bigtrain21
New member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,685
- Reaction score
- 0
TJH":s942doz7 said:
Are we allowed to disagree with you?
Russ vs Luck
- Thread starter SeaHawk80
- Start date
Are we allowed to disagree with you?
brimsalabim
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 4,509
- Reaction score
- 3
You posted it and its on the forum so it must be allowed. I'm questioning your judgement however.TJH":7k9qo7n6 said:
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
Of course not, hence why I disagree with yourTJH":3uhqieab said:
view. I never said you're definitively wrong.
Hawkpower
Well-known member
TJH":1y8qf3vc said:
No, we are saying let it play out.
Time will tell whether criticism is valid, or if the variables at play thus far have altered his play.
MontanaHawk05
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 17,960
- Reaction score
- 498
One thing most of us have been just dancing around, is how much time Wilson is really getting. It needs to be game-charted. If it's really .67 seconds over and over again like most "it's O-line's fault" proponents are saying, then, well, it's the O-line's fault. However, if Wilson is getting time to go through progressions, then it's on him and the receivers. And it doesn't need to be that much time. Four seconds is usually the point at which the QB's mental clock should be going off.
MontanaHawk05
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 17,960
- Reaction score
- 498
Prime example: in the 1st quarter vs Carolina, there's a passing play of the variety that can fool an unwary onlooker into seeing bad O-line play where it doesn't exist. Wilson's under center, drops back, and gets a magnificent pocket which he sits in for three seconds without finding anyone, goes through maybe two reads, then takes off. A lot of people, zeroing in on Wilson and not at the linemen, will assume he must have been pressured.
Thing is, he wasn't. Carolina rushes only four and none of them are closer than two yards of Wilson when he takes off. The O-line has their assignments thoroughly stonewalled. Most elite QB's on this play will stand there in the pocket for at least one more second, probably two or three, without getting molested at all and then throw a 20-yard strike to someone. But Wilson doesn't do that; he starts moving. It looks like he might be trying to round the pocket and pick up yardage, but changes his mind when he takes an angle that actually gives the DE a better shot at him around Max Unger (another reminder that Wilson's movement within the pocket can make the O-line look worse because they don't know what angle to block). Point is, Wilson's scrambling takes him closer to the pass rush than he ever was before he moved.
It needs to be remembered that despite a year of experience, Wilson is still a jittery pocket QB - in a good way, a happy-feet-then-boom-TD Drew Brees kinda way. He doesn't like to stand still - he knows he can pick up yardage with his feet and won't hesitate to go for it. He is not like Tom Brady, standing tall in the pocket for six seconds so that his O-linemen always know where he is. Guy likes to trot around. But I suspect a lot of folks are simply equating Wilson moving with bad line play and thus over-inflating the problem.
And it doesn't help that Tim Ryan and FOX conspire to completely misinterpret the play. On this particular incompletion, he refers to Wilson as "running for his life" even though he immediately says afterwards that Wilson had no open receivers for three seconds. That kind of commentary muddies the cause. Which is it, Tim? Is it O-line play or WR play? Saying the phrase "running for his life" is bound to make people think O-line. He also fails to acknowledge that Wilson had nobody in his face UNTIL he started running. To make it worse, that incompletion is later included in a mini-montage labeled "under pressure" showing a bunch of plays featuring Wilson getting rushed, and they splice the play in a way that shows only Wilson nearly running into the DE because of his own decision to run and deletes the part where he wasn't hurried at all until he ran. It's poor commentary that misleads a lot of people.
And that play has ripple effects. On the next play, Carolina blitzes six, Wilson barely gets his throw away and everyone is again probably thinking "terrible O-line". The fairer judgment: it's 3rd and 10 because of the previous play, and Seattle is forced into an easily guessable pass that any O-line would find it tough to defend against six rushers. The pocket collapses because McQuistan AND LYNCH get beaten (we all know about The Suck of McQ, but is anyone examining the RB protections? Probably not. The Beast is not a perfect pass blocker). Wilson releases a quick throw to an oblivious Tate before the rush even gets there, which really makes the whole O-line argument moot. But for two plays, all that people are seeing and hearing from the broadcast is bad O-line, and once that impression underway, most folks will see only what they expect to see - more of the same.
