RW after week 1 last season

[Cartire]

There's no stat that captures the "it" dudes like Ray Lewis, Wilson, Brady, Eli, Montana, etc had. None.

...except for all of them have the stats to back it up...

 

[pehawk]

There's no stat that captures the "it" dudes like Ray Lewis, Wilson, Brady, Eli, Montana, etc had. None.

...except for all of them have the stats to back it up...

Hmm. Rings not be too important then to let a few of them slip, then.

 

[Throwdown]

Russell Wilson is the son of Zeus.

 

[grizbob]

Russell Wilson is the son of Zeus.

B S he IS Zeus

 

[Cartire]

There's no stat that captures the "it" dudes like Ray Lewis, Wilson, Brady, Eli, Montana, etc had. None.

...except for all of them have the stats to back it up...

Hmm. Rings not be too important then to let a few of them slip, then.

Like who?

Eli is just crappy enough, where if he didnt win 2 rings, he would never have never be considered as someone who has the IT factor.

Plenty of guys have only 1 ring, and there stats were poor enough that they never had the IT factor. Trent Dilfer ring a bell.

But win enough rings, and you all of a sudden have it.

So you either have the stats to back up the IT factor, (Dan Marino anyone), or you have multiple rings. This is the defining IT factor. No one else has IT.

 

[AF_Hawk]

Well, I disagree. I can't expand too much, but, people that rely too much on concrete stats, spirals, arm-strength, measurables are USUALLY right. But, when they're wrong, they're REALLY wrong.

There's no stat that captures the "it" dudes like Ray Lewis, Wilson, Brady, Eli, Montana, etc had. None.

I'm with pe. What kind of stats could people pull for someone like Brady? He was pretty average going into the league.

 

[Cartire]

Well, I disagree. I can't expand too much, but, people that rely too much on concrete stats, spirals, arm-strength, measurables are USUALLY right. But, when they're wrong, they're REALLY wrong.

There's no stat that captures the "it" dudes like Ray Lewis, Wilson, Brady, Eli, Montana, etc had. None.

I'm with pe. What kind of stats could people pull for someone like Brady? He was pretty average going into the league.

Of course he was. And not a single person said he had the IT factor when he came into the league. He was a 6th round talent as a career backup. All off a sudden he's amazing, and now its because he has the IT factor. Do you see what im saying here. This is the whole point.

No one has IT until they are proven. And the Stats are what prove it. Lots of people will make claims before someone is proven that they have IT (Jamarcus Russel), but as soon as they fail, they no longer have IT.

Does Brandon Weeden have the IT factor? No. But let him win 2 superbowls, and I guarantee every single person will say he has IT.

Stats or Rings. The only quantifier for IT. A great buzz word.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

There were ALOT of people questioning Wilson for the first 8 games. And, IMO, it weeded out the stat geeks, from those who truly understood the game.

Anyone who knows the game could, just tell, Wilson had that Eli, Montana, Brady, 2012 Flacco, whatever you want to call it intangible. Because it was an abstract, the stat geeks couldn't quantify it, so reverted to all they know how to do, let the stats dictate their opinion.

It was obvious to quite a few that Eli would most likely end up with just as many, or even more, rings than his brother. That made zero sense to people without just a "tao" understanding of the game. Same with Wilson.

I mean this with no offense, but if you we're unable to see the forest past the trees with Wilson, you showed all of us, you're kind of a hack.

That's a smug, self-serving take on the situation. Way to pat yourself on the back and put down those who had a different take on the QB situation at the time. For one thing, stats had nothing to do with it. Neither QB had put up any stats to go by. What the concern in the minds of those who wanted to start Flynn was had to do with Wilson being a rookie with a rookie learning curve that would cost the Seahawks games in a season where people felt we could contend for the title. Flynn didn't have a lot of starts, but he was ready to start. Given the choice of a veteran who's ready to start and a rookie who had half the snaps a QB usually gets in the preseason, it was totally logical to think the team will struggle and lose more games starting the rook.

And it was true. We did. Just look at how lousy AZ was last year and we lost that game. Then look at how good SF was that year and how we blew them out later in the season once Wilson had caught on.

It was never about Wilson not having the talent. It was about winning NOW. That was made perfectly plain to those who backed Wilson from the get go by those backing Flynn. To overlook that point now and pat yourself on the back for "understanding the game" is smug, self-serving and disingenuous.

 

[pehawk]

Maaahhh, Salish, did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry, snookums, hugs!

Actually, its the opposite of self-serving. I'm an ex-junkie idiot and I could see, without a doubt, Wilson was going to just be a winner. It wasn't something I could back with stats, or measurables, it was just a sense. And, ALOT of others got that same feeling...stating it from preseason on.

