Wilson's First 3 Years Are Arguably the Best in NFL History

[hawknation2015]

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources.

So where did I say I would let Wilson walk after one year? I was saying it would be a huge mistake to let Wilson walk at all.

That's not what I said either. I said why would we let Wilson leave (i.e. "walk for $26 million") after this year, when we could exercise the franchise tag. I doubt there is a team willing to pay Wilson $26 million per year AND willing give us two First Round draft picks as compensation.

 

[Anthony!]

I would risk playing out this year without an extension in place and then franchise him for two years before offering over $25 million per year, much less $50 million per year -- 227% of the current highest yearly salary. That would absolutely cripple the team and lead to a forced exodus of our future HoF defenders. Anything above $25 million per year would make it extremely difficult to maintain a championship-caliber defense.

Well, as said, I'm not paying the guy $50 million because I don't have to. I'm just saying that Wilson is probably a 4 win player, and it requires a LOT of value to go from 8 wins to 12 wins, sustainably, without a franchise QB.

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources. At $30 million, it's still a mistake. At $40 million, it's more ambivalent. At $50 million, it's totally ambivalent. That's how I look at it.

I admit, it's fuzzy math. But you put Aaron Rodgers on the Jaguars, and they probably go from 2 wins to 10+ wins overnight. You almost can't overstate the value of an elite QB for elevating a team.

And as said, it's not like Russell is really costing us his full contract, he's costing us whatever we'd be paying his replacement over those years. And odds are, if Seattle was still winning more than they were losing, that his replacement would get a pretty penny as well.

Why would we let him leave after this year? He's either signing a long-term deal with us or we would exercise the franchise tag option to keep him on the team . . . and then we would franchise him again in 2017 if we still somehow could not reach an agreement. At that point, he's 29 years old and his market value has been set. In his words, he would ideally like to play his whole career with one franchise.

NO you either sign him this year or he holds out till you take the tag off the table and then he leaves. He will not come to camp unless that tag is off the table, it would be stupid

 

[hawknation2015]

I would risk playing out this year without an extension in place and then franchise him for two years before offering over $25 million per year, much less $50 million per year -- 227% of the current highest yearly salary. That would absolutely cripple the team and lead to a forced exodus of our future HoF defenders. Anything above $25 million per year would make it extremely difficult to maintain a championship-caliber defense.

Well, as said, I'm not paying the guy $50 million because I don't have to. I'm just saying that Wilson is probably a 4 win player, and it requires a LOT of value to go from 8 wins to 12 wins, sustainably, without a franchise QB.

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources. At $30 million, it's still a mistake. At $40 million, it's more ambivalent. At $50 million, it's totally ambivalent. That's how I look at it.

I admit, it's fuzzy math. But you put Aaron Rodgers on the Jaguars, and they probably go from 2 wins to 10+ wins overnight. You almost can't overstate the value of an elite QB for elevating a team.

And as said, it's not like Russell is really costing us his full contract, he's costing us whatever we'd be paying his replacement over those years. And odds are, if Seattle was still winning more than they were losing, that his replacement would get a pretty penny as well.

Why would we let him leave after this year? He's either signing a long-term deal with us or we would exercise the franchise tag option to keep him on the team . . . and then we would franchise him again in 2017 if we still somehow could not reach an agreement. At that point, he's 29 years old and his market value has been set. In his words, he would ideally like to play his whole career with one franchise.

NO you either sign him this year or he holds out till you take the tag off the table and then he leaves. He will not come to camp unless that tag is off the table, it would be stupid

It would be stupid to take the franchise tag option off the table. That is our ace in the hole in the event that we can't come to terms with Russell's agent before next year. I find the idea that Russell would miss a practice or a game to be patently ridiculous. This isn't a Carson Palmer situation where Russell isn't winning, hates playing here, and has already made enough money to live the rest of his life in luxury.

 

[hawknation2015]

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources.

So where did I say I would let Wilson walk after one year? I was clearly saying it would be a huge mistake to let Wilson walk for $26 million.

For the record, I meant to say "the next year", instead of next year. Hope that helps.