Thing is, he wasn't. Carolina rushes only four and none of them are closer than two yards of Wilson when he takes off. The O-line has their assignments thoroughly stonewalled. Most elite QB's on this play will stand there in the pocket for at least one more second, probably two or three, without getting molested at all and then throw a 20-yard strike to someone. But Wilson doesn't do that; he starts moving. It looks like he might be trying to round the pocket and pick up yardage, but changes his mind when he takes an angle that actually gives the DE a better shot at him around Max Unger (another reminder that Wilson's movement within the pocket can make the O-line look worse because they don't know what angle to block). Point is, Wilson's scrambling takes him closer to the pass rush than he ever was before he moved.
It needs to be remembered that despite a year of experience, Wilson is still a jittery pocket QB - in a good way, a happy-feet-then-boom-TD Drew Brees kinda way. He doesn't like to stand still - he knows he can pick up yardage with his feet and won't hesitate to go for it. He is not like Tom Brady, standing tall in the pocket for six seconds so that his O-linemen always know where he is. Guy likes to trot around. But I suspect a lot of folks are simply equating Wilson moving with bad line play and thus over-inflating the problem.
And it doesn't help that Tim Ryan and FOX conspire to completely misinterpret the play. On this particular incompletion, he refers to Wilson as "running for his life" even though he immediately says afterwards that Wilson had no open receivers for three seconds. That kind of commentary muddies the cause. Which is it, Tim? Is it O-line play or WR play? Saying the phrase "running for his life" is bound to make people think O-line. He also fails to acknowledge that Wilson had nobody in his face UNTIL he started running. To make it worse, that incompletion is later included in a mini-montage labeled "under pressure" showing a bunch of plays featuring Wilson getting rushed, and they splice the play in a way that shows only Wilson nearly running into the DE because of his own decision to run and deletes the part where he wasn't hurried at all until he ran. It's poor commentary that misleads a lot of people.
And that play has ripple effects. On the next play, Carolina blitzes six, Wilson barely gets his throw away and everyone is again probably thinking "terrible O-line". The fairer judgment: it's 3rd and 10 because of the previous play, and Seattle is forced into an easily guessable pass that any O-line would find it tough to defend against six rushers. The pocket collapses because McQuistan AND LYNCH get beaten (we all know about The Suck of McQ, but is anyone examining the RB protections? Probably not. The Beast is not a perfect pass blocker). Wilson releases a quick throw to an oblivious Tate before the rush even gets there, which really makes the whole O-line argument moot. But for two plays, all that people are seeing and hearing from the broadcast is bad O-line, and once that impression underway, most folks will see only what they expect to see - more of the same.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
This photo gives me wood.
Ad Hawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,218
- Reaction score
- 441
MontanaHawk05":231su01l said:
I understand the point of your post, but this still made me LOL.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
Ugh. Early this week, I saw a list of the 32 offensive line rankings in the NFL through week four. Someone had charted how long each line lasted before the pocket started to collapse on all passing downs for each team. The Broncos were #1 and the Seahawks were near the bottom. For the life of me, I can't find that link again. Anybody else see it? If so, could you link it? All the person that put it together did was look at that on passing downs. Not whether the pass was caught, or even whether the ball was thrown; just how long the pocket lasted before collapse started. It was a surprisingly insightful list, and it's bugging the hell out of me that I can't find it. I wish I would have bookmarked it, because frankly, I can't think of a better way to chart overall pass protection quality.
Montana brings up a valid point that Wilson makes our pass pro look worse than it really is with all his scrambling around and the like, but we're also seeing a lot of passing downs where someone just gets to Wilson nearly instantly, and that is flat-out bad.
Montana brings up a valid point that Wilson makes our pass pro look worse than it really is with all his scrambling around and the like, but we're also seeing a lot of passing downs where someone just gets to Wilson nearly instantly, and that is flat-out bad.
formido
New member
The criticism of Wilson is misplaced and ungrateful. Standards have suddenly jumped a lot higher than reasonable.
Seattle's passing DVOA is ranked #5. It's rush DVOA is #11. Think about the implications of that.
