scutterhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2010
- Messages
- 9,826
- Reaction score
- 1,797
Let Jaws and the rest, roll with the stats, me?, I'll take the wins that RW stacks up.
kearly":li4hwvvn said:I am kinda okay with Wilson at #9. He was 8th in passer rating last year in an offense that is kinda designed to boost QB efficiency stats. I would rank him a few spots higher on account of the NFC West, his playoff performances, and his 31st ranked protection last year. There are a lot of probable future HoF QBs playing right now and Wilson is younger than all but one of them, so I can understand putting Wilson 9th.
I think Nick Foles is probably the NFL's most under-rated player. 15th on this list after posting the 4th highest rating in league history during his first full season. I know that his interception numbers are unsustainable, but give him 10 picks instead of 2 and he still has elite numbers. But more than that, I've been sold watching him play. He is not the same guy he was at Arizona. The current version of Nick Foles reminds me a lot of Brett Favre. Does just enough with his feet and arm to consistently be a pain in the ass. And he's dangerous in the red zone... one of the better "thread the needle" QBs in the league.
scutterhawk":2n3ehzd7 said:Let Jaws and the rest, roll with the stats, me?, I'll take the wins that RW stacks up.
lukerguy":3dmevj99 said:Interesting. Why even argue about it? We spend so much time discussing this, but the only ranking that matters is our TEAM ranking. We are #1, and that's undisputed.
It seems like every 5th thread is arguing over Wilson's rank among other quarterbacks.
Anthony!":2cxva7ek said:Actually that is in correct he is not in a offense that boosts efficiency, he is in an offense that requires efficiency. For example
If you through 25 times a game and you start 1-10 you have to go 15-15 on the next 15 to get to 64%.
If you through 35 times a game and you start 1-10 you can go 22-25 and get to 64+% so you have more margin for error.
So again less throws means less margin for error. That is not good for efficiency.
You could say through out all the other QBs they are in offenses that throw a lot so they will get a lot of yards, really.
kearly":2hfj4ti7 said:Anthony!":2hfj4ti7 said:Actually that is in correct he is not in a offense that boosts efficiency, he is in an offense that requires efficiency. For example
If you through 25 times a game and you start 1-10 you have to go 15-15 on the next 15 to get to 64%.
If you through 35 times a game and you start 1-10 you can go 22-25 and get to 64+% so you have more margin for error.
So again less throws means less margin for error. That is not good for efficiency.
You could say through out all the other QBs they are in offenses that throw a lot so they will get a lot of yards, really.
I wasn't basing my argument on throwing volume.
My point was more along the lines that opposing defenses are putting 8 in the box to stop Lynch, while Wilson is throwing most of his passes on play-action when the defense is thinking "run." Seattle led the NFL last season in play-action throw percentage, by a decently large margin, too.
We know this impacts a QBs efficiency. Look at Andrew Luck at Stanford vs. Indy. At Stanford he was in almost the same kind of system Russ is now, and he put up monster passer ratings. At Indy, where he must force more throws and generally faces a defense that is keying on Indy throwing the ball, his efficiency numbers have dropped dramatically.
Alex Smith pre and post Harbaugh is a great example of this as well.
You could also look at Wilson's numbers at NC State (underwhelming throw first team) vs. Wisconsin (overwhelming run first team). Wilson's numbers exploded when he went to Wisconsin because the Badgers the run set up the pass instead of vice-versa.
I don't think this makes Wilson any less awesome as a QB, but if we are grading these QBs fairly who all play in different situations we should take these kind of things into account. Of course, having Luck higher than Wilson is a stretch, but I do think if Luck was our QB his numbers would be pretty close to Wilson's. That said, I agree that Luck is over-rated because of who he is, not because of what he's done.
Anthony!":1c8unzqu said:Ahh but opposing defenses are not pulling 8 in the box all the time, and in fact given we have been a run, run pass for most of our fist half's the defense knows exactly what we are doing to include when we pass.