Alright, thanks for the explanation and sorry for the confusion. I thought maybe you were forgetting about the exclusive/ non-exclusive franchise tag option that would be viable until at least 2017. With those options in place, there is no way Russell walks for $26 million . . . next year or the year after. By 2018, $26 million per year would probably be the going rate for a Top 5 QB, so I don't think we would have a problem signing on the dotted line at that point.

 

[Anthony!]

Well, as said, I'm not paying the guy $50 million because I don't have to. I'm just saying that Wilson is probably a 4 win player, and it requires a LOT of value to go from 8 wins to 12 wins, sustainably, without a franchise QB.

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources. At $30 million, it's still a mistake. At $40 million, it's more ambivalent. At $50 million, it's totally ambivalent. That's how I look at it.

I admit, it's fuzzy math. But you put Aaron Rodgers on the Jaguars, and they probably go from 2 wins to 10+ wins overnight. You almost can't overstate the value of an elite QB for elevating a team.

And as said, it's not like Russell is really costing us his full contract, he's costing us whatever we'd be paying his replacement over those years. And odds are, if Seattle was still winning more than they were losing, that his replacement would get a pretty penny as well.

Why would we let him leave after this year? He's either signing a long-term deal with us or we would exercise the franchise tag option to keep him on the team . . . and then we would franchise him again in 2017 if we still somehow could not reach an agreement. At that point, he's 29 years old and his market value has been set. In his words, he would ideally like to play his whole career with one franchise.

NO you either sign him this year or he holds out till you take the tag off the table and then he leaves. He will not come to camp unless that tag is off the table, it would be stupid

It would be stupid to take the franchise tag option off the table. That is our ace in the hole in the event that we can't come to terms with Russell's agent before next year. I find the idea that Russell would miss a practice or a game to be patently ridiculous. This isn't a Carson Palmer situation where Russell isn't winning, hates playing here, and has already made enough money to live the rest of his life in luxury.

Dude that is the only card Wilson will have, Not that it will matter I am very sure something will get done. But you need to understand the only card Wilson has is holding out, so they take the tag off the table.

 

[Tical21]

I would risk playing out this year without an extension in place and then franchise him for two years before offering over $25 million per year, much less $50 million per year -- 227% of the current highest yearly salary. That would absolutely cripple the team and lead to a forced exodus of our future HoF defenders. Anything above $25 million per year would make it extremely difficult to maintain a championship-caliber defense.

Well, as said, I'm not paying the guy $50 million because I don't have to. I'm just saying that Wilson is probably a 4 win player, and it requires a LOT of value to go from 8 wins to 12 wins, sustainably, without a franchise QB.

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources. At $30 million, it's still a mistake. At $40 million, it's more ambivalent. At $50 million, it's totally ambivalent. That's how I look at it.

I admit, it's fuzzy math. But you put Aaron Rodgers on the Jaguars, and they probably go from 2 wins to 10+ wins overnight. You almost can't overstate the value of an elite QB for elevating a team.

And as said, it's not like Russell is really costing us his full contract, he's costing us whatever we'd be paying his replacement over those years. And odds are, if Seattle was still winning more than they were losing, that his replacement would get a pretty penny as well.

Why would we let him leave after this year? He's either signing a long-term deal with us or we would exercise the franchise tag option to keep him on the team . . . and then we would franchise him again in 2017 if we still somehow could not reach an agreement. At that point, he's 29 years old and his market value has been set. In his words, he would ideally like to play his whole career with one franchise.

NO you either sign him this year or he holds out till you take the tag off the table and then he leaves. He will not come to camp unless that tag is off the table, it would be stupid

I'm thinking that man juice going down your throat is getting you a little drunk. He's going to sit out a year and not make 20+ million? He's going to act differently than every player who has ever received the franchise tag? He'll do what everybody else does. He'll whine and cry and threaten to hold out until the day before he loses his first check, then he'll be at practice leading the team like he always does because that is the only way he can get paid more the next year. Stick to charting plays junior.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Can someone please give Anthony! his winter nuts back, or at least post a funny squirrel .gif? Because one way or another this thread has officially jumped the shark.

