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

[theincrediblesok]

Rodgers always had pretty good WR/TE, Jordy and Cobb are great and both 2nd rounders, before that he had Greg Jennings and Finley.

Brady I will say he has more of the undrafted guys, but without Gronk he didn't put up much stats once Gronk returns though he became more deadly. Gronk always added double digit TD's for each of his season playing except for 2013 when he played for 7 games (4 TD), on that same year Brady was only able to get 25 TD to 11 INT. It speaks volume of what having a real threat WR/TE have.


Brady TD Gronk TD
2014 - 33 12
2013 - 25 4
2012 - 34 11
2011 - 39 17
2010 - 36 10

Brady didn't have more than 28 TD until 2007 when he went for 50 TD and then next year he was injured and sat out the whole season and didn't get over 28 TD again until Gronk was drafted in 2010 where he got 10 TD putting Tom Brady's TD at 36 for that year, and of course having Hernandez also helped.

Everyone wants a QB to act like 30 TD is the norm, but looking at Brady's record he didn't get them consistently until he had a real threat in Gronk.

This is why I'm glad we got Jimmy and feel like this is what Wilson needed to get to the next level. If anything history is repeating themselves and Wilson is the new Brady, and I will take that with how much SB that Brady has.

 

[Ramfan128]

Rodgers always had pretty good WR/TE, Jordy and Cobb are great and both 2nd rounders, before that he had Greg Jennings and Finley.

Brady I will say he has more of the undrafted guys, but without Gronk he didn't put up much stats once Gronk returns though he became more deadly. Gronk always added double digit TD's for each of his season playing except for 2013 when he played for 7 games (4 TD), on that same year Brady was only able to get 25 TD to 11 INT. It speaks volume of what having a real threat WR/TE have.


Brady TD Gronk TD
2014 - 33 12
2013 - 25 4
2012 - 34 11
2011 - 39 17
2010 - 36 10

Brady didn't have more than 28 TD until 2007 when he went for 50 TD and then next year he was injured and sat out the whole season and didn't get over 28 TD again until Gronk was drafted in 2010 where he got 10 TD putting Tom Brady's TD at 36 for that year, and of course having Hernandez also helped.

Everyone wants a QB to act like 30 TD is the norm, but looking at Brady's record he didn't get them consistently until he had a real threat in Gronk.

This is why I'm glad we got Jimmy and feel like this is what Wilson needed to get to the next level. If anything history is repeating themselves and Wilson is the new Brady, and I will take that with how much SB that Brady has.

This is what makes the NFL so much fun IMO - does a QB make the WRs great? Or the other way around?

Welker was undrafted, and not great for the Dolphins. When the Patriots gave him the contract that they did, lots of people (myself included) were like wtf???

Think about this....

Nelson, Cobb, Gronk, J. Thomas, Edelman, Welker, D. Thomas, Decker, E. Sanders

All of those guys are "studs", right?

But none of them have ever gotten above 1,000 yards with a QB not named Brady, Manning, or Rodgers. The first 5 players on that list have only ever played with those guys, while the other 4 have played with other QBs.

None of the 4 have gotten 1,000 yards receiving without those QBs. And that only takes 64 yards per game. Of that list, only 1 was a first round pick.

Now, I don't want to come off as bashing Wilson, because it's the offense and philosophy as a whole, but Golden Tate showed in Detroit last year that he was a bonafide #1 WR. He made some plays with Seattle, but he looked a lot better in Detroit. That mostly has to do with offensive philosophy in this case though.

 

[theincrediblesok]

I knew Tate was great already and would do stellar in Detroits offense because....they are a pass happy team. If you average the amount of plays in 2013 to Tate's 2014 stats you can see he had a better average playing with the Hawks and would of hit 1k yards if we weren't a run first team. You would think that Stafford would hit 30 TD with Megatron and Tate but he didn't, I dont' even know how he only had 22 TD last season passing. Stafford had better weapons and couldn't muster more than 22 TD.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Also Eric Decker was 38 yards from being a 1k WR with Geno Smith, It had more to do with forcing the ball and being the only WR option.

Emmanuel Sander was the #2 WR for Big Ben and didn't get the same amount of touches as Antonio Brown, so it's not like he was a bad WR, just that he didn't get as much touches as the next guy.

This is why it's hard to compare who's helping who and sometimes it's not about that at all more about who gets more touches.

Baldwin would be a 1k player on a pass happy team too, Kearse maybe not so much probably the 700-800 yards type of guy when given more touches.