Anthony!":1c8unzqu said:If we are grading these QBs fairly we must also take into account that most play in pass happy offenses, most play in the AFC were it is much easier, all have much better pass blocking o-lines, and most have better WRs, you see all that must go into the equation as well, and given that they more than out weight the perceived 8 man in the box stuff.
lukerguy":2rchf0yj said:I get that, but it's been discussed at nauseum.
kearly":3sszptds said:Anthony!":3sszptds said:Actually that is in correct he is not in a offense that boosts efficiency, he is in an offense that requires efficiency. For example
If you through 25 times a game and you start 1-10 you have to go 15-15 on the next 15 to get to 64%.
If you through 35 times a game and you start 1-10 you can go 22-25 and get to 64+% so you have more margin for error.
So again less throws means less margin for error. That is not good for efficiency.
You could say through out all the other QBs they are in offenses that throw a lot so they will get a lot of yards, really.
I wasn't basing my argument on throwing volume.
My point was more along the lines that opposing defenses are putting 8 in the box to stop Lynch, while Wilson is throwing most of his passes on play-action when the defense is thinking "run." Seattle led the NFL last season in play-action throw percentage, by a decently large margin, too.
We know this impacts a QBs efficiency. Look at Andrew Luck at Stanford vs. Indy. At Stanford he was in almost the same kind of system Russ is now, and he put up monster passer ratings. At Indy, where he must force more throws and generally faces a defense that is keying on Indy throwing the ball, his efficiency numbers have dropped dramatically.
Alex Smith pre and post Harbaugh is a great example of this as well.
You could also look at Wilson's numbers at NC State (underwhelming throw first team) vs. Wisconsin (overwhelming run first team). Wilson's numbers exploded when he went to Wisconsin because the Badgers were a team that ran the ball to set up the pass instead of vice-versa. Whichever you are feared and do less of, that is where you probably have the best efficiency. Just look at how efficient Detroit and Denver's RBs were last season with teams keying on Manning and Stafford, or Foles and Smith with defenses keying on McCoy and Charles. The smarter teams know how to take advantage how a defense game plans them, and Seattle is one such team.
I don't think this makes Wilson any less awesome as a QB, but if we are grading these QBs fairly who all play in different situations we should take these kind of things into account. Of course, having Luck higher than Wilson is a stretch, but I do think if Luck was our QB his numbers would be pretty close to Wilson's. That said, I agree that Luck is over-rated because of who he is, not because of what he's done.
kearly":ly9w9oxi said:Anthony!":ly9w9oxi said:Ahh but opposing defenses are not pulling 8 in the box all the time, and in fact given we have been a run, run pass for most of our fist half's the defense knows exactly what we are doing to include when we pass.
Teams stack the box against our O. If you haven't noticed this I don't know what to tell you.
Anthony!":ly9w9oxi said:If we are grading these QBs fairly we must also take into account that most play in pass happy offenses, most play in the AFC were it is much easier, all have much better pass blocking o-lines, and most have better WRs, you see all that must go into the equation as well, and given that they more than out weight the perceived 8 man in the box stuff.
I agree and actually mentioned a few of those things already. But you probably didn't notice because you are in argumentative mode.
Anthony!":2jtrbxc6 said:so when we are in obvious passing downs they are still stacking the box?
WilsonMVP":17gf01za said:Not to rain on your parade but Wilson had a 191.8 QB rating his last year in college. Luck had 169.7 which was a tad lower than the year before. They were both in very similar offenses except for that was Wilsons first year in that offense and school.
kearly":3tu0mzuj said:Anthony!":3tu0mzuj said:so when we are in obvious passing downs they are still stacking the box?
Oh boy. Anyone else want to explain it to this guy?
Anyway... let's change gears here. Where would you rank Wilson? I'd probably put him 5th or 6th. What is the floor for what you think is a fair ranking for Wilson? I'd say 9th and I only say that because there are so many amazing QBs right now.
That's my feeling too. Certainly I'd put him above #8 ranked Matt Ryan as I mentioned above and I'd put him above Phillip Rivers who was 7th I believe. He's smarter with the football, no matter the situation, than both of those guys.kearly":3gpb50yk said:...........Where would you rank Wilson? I'd probably put him 5th or 6th.......