 

[Jay-Dog]

 

[Ramfan128]

"
Rodgers
Brees
Brady
Manning
Roethilsberger
Luck
Rivers
Ryan
Romo"


You would take Rivers, Ben, Matt Ryan and todays Drew Brees over either Russel Wilson or even Cam Newton, Matt Stafford? Sure...

The issue with your analogy at the end is that any fan of any team would be questioning why you throw the ball from one yard out IF it gets intercepted. Doesn't matter the QB. Wilson doesnt win you a Superbowl, just gets you within 1 yard of winning?

Carry on though. +1 for some trolling.

What I did is not trolling.

And I said for one full season - not from now going forward. The discussion as I understand it was if Russell Wilson is elite right now - those are the guys I, and probably 90% of non Seahawk fans, would take over Wilson for one season - obviously for the future, Wilson is in the top 5 because of his age and relative success.

And I disagree, teams throw from the 1 yard line, especially on 2nd down. All things are the same, but Rodgers/Manning/Luck are the QB, the world would be saying that they blew this superbowl.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the play call and how things turned out - but the world's reaction let you know what Wilson is - if he was "elite", it would be "Wilson blew the superbowl". Instead the reaction was, "why was the superbowl in his hands??"

 

[Uncle Si]

You can disagree all you want. I disagree the other way. The only player who may be held accountable for that play call more than others is Luck, simply because he didnt have a run game.

It was the play call that leaves people mystified, and it wouldn't take much to confirm that by reading through the post-Super Bowl threads on here. Lots of teams throw from the one yard line. The Seahawks do and have been successful. I won't bore you with the ongoing debate about the whole situation, because you know... you have the world's reaction pretty well summed up.

the trolling is your "assumption" of "the world's reaction".. its both hyperbolic and naive, but also a shot at Seahawks fans.

No QB gets hammered for that throw. Not one. The difference would have been that if t was Rodgers, Brady, Manning there would have been questions as to why it was THAT play and not something else. In the Seahawks case, with Lynch, it was why not Lynch? Why not a read option or roll out? Why not a lofted ball to Chris Matthews.

You didn't do much homework to come to your conclusion on the "world's reaction" to the play. Either you're trolling or just far too assumptive.

 

[JimmyG]

well for one we are not a 9-10 win team with Tjack

I would agree that 10 wins feels like a high end estimate, especially with some of the issues on the team that Wilson covers up.

Agreed add in with basically the same team and a much easier schedule he only got us to 7-9 and while you could argue the defense is better, the schedule is also much tougher.

Actually, no, Tavaris Jackson did not lead us to 7-9. Tavaris Jackson was 7-7 as a starter. Charlie Whitehurst started the other two games when Jackson was hurt and went 0-2 (although in fairness, Jackson did enter one of the game that Whitehurst started and ended up with the majority of the pass attempts; still, the team was down 10-3 when he took over, and it was 3-17 by his second possession). Jackson was .500 that year, so really I'd set the baseline at him for 8 wins.

Then, add in the fact that our defense went from "really good/borderline elite" in 2011 to "the best in the game three years running", including tangible impact additions like Bobby Wagner [2012] and Cliff Avril/Michael Bennett [2013]. We were historically great in 2013, one of the most renowned defenses in NFL history. Also, the 2011 49ers were the best non-Seahawks team of 2011-2014 in the West, and our NFC West counterparts won 23 games in both 2011 and 2012.

2011: Jackson [7-7], Whitehurst [0-2]; defense 7th in points per game [19.7], 9th in DVOA
2012: Wilson [11-5]; defense 1st in points per game [15.3], 7th in DVOA
2013: Wilson [13-3]; defense 1st in points per game [14.4], 1st in DVOA (by a landslide)
2014: Wilson [12-4]; defense 1st in points per game [15.9], 1st in DVOA

Is it really a stretch to think that our defense improved by 1-2 wins? (i.e. 9-10 wins for Jackson) Look at the NFCCG this year. Wilson was absolutely abysmal (48% CMP, 44.3 rating, 13.6 QBR, 4 INT, 25 yards rushing), and yet we still won! Yes, I know he threw the game-winning touchdown pass, but the point is that most teams wouldn't even have a shot at a come back to begin with with a performance like that. The defense is so good that we almost never fall behind huge. I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that Jackson would win 9-10 games a year with the 2012-2014 teams.

