SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Meh, there are still people on THIS BOARD who still refuse to give Russ any credit. It's all because of the running game and D, the only reason he has had success. :roll:
Has one person ever said this on this board? 1? Don't worry, I'll wait.SoulfishHawk":1he1t647 said:Meh, there are still people on THIS BOARD who still refuse to give Russ any credit. It's all because of the running game and D, the only reason he has had success. :roll:
Tical21":3k8soz8p said:Has one person ever said this on this board? 1? Don't worry, I'll wait.SoulfishHawk":3k8soz8p said:Meh, there are still people on THIS BOARD who still refuse to give Russ any credit. It's all because of the running game and D, the only reason he has had success. :roll:
Popeyejones":2hk6hc5q said:^^^ Fair.
Not trying to drag you back in AT ALL, but I do think one of the things that happens in all of this that those who take the not-enough-credit side are making a "SKILLS/ABILITY" argument, and those who take the too-much-credit side are making a "USAGE" argument.
Those can and cannot be incompatible depending on the situation, but when talking credit, a skills argument vs. a usage argument ends up being comparing apples to oranges (the conversation never really goes anywhere, because 90% of the time people are just talking past each other to begin with).
By way of example, you and I can disagree about Wilson's ABILITY (e.g. for whatever reason you think he's a top 3 QB and for whatever reasons I think he's a top 10 QB) and disagree about how much credit he deserves on those grounds, but also possible is that we AGREE about ability (both top 3 or top 10), but disagree about how much credit he deserves based on how much we value usage, or how we choose to interpret his usage.
Ability and usage REALLY aren't the same thing, and for my money, I honestly can't think of another QB in the 30 years I've been watching football who has a bigger mismatch between his ability and his usage.
Ramfan128":2nzjiawx said:Popeyejones":2nzjiawx said:^^^ Fair.
Not trying to drag you back in AT ALL, but I do think one of the things that happens in all of this that those who take the not-enough-credit side are making a "SKILLS/ABILITY" argument, and those who take the too-much-credit side are making a "USAGE" argument.
Those can and cannot be incompatible depending on the situation, but when talking credit, a skills argument vs. a usage argument ends up being comparing apples to oranges (the conversation never really goes anywhere, because 90% of the time people are just talking past each other to begin with).
By way of example, you and I can disagree about Wilson's ABILITY (e.g. for whatever reason you think he's a top 3 QB and for whatever reasons I think he's a top 10 QB) and disagree about how much credit he deserves on those grounds, but also possible is that we AGREE about ability (both top 3 or top 10), but disagree about how much credit he deserves based on how much we value usage, or how we choose to interpret his usage.
Ability and usage REALLY aren't the same thing, and for my money, I honestly can't think of another QB in the 30 years I've been watching football who has a bigger mismatch between his ability and his usage.
Even though we're on a Seahawks board, I'll share this take with you that irks me about the perception of Russell Wilson.
After his first three years, despite having gone to two Super Bowls and won one, I felt he was just around a top 12-15 QB. I felt then, and still feel now, that a number of QBs could have won a Super Bowl for Seattle that year. Seahawk fans disagreed with that - fine. That became irrelevant the following year when Wilson broke out, and even though he had a down year the year after that, has had another two great seasons to firmly place himself in the 7 or so QBs in the NFL.
So now let's talk about Jared Goff - I believe he's around the same category Wilson was after his first three years - top 12 and approaching top 10. I was consistent with my view on Wilson and my view on Goff - even though he played really well in the NFCCG, I believe the Rams were so talented that a number of QBs could have led us to the Super Bowl this year. Again, consistent.
The irony is - most Seahawks fans don't see Goff on the same level as Wilson was, which makes no sense to me. Obviously different offenses, and I attribute that to why Goff has put up slightly better passing numbers in year 2 and 3 than Wilson did - but there are a lot of similarities, and I've always felt that Wilson having an all time great defense was underrated.
Hell, if I was a true homer, there are numbers that put Goff on Wilson's level RIGHT NOW - but I'm a big believer in supporting cast making a QB look good, so I don't actually believe he's there yet.
My friend, we are only arguing about the same thing over and over again because you keep accusing people of the same baseless claims, over and over again. So now you're going to bow out and stop making these claims!? Thank goodness!SoulfishHawk":fdnaadr4 said:Some credit, sure. Clearly the "any" part was an exaggeration. And come on, the running game and defense has been brought up for years when it comes to Russ, especially with the media types. It makes zero sense. He's not THE reason they went to back to back Super Bowls, but he is as much a part of it as the D and Running game was. They don't make either Super Bowl w/out him. Just like they don't make it w/out the Defense and Lynch.
But, the credit he deserves, nope. Most actually seem to get it. But there has always been a select few who seem to fight big time when it comes to giving the guy credit. Big deal, it's a message board. We all have our opinions. I'll fight for him, a few others can fight against. It is what it is.
I'm tired of arguing about the same thing over and over again, so I'll bow out of this. :irishdrinkers:
No. I've been asking you directly for weeks and have gotten zero in the form of answers. What have I ever said that would be considered "bagging" on Russ? Ever?SoulfishHawk":1j0vyz2c said:Fair enough, you think I'm crazy, I think you're crazy. Cool. It's a fricken message board. You've been bagging on Russ for a very long time. MY opinion, don't like it, don't give a rip.
Meh, doesn't matter. This thread is about Kyler Murray.
Go Hawks
Until tomorrow when I stumble into another random thread and see you accuse me again of something you know full well I never did. Gets old man.SoulfishHawk":2m3a8743 said:No thx, not even worth the effort. You see if your way, I'll see it mine.
It's not important. I'm done talking about this subject with you.
Tical21":2976u2m3 said:As per my recollection, anything I have ever said remotely negative about Russ would fall into these 3 areas:
1. he isn't great at reading defenses, especially zone. This is 100% fact. I doubt you could find a single proponent of film review that wouldn't wholeheartedly agree. Never once said he isn't a productive player. Never once.
Tical21":2976u2m3 said:2. A 35 million dollar contract is a tremendous blow to the future of the team.
Tical21":2976u2m3 said:3. He, moreso than any other "great" quarterback, needs a great running game. Also, a 100% fact.
Ramfan128":nmb6w1se said:Even though we're on a Seahawks board, I'll share this take with you that irks me about the perception of Russell Wilson.
After his first three years, despite having gone to two Super Bowls and won one, I felt he was just around a top 12-15 QB. I felt then, and still feel now, that a number of QBs could have won a Super Bowl for Seattle that year. Seahawk fans disagreed with that - fine. That became irrelevant the following year when Wilson broke out, and even though he had a down year the year after that, has had another two great seasons to firmly place himself in the 7 or so QBs in the NFL.
So now let's talk about Jared Goff - I believe he's around the same category Wilson was after his first three years - top 12 and approaching top 10. I was consistent with my view on Wilson and my view on Goff - even though he played really well in the NFCCG, I believe the Rams were so talented that a number of QBs could have led us to the Super Bowl this year. Again, consistent.
The irony is - most Seahawks fans don't see Goff on the same level as Wilson was, which makes no sense to me. Obviously different offenses, and I attribute that to why Goff has put up slightly better passing numbers in year 2 and 3 than Wilson did - but there are a lot of similarities, and I've always felt that Wilson having an all time great defense was underrated.
Hell, if I was a true homer, there are numbers that put Goff on Wilson's level RIGHT NOW - but I'm a big believer in supporting cast making a QB look good, so I don't actually believe he's there yet.