So, it cant be that me, a HS drop-out, junkie is smarter than anyone. It must be sometimes people are too focused on measurables. Their focus is so laser-pointed, they cant see anything else. The same way I'd be susceptible to focusing too much on an intangible and be wrong because of that (Tui, Leif, Henne are personal examples).

I may come off like a confident douche, but its really the opposite.

And, Cartire, you made my point by pointing out how crappy Eli can look. He'll always be crappy, but he'll always be in the mix too. That was fairly evident, more evident actually, seeing him at Ole Miss. The opposite of his brother, who needed Tee Martin to get his title for him.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

It wasn't the stats that mislead people. It was how many of us interpreted them. People looked at the poor numbers from a small sample size, extrapolated that across the entire season, and said, "Oh sweet mother of God, we might want to pull Wilson if we want to make the playoffs" or something bolder to that effect with much more profanity. It's the same fear motivating people to pull their stock in a recession. In the end, the numbers said he wasn't playing well, and he certainly wasn't, but the eyes said he was growing increasingly steadfast in his ability to play the game, and he certainly was. If you're throwing statistical analysis under the bus because it was misused/overused by your fellow fans, that's pretty fallacious.

 

[volsunghawk]

It was never about Wilson not having the talent. It was about winning NOW. That was made perfectly plain to those who backed Wilson from the get go by those backing Flynn. To overlook that point now and pat yourself on the back for "understanding the game" is smug, self-serving and disingenuous.

I can't speak for everyone who was backing Wilson from the start, but for me, I agree that it's about winning NOW.

But I was (and still am) of the belief that the only way for a QB to reach his potential is by playing. Really, really playing. Not sitting and holding a clipboard, not watching someone else, but by actually being out in it.

Add that to the belief I had (and still have) that Wilson's talent FAR outshines anything Flynn can deliver, and that's why I argued so vociferously for Wilson and against Flynn. To start Flynn, in my view, was to do nothing more than agree that we're all fine with 7-9 to 9-7 seasons and that average is just fine and dandy by us. In my view, Flynn was and will ever be nothing more than a stopgap, a journeyman type of QB. He's not the guy who can take a team, put it on his back, and lead them to a crucial victory. I believe Wilson IS that type of QB, and so in the interests of winning NOW, it made absolutely no sense to me to start Flynn. All it would be doing was setting us back a year or more while we twiddled our thumbs with a journeyman QB when we had a potential superstar just sitting his ass on the pine. We'd have been wasting time and watching our defensive stars and our top-flight RB getting a year older while we settled for mediocrity instead of taking a chance and swinging for the fences with Wilson's massive potential.

 

[AF_Hawk]

Well, I disagree. I can't expand too much, but, people that rely too much on concrete stats, spirals, arm-strength, measurables are USUALLY right. But, when they're wrong, they're REALLY wrong.

There's no stat that captures the "it" dudes like Ray Lewis, Wilson, Brady, Eli, Montana, etc had. None.

I'm with pe. What kind of stats could people pull for someone like Brady? He was pretty average going into the league.

Of course he was. And not a single person said he had the IT factor when he came into the league. He was a 6th round talent as a career backup. All off a sudden he's amazing, and now its because he has the IT factor. Do you see what im saying here. This is the whole point.

No one has IT until they are proven. And the Stats are what prove it. Lots of people will make claims before someone is proven that they have IT (Jamarcus Russel), but as soon as they fail, they no longer have IT.

Does Brandon Weeden have the IT factor? No. But let him win 2 superbowls, and I guarantee every single person will say he has IT.

Stats or Rings. The only quantifier for IT. A great buzz word.

I don't completely agree. Having IT to me is being capable of overcoming obstacles at the most crucial time. A lot of people that are considered to have IT previously have been blessed with enormous talent surrounding them. Eli and Brady have never really been surrounded by high talent IMO. This doesn't mean they always win obviously. But more often than not they beat the odds.

There are only a few people in the league who have IT IMO, and Eli and Brady are the only ones who come to mind right now.

 

[Cartire]

I don't completely agree. Having IT to me is being capable of overcoming obstacles at the most crucial time. A lot of people that are considered to have IT previously have been blessed with enormous talent surrounding them. Eli and Brady have never really been surrounded by high talent IMO. This doesn't mean they always win obviously. But more often than not they beat the odds.

There are only a few people in the league who have IT IMO, and Eli and Brady are the only ones who come to mind right now.

I swear you guys keep agreeing with me and just dont realize it.

Eli has 2 superbowls
Brady has 3.

Of course you say they have 'IT'. They Proved it.

I will say it again, if Eli didnt get those 2 rings, you wouldnt include him in the IT list you just posted.

 

[pehawk]

But HE DOES HAVE TWO RINGS, BECAUSE OF HIS IT FACTOR. That's the point. And, alot of people knew he would be an ugly QB who won, because, wait for it, he has more it than ebay.