Wilson is clearly head and shoulders above Jackson, but I don't think the tangible difference is as big as people make it out to be. For example, we know that some metrics show that Wilson gets more help than anyone. Wilson is also 2-8 when opponents score 24 or more points, which ranks 18th among teams in the NFL. There are times when he wills us to victory (Redskins MNF), but there are also times when he is carried to victory (NFCCG).

 

[Ramfan128]

You can disagree all you want. I disagree the other way. The only player who may be held accountable for that play call more than others is Luck, simply because he didnt have a run game.

It was the play call that leaves people mystified, and it wouldn't take much to confirm that by reading through the post-Super Bowl threads on here. Lots of teams throw from the one yard line. The Seahawks do and have been successful. I won't bore you with the ongoing debate about the whole situation, because you know... you have the world's reaction pretty well summed up.

the trolling is your "assumption" of "the world's reaction".. its both hyperbolic and naive, but also a shot at Seahawks fans.

No QB gets hammered for that throw. Not one. The difference would have been that if t was Rodgers, Brady, Manning there would have been questions as to why it was THAT play and not something else. In the Seahawks case, with Lynch, it was why not Lynch? Why not a read option or roll out? Why not a lofted ball to Chris Matthews.

You didn't do much homework to come to your conclusion on the "world's reaction" to the play. Either you're trolling or just far too assumptive.

So saying that I believe the world would react differently if Manning threw an INT from the 1 yard line is trolling? No way. I am making an assumption, but I believe a correct one.

And it is a relative opinion to the topic as I believe elite QBs would get judged far more harshly than Wilson did for that INT. You can obviously disagree with that sentiment if you want to, but I don't see how you logically could do so. Expectations are higher for elite QBs (although "elite" itself is obviously debatable). If you really don't think Peyton Manning would be torn apart for throwing an INT on the yard line, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. Heck, that the play call got so much attention shows you that Wilson isn't "elite". I have never once heard any other QB that made a bad play to lose a big game get it excused by fans and/or media except for this situation. When Manning threw his INT against the Saints it was an awful decision by him. When Wilson threw that INT it was an awful decision by him.

The difference is, the general public says Manning made an awful decision, while Wilson was dealt a bad hand because of the play call. When Manning threw his INT, some people might say it was a bad play call, but if so, it's still on Manning, because he's elite and runs his offense as elite QBs do.

I'm not saying Wilson is not a good QB - he is. I just don't think he's elite. I think if they give him $20 million per season it will be very bad for the Seahawks long term.


EDIT: I realize that the situations outlined above are different, but in both cases, QBs threw an INT that lose their teams the game. The argument of having Marshawn Lynch does nothing for me here because while he is a great power back, this discussions centers around Wilson. I have no bias here...I'm excited for the season to start and I enjoy this forum. I have an opinion on Wilson so I thought I would give it. While watching the superbowl I had no issue whatsoever with the play call - the issue IMO was with the execution. If the ball had gotten tipped up into the air and then intercepted, I think the argument for the congestion that a slant pattern can cause would hold more water. As it was, the Patriots blitzed and I thought it was a solid play call. Pass never should have been thrown IMO because the defender broke immediately.

 

[JimmyG]

If you really don't think Peyton Manning would be torn apart for throwing an INT on the yard line, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. Heck, that the play call got so much attention shows you that Wilson isn't "elite". I have never once heard any other QB that made a bad play to lose a big game get it excused by fans and/or media except for this situation. When Manning threw his INT against the Saints it was an awful decision by him. When Wilson threw that INT it was an awful decision by him.

Peyton especially. The "choke artist" narrative is attached to Peyton, so I guarantee you we would've heard about it nonstop. Wilson, of course, has the "winner" narrative attached to him, so he wasn't criticized as harshly, as it didn't fit the preconceived notion the media has for him. We have to find someone else to scapegoat.

