that does not,

 

[PackerNation]

Can I also ask where this linking of Dilfer and Wilson is coming from

There is exactly no link between Dilfer and Wilson. That was the point being made. Unless you want to get as vanilla as both won a SB and both play QB.

 

[Anthony!]

For the record, when talking about those 7 games, the only one where I think you can point directly at the defense and say, "You failed at your job" was the Lions game in 2012.

There's shared blame in all of those other games.

lol..so letting Atlanta get into FG position in a few seconds is Wilsons fault

Let me point out this in the Atlanta game as well

M Lynch.... 16 rushes for 46yards
Wilson..... 7 carries for 60 yards

Lynch also fumbled the ball on our 2nd pos

Our running game was crap that day outside of Wilson. Right before halftime we had 1 yard to go on 3rd and 4th and couldnt run it for the conversion and turned it over on downs at the ATL 11.


How about the games we won where the D crapped the bed..like in Chicago and Denver this year. Wilson had to save the day in OT both games because the D couldnt stop very late last minute LONG drives.

Heck even against the Packers they couldnt even stop them from getting a FG with 1 min left and we had to go to OT where..you guessed it..Wilson saved the day again and won the game. I know Wilson played pretty bad for most of the game and the D held and was pretty good..BUT..how many times does this D just let the other team march right down at the end of games and late in the 4th quarter

Yeah, you probably shouldn't bring up that Green Bay game.

And the D held Denver to 3 points through 3 quarters. Then the offense gave up a safety. Then Wilson threw a pick giving the Broncos the ball in the red zone. And yet you're going to point fingers at the D for allowing Peyton Manning to look like Peyton Manning for a minute and a half?

Of course not the defense never gets the blame only Wilson.

 

[Anthony!]

So the Atlanta playoff game the defense did fine?

It amazes me how there is always blame to share when the defense is questioned but not when the offense is, unless of course it is Lynch.

I would like you and WilsonMVP to note that I said there is shared blame in all of those other games, and I absolutely believe that the offense deserves plenty of blame for that Atlanta game.

You don't go into the half with zero points if your offense has been performing admirably. You just don't.

Now I'm going to say this next part in small words so it can be understood by all.

If I say that blame is shared, that means I think that you can't point at one unit and say they were the cause of a loss. So that means that if I say blame is shared, I am not only blaming Wilson. I know that might be hard for you to accept.

These words appear to be the same size as the other words.

Just saying.

Fixed. :mrgreen:

LOL

 

[volsunghawk]

For the record, when talking about those 7 games, the only one where I think you can point directly at the defense and say, "You failed at your job" was the Lions game in 2012.

There's shared blame in all of those other games.

So the Atlanta playoff game the defense did fine?

It amazes me how there is always blame to share when the defense is questioned but not when the offense is, unless of course it is Lynch.

I would like you and WilsonMVP to note that I said there is shared blame in all of those other games, and I absolutely believe that the offense deserves plenty of blame for that Atlanta game.

You don't go into the half with zero points if your offense has been performing admirably. You just don't.

Now I'm going to say this next part in small words so it can be understood by all.

If I say that blame is shared, that means I think that you can't point at one unit and say they were the cause of a loss. So that means that if I say blame is shared, I am not only blaming Wilson. I know that might be hard for you to accept.

Dude it is easy to understand but what you do not understand is that while you may see it that way there is a prevail group that does not,

No. No there is not. You are tilting at windmills.

On this site, most people are very, very fond of Russell Wilson and the job he has done as the Seahawks QB. Most people on this site point to him as the best QB in our team's history. However, most of those people are willing to admit that there have been some offensive struggles at times, and it's fair to discuss all parts of our offense from players to coaches when attempting to diagnose those struggles. Also, it's fair to discuss whether Wilson is worth elite franchise QB money. Many people here think he absolutely is. Most, I would say, think that QB contracts are a horrible burden on a team's salary cap, but still want to keep Wilson around on a shiny new contract anyway. Only a small handful have made the suggestion that we should let Wilson walk. And yet you blow that small handful up into a "prevailing group."

Stop it.

 

[Anthony!]

To volsunghawk and a few others I want to apologize, I became very jaded and cynical about posters due to the way a few treated me, and to their in your face way of saying things and constant finger pointing. I believe I may have taken some of that out on you guys with the wording of my posts. So I apologize and will try to keep in mind I ma not speaking to those few.

 

[Tical21]

Don't feed the troll already. It's been tried.

"A wise man told me don't argue with fools. People from a distance can't tell who is who."

 

[WilsonMVP]

In regards to Wilson I know he is the best QB that Seahawks have ever had and having another QB coming in here and going to 2 superbowls, winning one and being just a few seconds away in Atlanta from going to 3/3 NFC championship games seems to be impossible IMO.

I disagree with any notion that Luck would have this team with 3 championships right now or even 2 and the absolute best he would be able to accomplish is what Wilson has done allready.

To not pay Wilson $20M or more would be a grave mistake.

Look at what Cam is going to get paid. Look what Ryan T just got paid. The going rate for a average or better QB is going to be 20M or more now.

Even if we were somehow able to get an average QB we would still be paying them 15M or so I would imagine so the savings from going to Wilson to this other QB would only be 10M or so at most per year if that. Unless of course we drafted another QB but that would be a terrible decision IMO

I know hes not a perfect QB and hes not in that ELITE QB category yet until after this year IMO, BUT he is a very dangerous playmaking QB, not just some ordinary game manager. What other QB is better than half the starting RBs in the league. He almost had 900 yards rushing yards and had around 4300 total yards.