 

[Willyeye]

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.

I disagree with much of your assessment. There are a lot of extenuating circumstances that factor into why Wilson wasn't and/or shouldn't have been blamed for that interception to the level that you are blaming him. Let me preface by saying that, although I was the guy who originally posted Wilson's accomplishments on this thread, I DO NOT CONSIDER WILSON TO BE ELITE. Maybe in a few years from now when most of the older QB's are gone, and Wilson has a few more years under his belt, and the best QB's left in the NFL are Rodgers, Luck and Wilson, I would concede that he had become elite. But right now, he is not elite...to me, he's a good 3-year QB.

Regarding that interception, my understanding is that almost at the last second, the play was called in as a "HARD-LINE" call. This meant that Wilson WAS NOT ALLOWED to deviate in any way...the decision was TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF HIS HANDS. If you watch the Seahawks getting ready to line up prior to the actual play, it's clear that Wilson, Lynch and Baldwin look utterly confused...like they have no clue as to what is happening, or even where to line up. Something was not right. I have no issue with a pass play being called...this was decided on because of the Hawks having 3 downs left to score, but only 1 timeout left...so I get that. But I have a HUGE issue with the pass play that was called for a lot of reasons. In that situation, throwing a slant pass into the middle of the field into heavy traffic is NOT A GOOD IDEA. The entire Patriots D was within 15 yards of the ball when it was snapped. And I have an even bigger issue with that play call utilizing the personnel they were using. Lockette, had 18 receptions in 4 years in the NFL...not the best guy to use in that situation. Lockette is a ST's guy...maybe a #6 WR at best. When he gets ready to catch that pass, he runs into Butler, who is not a particularly large guy, but Lockette gets dropped like a sack of potatoes. Had Butler not read the play, Lockette should have easily caught the pass...it wasn't a terrible pass.

And that brings up the fact that Kearse was supposed to pick block Butler, but never made it because Browner took him out of the play (not the best guy to challenge Browner in that situation). My gut tells me that Browner recognized the alignment prior to the snap and made it known to Butler right there and then. Bevell had been the OC for 4 years, and Browner practiced against Bevell's offense for 3 of those 4 years. I'm pretty sure that Browner knew exactly what play was coming. The thing is, there were a lot of other options that Bevell could have chosen, and given the personnel, that play was probably his worst option. Even a Wilson run towards the sideline could have accomplished the same use of a play that stops the clock as would an incomplete pass, which was what Carroll said they were actually hoping for...an incompletion and a wasted play...never did quite understand that.

Because Wilson wasn't allowed to change the play in any way, I just don't see how you can blame him for it. And to compare it to Peyton's interception, you're ignoring a huge factor...Peyton was a 10+ year veteran by the time he threw that pick...Peyton could do whatever he wanted. Wilson, having only 3 years under his belt, was still being kept on a tight leash...he wasn't allowed to make those kind of decisions yet. In certain circumstances, Wilson is "cut loose", and he has put together some insane comebacks, like the OT win against the Broncos last year, and the NFCCG. Either way, of everyone that was directly involved with that play, I feel that Wilson was the least culpable for the outcome.

 

[JimmyG]

And that brings up the fact that Kearse was supposed to pick block Butler, but never made it because Browner took him out of the play (not the best guy to challenge Browner in that situation). My gut tells me that Browner recognized the alignment prior to the snap and made it known to Butler right there and then. Bevell had been the OC for 4 years, and Browner practiced against Bevell's offense for 3 of those 4 years. I'm pretty sure that Browner knew exactly what play was coming.

Butler later said that they had went up against the play in practice:

“I was at practice, and the scout team ran the same exact play. And I got beat on it at practice because I gave ground. ... Bill Belichick, he came and said to me, ‘Malcolm, you've gotta be on that.'”

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... r-got-beat

 

[JimmyG]

Baldwin would be a 1k player on a pass happy team too, Kearse maybe not so much probably the 700-800 yards type of guy when given more touches.

Absolutely. Imagine him with the Patriots or the Broncos in a Welker/Amendola role. He'd absolutely kill it.

 

[hgwellz12]

I for one applaud Lymon's efforts at derailing this thread into true absurdity.

Thanks, Red...it's nice to be appreciated. :mrgreen:

Don't tell me my interweb crush is a REDHEAD too!