Anyway, I'm not saying that Wilson does or does not deserve criticism for that throw. I'm just agreeing with you that other quarterbacks would've been treated differently.

 

[Uncle Si]

The trolling, as you are apt to continue skirting, is your assertion the "world" judged Wilson to be dealt a bad hand because of the play call, and that any (not just Manning) "elite" QB would be crucified for the same throw.

This both misses the fact that a. Wilson was criticized for the play call and b. ignores any other peripherals.

I will back off the "trolling." you're not. You are, however, perpetuating the nonsense that is this thread. Your opinion on Wilson is a valid one. I personally don't think any QB is "elite" 3 seasons in, which makes this whole thread a silly exercise in opinion stated as fact backed by misrepresented stats.

We can just disagree on the question marks following the last offensive play of the Super Bowl. Manning wouldve been crucified because of his already earned reputation of blowing in playoff games. My opinion on the last call has nothing to do with Wilson as an elite player. I think he is an elite athlete, with an elite RB behind him. My opinion (and I think most agree) is why the Seahawks ignored their strengths on that one play? It has nothing to do with Wilson's ability as a QB, but more about how his unique strengths were ignored. If Manning ran that play, he'd be targeting a different class of receiver, same with Brady, Rodgers, etc. This cannot be ignored as to me its the crux of the argument. If Manning is leading the Seahawks, you'd still question why he isn't throwing a touch pass to Matthews or just letting Lynch run. This wasn't Manning throwing a game clinching INT from 30 yards out. This was one yard.

You're simplifying things without perspective. You can believe otherwise, but I think that would be disingenuous and only and attempt to further an argument that relies to heavily on baseless and expansive assumption.

 

[Ramfan128]

The trolling, as you are apt to continue skirting, is your assertion the "world" judged Wilson to be dealt a bad hand because of the play call, and that any (not just Manning) "elite" QB would be crucified for the same throw.

This both misses the fact that a. Wilson was criticized for the play call and b. ignores any other peripherals.

I will back off the "trolling." you're not. You are, however, perpetuating the nonsense that is this thread. Your opinion on Wilson is a valid one. I personally don't think any QB is "elite" 3 seasons in, which makes this whole thread a silly exercise in opinion stated as fact backed by misrepresented stats.

We can just disagree on the question marks following the last offensive play of the Super Bowl. Manning wouldve been crucified because of his already earned reputation of blowing in playoff games. My opinion on the last call has nothing to do with Wilson as an elite player. I think he is an elite athlete, with an elite RB behind him. My opinion (and I think most agree) is why the Seahawks ignored their strengths on that one play? It has nothing to do with Wilson's ability as a QB, but more about how his unique strengths were ignored. If Manning ran that play, he'd be targeting a different class of receiver, same with Brady, Rodgers, etc. This cannot be ignored as to me its the crux of the argument. If Manning is leading the Seahawks, you'd still question why he isn't throwing a touch pass to Matthews or just letting Lynch run. This wasn't Manning throwing a game clinching INT from 30 yards out. This was one yard.

You're simplifying things without perspective. You can believe otherwise, but I think that would be disingenuous and only and attempt to further an argument that relies to heavily on baseless and expansive assumption.

I agree with most of what you said. Sounds like we agree for the most part.

I don't think Seattle's WRs are nearly as bad as people think though...Brady and Rodgers specifically are throwing to late round picks and undrafted guys...scheme and QB play make them look good IMO, but on pure talent, I think Kearse could be right there with some of those WRs.

 

[Anthony!]

"
Rodgers
Brees
Brady
Manning
Roethilsberger
Luck
Rivers
Ryan
Romo"


You would take Rivers, Ben, Matt Ryan and todays Drew Brees over either Russel Wilson or even Cam Newton, Matt Stafford? Sure...

The issue with your analogy at the end is that any fan of any team would be questioning why you throw the ball from one yard out IF it gets intercepted. Doesn't matter the QB. Wilson doesnt win you a Superbowl, just gets you within 1 yard of winning?