Marshawn averaged 5.0 YPC last year. This year he's averaged 3.9 YPC. How come there aren't people dissecting whether some of Marshawn's trouble might be because he's too short or not strong enough or hesitating in the backfield too long or some other irrelevant issue? Everyone understands that Marshawn is still performing at an elite level, but we've faced tough defenses on the road, our blocking has variously sucked or been non-existent due to injuries, and/or play-calling and scheme has dropped off.
If we can make allowances for Marshawn's vastly reduced efficiency this year due to factors out of his control, perhaps we could see our way clear to do the same for Wilson. If you've watched the games, it's hard to understand how one could think any but perhaps 1 or 2 QBs in the entire NFL could do better with how quickly the pocket breaks down. Wilson holding onto the ball for too long is not the major issue here. If he held on to the ball less, it would mean throw aways and INTs. Wilson has played a major role in willing us to victory in every game, along with Lynch, the defense, and Baldwin.
Let's look at that Carolina game again. There was zero run game. Wilson passed for 300 yards with no INTs and a passer rating of 115. He even got a 70 on ESPN's QBR. Last year that would have been higher, but they don't include clutch rating in it anymore. That was against a top 10 DVOA defense on the road. And we're nitpicking it? When did we get so lucky?
Wilson had to hold onto the ball a lot against Carolina to have such an efficient game. He had to scramble a lot. So what? There's no style points in football. How long does he have to do this before we recognize that he's not just lucking out? He's much quicker than defensive lineman. He's going to be able to dodge them most of the time. Sometimes there will be a bad play, just as sometimes there's bad plays for every player, every team, every scheme. But the actual statistical production demonstrates that more often than other QBs, he makes good plays.
We're a team that's supposed to prioritize a run blocking line and run blocking above pass blocking. We recruit players we know are better run blockers than pass blockers. That's supposed to be our bread and butter. So take a look at the disparity in our pass and run DVOA again. Despite the schedule, injuries, and blocking quality this year, Wilson is doing a better job than Seattle's run game.
Seattle's passing DVOA is ranked #5. It's rush DVOA is #11. Think about the implications of that.
Marshawn averaged 5.0 YPC last year. This year he's averaged 3.9 YPC. How come there aren't people dissecting whether some of Marshawn's trouble might be because he's too short or not strong enough or hesitating in the backfield too long or some other irrelevant issue? Everyone understands that Marshawn is still performing at an elite level, but we've faced tough defenses on the road, our blocking has variously sucked or been non-existent due to injuries, and/or play-calling and scheme has dropped off.
If we can make allowances for Marshawn's vastly reduced efficiency this year due to factors out of his control, perhaps we could see our way clear to do the same for Wilson. If you've watched the games, it's hard to understand how one could think any but perhaps 1 or 2 QBs in the entire NFL could do better with how quickly the pocket breaks down. Wilson holding onto the ball for too long is not the major issue here. If he held on to the ball less, it would mean throw aways and INTs. Wilson has played a major role in willing us to victory in every game, along with Lynch, the defense, and Baldwin.
Let's look at that Carolina game again. There was zero run game. Wilson passed for 300 yards with no INTs and a passer rating of 115. He even got a 70 on ESPN's QBR. Last year that would have been higher, but they don't include clutch rating in it anymore. That was against a top 10 DVOA defense on the road. And we're nitpicking it? When did we get so lucky?
Wilson had to hold onto the ball a lot against Carolina to have such an efficient game. He had to scramble a lot. So what? There's no style points in football. How long does he have to do this before we recognize that he's not just lucking out? He's much quicker than defensive lineman. He's going to be able to dodge them most of the time. Sometimes there will be a bad play, just as sometimes there's bad plays for every player, every team, every scheme. But the actual statistical production demonstrates that more often than other QBs, he makes good plays.
We're a team that's supposed to prioritize a run blocking line and run blocking above pass blocking. We recruit players we know are better run blockers than pass blockers. That's supposed to be our bread and butter. So take a look at the disparity in our pass and run DVOA again. Despite the schedule, injuries, and blocking quality this year, Wilson is doing a better job than Seattle's run game.