 

[Uncle Si]

Can I also ask where this linking of Dilfer and Wilson is coming from

There is exactly no link between Dilfer and Wilson. That was the point being made. Unless you want to get as vanilla as both won a SB and both play QB.

The link was literally (not figuratively) the number of times each touches the ball as the QB and its importance. I made the point that all QBs handle the ball on every offensive snap, so using that as a reference to base their importance to the offense does not reflect their contributions, good or bad, to a team's success.

Wilson is better than Dilfer, was the outcome of said exercise, but not because each takes equal numbers of snaps in a game.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Can I also ask where this linking of Dilfer and Wilson is coming from

There is exactly no link between Dilfer and Wilson. That was the point being made. Unless you want to get as vanilla as both won a SB and both play QB.

I didnt mean on here exactly...I just saw Dilfer being mentioned and have seen Dilfers name in Wilson threads all over the internet. They both had ELITE D but the 2 are very different. You will see his name brought up alot in any Wilson vs Luck thread.

 

[PackerNation]

Can I also ask where this linking of Dilfer and Wilson is coming from

There is exactly no link between Dilfer and Wilson. That was the point being made. Unless you want to get as vanilla as both won a SB and both play QB.

I didnt mean on here exactly...I just saw Dilfer being mentioned and have seen Dilfers name in Wilson threads all over the internet. They both had ELITE D but the 2 are very different. You will see his name brought up alot in any Wilson vs Luck thread.

Yes, very different. Agreed and an excellent point.

And whoever is trying to compare them knows jack squat about either player and is trying to make an ill fated comparison based on the sole fact that each team was predicated on a superior defense.

As Uncle Si correctly points out, Wilson is superior to Dilfer.

I am a little surprised people compare Wilson to Luck. They are very different as well.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Can I also ask where this linking of Dilfer and Wilson is coming from

There is exactly no link between Dilfer and Wilson. That was the point being made. Unless you want to get as vanilla as both won a SB and both play QB.

I didnt mean on here exactly...I just saw Dilfer being mentioned and have seen Dilfers name in Wilson threads all over the internet. They both had ELITE D but the 2 are very different. You will see his name brought up alot in any Wilson vs Luck thread.

Yes, very different. Agreed and an excellent point.

And whoever is trying to compare them knows jack squat about either player and is trying to make an ill fated comparison based on the sole fact that each team was predicated on a superior defense.

As Uncle Si correctly points out, Wilson is superior to Dilfer.

I am a little surprised people compare Wilson to Luck. They are very different as well.

Did you did visit NFL forums their rookie or 2nd years...Luck vs Wilson threads all over the place.

 

[PackerNation]

Did you did visit NFL forums their rookie or 2nd years...Luck vs Wilson threads all over the place.

Some. I usually ignored them as a topic that really didn't need discussion and very much "homer" discussions. More based on tearing down the other player instead of any actual facts.

I noticed a lot of RG3 vs. Luck by the talking heads with Luck getting pretty much disrespected. Now, they are eating their words. Luck will go to the H.O.F, RG3 will be a footnote.

As far as Wilson and Luck go, I look at it, simplistically, like this:

If I am Seattle, I want Wilson as my starting QB over Luck. Wilson has legs and can extend plays better and throws very well on the run. Which Seattle needs given the central weakness in Seattle is the OL.

If I am Indy, I want Luck. He is a better pocket passer and if you give him a decent line and time, he will kill you.

If I am starting a team from scratch and could get either player, I would go with Luck.

Both are elite and both are playing exactly where they should be playing.

 

[LymonHawk]

To volsunghawk and a few others I want to apologize, I became very jaded and cynical about posters due to the way a few treated me, and to their in your face way of saying things and constant finger pointing. I believe I may have taken some of that out on you guys with the wording of my posts. So I apologize and will try to keep in mind I ma not speaking to those few.

OK, I'll accept your apology. :thirishdrinkers:

 

[WilsonMVP]

Did you did visit NFL forums their rookie or 2nd years...Luck vs Wilson threads all over the place.

Some. I usually ignored them as a topic that really didn't need discussion and very much "homer" discussions. More based on tearing down the other player instead of any actual facts.

I noticed a lot of RG3 vs. Luck by the talking heads with Luck getting pretty much disrespected. Now, they are eating their words. Luck will go to the H.O.F, RG3 will be a footnote.

As far as Wilson and Luck go, I look at it, simplistically, like this:

If I am Seattle, I want Wilson as my starting QB over Luck. Wilson has legs and can extend plays better and throws very well on the run. Which Seattle needs given the central weakness in Seattle is the OL.

If I am Indy, I want Luck. He is a better pocket passer and if you give him a decent line and time, he will kill you.

If I am starting a team from scratch and could get either player, I would go with Luck.

Both are elite and both are playing exactly where they should be playing.

To be fair RG3 was actually playing pretty dang well his rookie year until he got hurt...He hasnt been the same since

He had 3200 yards, 65% completion 20TD and 5INT with a 102.4 rating
What did Luck have....

4374 yards, 54% completion, 23TD and 18INT with a 76 rating. He had 234 more throws than RG3

Luck was vastly overrated his first 2 years. Everyone loved to get on him because of yardage but yardage isnt that hard when you are one of the top guys in the league in attempts every year. RG3 and Wilson were both better than Luck in their rookie years IMO