Carry on though. +1 for some trolling.

What I did is not trolling.

And I said for one full season - not from now going forward. The discussion as I understand it was if Russell Wilson is elite right now - those are the guys I, and probably 90% of non Seahawk fans, would take over Wilson for one season - obviously for the future, Wilson is in the top 5 because of his age and relative success.

And I disagree, teams throw from the 1 yard line, especially on 2nd down. All things are the same, but Rodgers/Manning/Luck are the QB, the world would be saying that they blew this superbowl.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the play call and how things turned out - but the world's reaction let you know what Wilson is - if he was "elite", it would be "Wilson blew the superbowl". Instead the reaction was, "why was the superbowl in his hands??"

Or the world saw the play for what it was a stupid play we you took the most dangerous QB in the NFL and forced him into a timing pattern throwing to a Wr who had 15 targets all year into the meat of the defense. That is why not 3veyoen is calling for Wilson head they realize it was stupid play call, and because it was s timing pattern he had no other options.

 

[Anthony!]

well for one we are not a 9-10 win team with Tjack

I would agree that 10 wins feels like a high end estimate, especially with some of the issues on the team that Wilson covers up.

Agreed add in with basically the same team and a much easier schedule he only got us to 7-9 and while you could argue the defense is better, the schedule is also much tougher.

Actually, no, Tavaris Jackson did not lead us to 7-9. Tavaris Jackson was 7-7 as a starter. Charlie Whitehurst started the other two games when Jackson was hurt and went 0-2 (although in fairness, Jackson did enter one of the game that Whitehurst started and ended up with the majority of the pass attempts; still, the team was down 10-3 when he took over, and it was 3-17 by his second possession). Jackson was .500 that year, so really I'd set the baseline at him for 8 wins.

Then, add in the fact that our defense went from "really good/borderline elite" in 2011 to "the best in the game three years running", including tangible impact additions like Bobby Wagner [2012] and Cliff Avril/Michael Bennett [2013]. We were historically great in 2013, one of the most renowned defenses in NFL history. Also, the 2011 49ers were the best non-Seahawks team of 2011-2014 in the West, and our NFC West counterparts won 23 games in both 2011 and 2012.

2011: Jackson [7-7], Whitehurst [0-2]; defense 7th in points per game [19.7], 9th in DVOA
2012: Wilson [11-5]; defense 1st in points per game [15.3], 7th in DVOA
2013: Wilson [13-3]; defense 1st in points per game [14.4], 1st in DVOA (by a landslide)
2014: Wilson [12-4]; defense 1st in points per game [15.9], 1st in DVOA

Is it really a stretch to think that our defense improved by 1-2 wins? (i.e. 9-10 wins for Jackson) Look at the NFCCG this year. Wilson was absolutely abysmal (48% CMP, 44.3 rating, 13.6 QBR, 4 INT, 25 yards rushing), and yet we still won! Yes, I know he threw the game-winning touchdown pass, but the point is that most teams wouldn't even have a shot at a come back to begin with with a performance like that. The defense is so good that we almost never fall behind huge. I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that Jackson would win 9-10 games a year with the 2012-2014 teams (i.e. Rams got better, Niners got worse).

Wilson is clearly head and shoulders above Jackson, but I don't think the tangible difference is as big as people make it out to be. For example, we know that some metrics show that Wilson gets more help than anyone. Wilson is also 2-8 when opponents score 24 or more points, which ranks 18th among teams in the NFL. There are times when he wills us to victory (Redskins MNF), but there are also times when he is carried to victory (NFCCG).