Now, Wilson has the most "it" I've ever seen in my 35 years following the game. I could be wrong on it, way wrong, but I doubt it. It's too obvious. I just cant comprehend anyone NOT seeing that.

 

[AF_Hawk]

I don't completely agree. Having IT to me is being capable of overcoming obstacles at the most crucial time. A lot of people that are considered to have IT previously have been blessed with enormous talent surrounding them. Eli and Brady have never really been surrounded by high talent IMO. This doesn't mean they always win obviously. But more often than not they beat the odds.

There are only a few people in the league who have IT IMO, and Eli and Brady are the only ones who come to mind right now.

I swear you guys keep agreeing with me and just dont realize it.

Eli has 2 superbowls
Brady has 3.

Of course you say they have 'IT'. They Proved it.

I will say it again, if Eli didnt get those 2 rings, you wouldnt include him in the IT list you just posted.

I just don't agree that stats and rings prove you have IT.

Edit. Obviously having IT is subjective, lol.

 

[RichNhansom]

I don't really get the premise of this thread. If you look at Flynn's resume, BCS title in his only year starting, GB records, come from behind win against Detroit in a playoff environment and would have been against the Pats if the defense would have done anything, nearly doubling Brady's production in that game with wind, rain and snow that kept Brady's numbers very pedestrian and then cap it off by actually watching his play. How he goes through his progressions, reads defenses, utilizes the whole field, makes line calls on and on you could easily make the argument that Flynn has that IT factor.

I remember jewhawk posting a link the the Detroit game as evidence of Flynns poor play and the overwhelming response was WOW, that link completely accomplished the opposite of his goal.

We don't know how it would have worked out had they started Flynn so these debates are pretty pointless but those trying to make the argument for or against the IT factor while simultaneously trying to say Flynn hasn't shown anything are really reaching.

We will see soon enough if Flynn is a capable starter. I don't expect him to carry Oakland to any promise land as I wouldn't expect Brady, Eli or even Peyton to be able to carry that team in the current condition it is in but I think we will be able to formulate a much better opinion of whether Flynn can be starter quality or is really just a back up.

I am betting he looks pretty good all things considered in Oakland.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

I don't completely agree. Having IT to me is being capable of overcoming obstacles at the most crucial time. A lot of people that are considered to have IT previously have been blessed with enormous talent surrounding them. Eli and Brady have never really been surrounded by high talent IMO. This doesn't mean they always win obviously. But more often than not they beat the odds.

There are only a few people in the league who have IT IMO, and Eli and Brady are the only ones who come to mind right now.

I swear you guys keep agreeing with me and just dont realize it.

Eli has 2 superbowls
Brady has 3.

Of course you say they have 'IT'. They Proved it.

I will say it again, if Eli didnt get those 2 rings, you wouldnt include him in the IT list you just posted.

Yeah but PE's point is that some of us, many of us, saw and believed that RW had IT even when he didn't have the stats to back it up yet.

Of course hindsight tells us whether a player was good enough to succeed or not. Sometimes you can see it as it's happening. That's not hindsight.

 

[SeaTown81]

Let me put it this way, if we had started Flynn, he could've done well but we wouldn't see the magic that was in Wilson. I really liked what I saw from Wilson in that game. He led a great 4th quarter drive that didn't end so well.

Flynn is not a good QB. People will get a chance to see that this year.

Just wait. The people who overly hitched their wagon to Flynn last offseason have already started the "Too bad Flynn is playing for Oakland. He has no chance to succeed. Poor guy," talk. It's funny how that works. Most of them were also the same people who thought trading him was a gigantic mistake. Guess it's hard to back down when you jump the gun so bad.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Let me put it this way, if we had started Flynn, he could've done well but we wouldn't see the magic that was in Wilson. I really liked what I saw from Wilson in that game. He led a great 4th quarter drive that didn't end so well.

Flynn is not a good QB. People will get a chance to see that this year.

Just wait. The people who overly hitched their wagon to Flynn last offseason have already started the "Too bad Flynn is playing for Oakland. He has no chance to succeed. Poor guy," talk. It's funny how that works. Most of them were also the same people who thought trading him was a gigantic mistake. Guess it's hard to back down when you jump the gun so bad.

To be fair.. Flynn is playing FOR OAKLAND.

Name 2 players on their offense not named Darren McFadden. Without cheating.

The guy had much more talent in Seattle and Green Bay obviously. So yeah I think it's a little unfair to expect great things out of him as a Raider next year. I still think Matt Flynn can be a good QB in this league, but it's pretty apparent Russell Wilson is one of those "once every decade" type QB's... whereas Flynn is a "once every 1-2 years in Round 3" type guy.

 

[Throwdown]

Jacoby Ford, Denarius Moore...