RichNhansom
Active member
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,256
- Reaction score
- 5
Tical21":21ebxl3u said:I might be wrong here, but I don't really see us being able to get Jimmy Graham involved in the traditional way. That just isn't our game. Russell doesn't exactly excel in throwing those seam routes that are making Graham famous. Those are read and dissect plays, and we don't do those well. I think when Russell scrambles is when he is going to look for Graham the most. He can throw it up to him and wait for him to get open and stuff like that. I'm actually afraid that Russell looks for him a bit too much and hangs him out to dry.RichNhansom":21ebxl3u said:JimmyG":21ebxl3u said:During Favre's two-year stint with the Vikings, their defense ranked:RichNhansom":21ebxl3u said:Trical there are other examples of stacked teams that didn't win super bowls. The Vikings at one point had the best defense, O-line and AP and Brett Favre couldn't get it done. The Jets took Sanchez to the AFCCG two years in a row..
- 10th in points per game in 2009 (19.5/g)
- 18th in points per game in 2010 (21.9/g)
How is that "the best", let alone comparable to a historically-great Seattle defense?
Also, doesn't the fact that a garbage quarterback like Mark ****ing Sanchez was able to take a team to the championship game demonstrate how far a good supporting cast can carry a quarterback? (Just to be clear, Wilson is miles ahead of Sanchez... but when I read stuff like 'we wouldn't have made it the Super Bowl without Wilson" [when he had a 13.6 QBR and a 44.3 rating in the NFCCG] I can't help but think people are romanticizing a little bit.)
Saying we couldn't have made it to the super bowl is a valid comment. If they were saying we couldn't have won it without him then I agree but Wilson was vital in multiple of our wins and I cannot think of a single game he single handedly cost us. Even that NFCC Game against GB where his stats were bad it was him taking over that game even after an atrocious start, to win that game. Many QB's would not have been able to perform with our system, receivers, O-line and in this division as well as Wilson did.
As for the Vikings maybe I am remembering their run defense. Farve had Harvin in addition to AP didn't he?
A good receiving corp can make a bad QB look average (Ponder) and a good QB look great just like a bad set can make a great QB look average and an average QB look poor. I honestly think that is what we are seeing with Wilson and now with Jimmy I think we will see a significant improvement.
One of our problems on the O-line is having to protect to long as well as protect a moving subject. This has been a complaint of mine since Wilson got here but I have seen us try and move more to the 3 step drop and get the ball out quicker. Sometimes poorly but it appears the effort is there. This is important because you really have to consider what it takes for that type of passing game to be successful. It requires timing and consistency, something other than Baldwin our entire receiving corp lacks and without the benefit of a dominant #1 receiver or TE defenses were taking away our only consistent threat in Bladwin. Plus we were moving using him as a #1 when he clearly is not.
Jimmy can play TE or receiver and will demand either double coverage or opponents best corners. Even if we are not getting him the ball he should be making it easier for Baldwin and hopefully we can use Baldwin in the slot instead of outside.
I have my concerns as well and I do worry that Jimmy either won't work in our system or that we focus to heavily on him but comparing our receiving corp with him vs last year with no threat of any kind, it feels safe to believe he will improve our passing game. The bonus is that defenses will still have to account for Lynch and Wilson's mobility and improvisation. They can try and play single high safety but it will likely be at their own peril.