sorry dude there is a huge tangible difference between them, TJ was in capable of leading us to victory in the 4th qtr or OT Something Wilson has excelled at. HE played a way easier schedule. TJ had barely a 60 Complt%, had a 1-1 td/int ratio, 6.9 YPA, Qb rating of 79. Wilson using his worst numbers 2.6 TD/int ratio, 63% complt%, 7.69 YPA, and qb rating over 95. So huge difference. IN addition that whole Wilson gets more than any one is crap and I Can show many article saying the opposite. posting.php?mode=quote&f=2&p=1619628

as to the whole 24 or more point thing that is great however in how many of them did he leave with the lead and the defense gave it up and he had no chance to get it back. answer is several. the Atl playoff game. Considering we have been a top 10 scoring offense for all 3 years Wilson has been a hawk so scoring is not an issue. The way we play ball is the issue we play to get a lead and turn it over to the defense we throttle back on offense when this happens and sometimes it bites us. FYI Wilson leads the league in 4th qtr/OT game winners since he has been in the league so the 24 thing mean little. And yes like every QB some time he wins it for us sometimes he is a long for the ride. Every QB gets both.

 

[Anthony!]

You can disagree all you want. I disagree the other way. The only player who may be held accountable for that play call more than others is Luck, simply because he didnt have a run game.

It was the play call that leaves people mystified, and it wouldn't take much to confirm that by reading through the post-Super Bowl threads on here. Lots of teams throw from the one yard line. The Seahawks do and have been successful. I won't bore you with the ongoing debate about the whole situation, because you know... you have the world's reaction pretty well summed up.

the trolling is your "assumption" of "the world's reaction".. its both hyperbolic and naive, but also a shot at Seahawks fans.

No QB gets hammered for that throw. Not one. The difference would have been that if t was Rodgers, Brady, Manning there would have been questions as to why it was THAT play and not something else. In the Seahawks case, with Lynch, it was why not Lynch? Why not a read option or roll out? Why not a lofted ball to Chris Matthews.

You didn't do much homework to come to your conclusion on the "world's reaction" to the play. Either you're trolling or just far too assumptive.

So saying that I believe the world would react differently if Manning threw an INT from the 1 yard line is trolling? No way. I am making an assumption, but I believe a correct one.

And it is a relative opinion to the topic as I believe elite QBs would get judged far more harshly than Wilson did for that INT. You can obviously disagree with that sentiment if you want to, but I don't see how you logically could do so. Expectations are higher for elite QBs (although "elite" itself is obviously debatable). If you really don't think Peyton Manning would be torn apart for throwing an INT on the yard line, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. Heck, that the play call got so much attention shows you that Wilson isn't "elite". I have never once heard any other QB that made a bad play to lose a big game get it excused by fans and/or media except for this situation. When Manning threw his INT against the Saints it was an awful decision by him. When Wilson threw that INT it was an awful decision by him.

The difference is, the general public says Manning made an awful decision, while Wilson was dealt a bad hand because of the play call. When Manning threw his INT, some people might say it was a bad play call, but if so, it's still on Manning, because he's elite and runs his offense as elite QBs do.

I'm not saying Wilson is not a good QB - he is. I just don't think he's elite. I think if they give him $20 million per season it will be very bad for the Seahawks long term.


EDIT: I realize that the situations outlined above are different, but in both cases, QBs threw an INT that lose their teams the game. The argument of having Marshawn Lynch does nothing for me here because while he is a great power back, this discussions centers around Wilson. I have no bias here...I'm excited for the season to start and I enjoy this forum. I have an opinion on Wilson so I thought I would give it. While watching the superbowl I had no issue whatsoever with the play call - the issue IMO was with the execution. If the ball had gotten tipped up into the air and then intercepted, I think the argument for the congestion that a slant pattern can cause would hold more water. As it was, the Patriots blitzed and I thought it was a solid play call. Pass never should have been thrown IMO because the defender broke immediately.

dude give it up the world is reacting differently because of the play call and people involved not because of the QB

 

[Anthony!]

The trolling, as you are apt to continue skirting, is your assertion the "world" judged Wilson to be dealt a bad hand because of the play call, and that any (not just Manning) "elite" QB would be crucified for the same throw.

This both misses the fact that a. Wilson was criticized for the play call and b. ignores any other peripherals.

I will back off the "trolling." you're not. You are, however, perpetuating the nonsense that is this thread. Your opinion on Wilson is a valid one. I personally don't think any QB is "elite" 3 seasons in, which makes this whole thread a silly exercise in opinion stated as fact backed by misrepresented stats.

We can just disagree on the question marks following the last offensive play of the Super Bowl. Manning wouldve been crucified because of his already earned reputation of blowing in playoff games. My opinion on the last call has nothing to do with Wilson as an elite player. I think he is an elite athlete, with an elite RB behind him. My opinion (and I think most agree) is why the Seahawks ignored their strengths on that one play? It has nothing to do with Wilson's ability as a QB, but more about how his unique strengths were ignored. If Manning ran that play, he'd be targeting a different class of receiver, same with Brady, Rodgers, etc. This cannot be ignored as to me its the crux of the argument. If Manning is leading the Seahawks, you'd still question why he isn't throwing a touch pass to Matthews or just letting Lynch run. This wasn't Manning throwing a game clinching INT from 30 yards out. This was one yard.

You're simplifying things without perspective. You can believe otherwise, but I think that would be disingenuous and only and attempt to further an argument that relies to heavily on baseless and expansive assumption.

I agree with most of what you said. Sounds like we agree for the most part.

I don't think Seattle's WRs are nearly as bad as people think though...Brady and Rodgers specifically are throwing to late round picks and undrafted guys...scheme and QB play make them look good IMO, but on pure talent, I think Kearse could be right there with some of those WRs.

ESPN ranked the wr/recieving corps ours was ranked 24th, Manning and Bradys were ranked much higher. Of all the Wr/receiving corps for all the top QBs the lowest was 15th. So yeah its a huge difference and every expert has said it, to not see this only proves everyones point about you. To make it simpler who is Wilsons Gronk? Or Wilsons Thomas OR Welker OR Wilson Nelson, Cobb I can go on and on, All of them have a much beter Wr/receiving corp than Wilson.

 

[Uncle Si]

The trolling, as you are apt to continue skirting, is your assertion the "world" judged Wilson to be dealt a bad hand because of the play call, and that any (not just Manning) "elite" QB would be crucified for the same throw.

This both misses the fact that a. Wilson was criticized for the play call and b. ignores any other peripherals.

I will back off the "trolling." you're not. You are, however, perpetuating the nonsense that is this thread. Your opinion on Wilson is a valid one. I personally don't think any QB is "elite" 3 seasons in, which makes this whole thread a silly exercise in opinion stated as fact backed by misrepresented stats.

We can just disagree on the question marks following the last offensive play of the Super Bowl. Manning wouldve been crucified because of his already earned reputation of blowing in playoff games. My opinion on the last call has nothing to do with Wilson as an elite player. I think he is an elite athlete, with an elite RB behind him. My opinion (and I think most agree) is why the Seahawks ignored their strengths on that one play? It has nothing to do with Wilson's ability as a QB, but more about how his unique strengths were ignored. If Manning ran that play, he'd be targeting a different class of receiver, same with Brady, Rodgers, etc. This cannot be ignored as to me its the crux of the argument. If Manning is leading the Seahawks, you'd still question why he isn't throwing a touch pass to Matthews or just letting Lynch run. This wasn't Manning throwing a game clinching INT from 30 yards out. This was one yard.

You're simplifying things without perspective. You can believe otherwise, but I think that would be disingenuous and only and attempt to further an argument that relies to heavily on baseless and expansive assumption.

I agree with most of what you said. Sounds like we agree for the most part.

I don't think Seattle's WRs are nearly as bad as people think though...Brady and Rodgers specifically are throwing to late round picks and undrafted guys...scheme and QB play make them look good IMO, but on pure talent, I think Kearse could be right there with some of those WRs.

I dont think they are as bad either (despite Anthony! autistic statistical vomiting suggesting otherwise). I just don't think that they were the relative strength of the team, which I'm sure everyone can agree is where you want to focus your efforts, especially one yard away from a Super Bowl win.

Imagine that play call if Jimmy Graham had been on the other side of the line? It would still be about "why not Jimmy?"

If Jimmy had been the target, and Butler made the same play, I think it comes more down to Wilson's throw.

All speculative. I'm excited to have Wilson as the team's QB of the future. Hopefully his contract allows the team to operate in a way similar to what has helped them be so successful of late.