 

[hawkfan68]

if Luck is elite, then so is Wilson but in a different manner. Wilson has taken his team to 2 straight superbowls...Luck can't say that. Let Luck pile up the yardage, I'd rather have a QB like Wilson racking up SB appearances. Wilson still hasn't reached his ceiling. He's very good but can be even better. This year should be interesting since now Wilson has a "go to receiver" who is considered one of the top receivers in the NFL. I'd like to see how his numbers improve. He's been extremely consistent (stats wise) over past the three years.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I for one applaud Lymon's efforts at derailing this thread into true absurdity.

Thanks, Red...it's nice to be appreciated. :mrgreen:

Don't tell me my interweb crush is a REDHEAD too!

I cannot speak for LymonHawk but yes, I'm what the guys term a redhead. Not a ginger though. Auburn is a much better term, wouldn't you agree.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

This is why I'm glad we got Jimmy and feel like this is what Wilson needed to get to the next level. If anything history is repeating themselves and Wilson is the new Brady, and I will take that with how much SB that Brady has.

I'm not sure Wilson will ever be anything like Brady but I agree getting Jimmy is his first real chance to actually see if it's possible.

 

[theincrediblesok]

This is why I'm glad we got Jimmy and feel like this is what Wilson needed to get to the next level. If anything history is repeating themselves and Wilson is the new Brady, and I will take that with how much SB that Brady has.

I'm not sure Wilson will ever be anything like Brady but I agree getting Jimmy is his first real chance to actually see if it's possible.

I think Jimmy will help make Wilson better, having a true #1 will get em those TD that we lost for Fieldgoals instead. I was also alluidng that Wilson will have the same success as Brady in making it to multiple SBs, the winning it part is all up to Wilson lol.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

This is why I'm glad we got Jimmy and feel like this is what Wilson needed to get to the next level. If anything history is repeating themselves and Wilson is the new Brady, and I will take that with how much SB that Brady has.

I'm not sure Wilson will ever be anything like Brady but I agree getting Jimmy is his first real chance to actually see if it's possible.

I think Jimmy will help make Wilson better, having a true #1 will get em those TD that we lost for Fieldgoals instead. I was also alluidng that Wilson will have the same success as Brady in making it to multiple SBs, the winning it part is all up to Wilson lol.

I understood that and it's similar for sure but since I live in Missouri I just say....."Show Me".

 

[theincrediblesok]

This is why I'm glad we got Jimmy and feel like this is what Wilson needed to get to the next level. If anything history is repeating themselves and Wilson is the new Brady, and I will take that with how much SB that Brady has.

I'm not sure Wilson will ever be anything like Brady but I agree getting Jimmy is his first real chance to actually see if it's possible.

I think Jimmy will help make Wilson better, having a true #1 will get em those TD that we lost for Fieldgoals instead. I was also alluidng that Wilson will have the same success as Brady in making it to multiple SBs, the winning it part is all up to Wilson lol.

I understood that and it's similar for sure but since I live in Missouri I just say....."Show Me".

Ahh I see what you did :th2thumbs:

 

[RichNhansom]

Maybe we should be asking if Lynch is elite. There is a lot of hype surrounding our running game but the truth is if you take away Wilson's rushing yards or make them average to other teams, our running game is somewhere around 10th in the league.

Lynch has averaged pretty close to 1300 yards per year nearly his whole career. That is impressive but not really elite. Even when Tjack was our starter he ran 1200 yards in 15 games. Pretty much on par with his other seasons. His outlying year was 2012 when he rushed for over 1500 yards. That was Wilson's rookie year and the league had to adjust to the read option but it was the threat of Wilson that enabled Lynch to have his best year and best year by far.

Last year we were #1 in the league in rushing stats with 2762 yards but Wilson put up 849 of them. Look around the league at other QB's and they average for the entire year somewhere close to 65 yards. That's the whole year, not one game. Take 785 yards off our stats and we are at 1977 yards on the year. That's giving Wilson 65 yards. That has us ranked #10 behind Philly.

The area I will give Lynch credit is that he has been putting up those numbers even when our opponents stack the box and the last couple years that was pretty much constant but in the same regard Wilson put up 849 yards against that same stacked box. Now the reason for the stacked box is pretty simple. There was no threat in our receiving corp to prevent it. Teams could stack the box and leave every corner on an island while bringing a safety up to help stop the run.

I was one who didn't want to give Lynch 12 mill. I believe we could have went with Turbin and Michael and used that 12 Mill to bring in an elite receiver. Would our running game suffer? Sure a little but we were already only 10th in the league without Wilson's numbers. Having Jimmy paired up with a Fitzgerald type receiver would open up our passing game and unload the box enabling Michael and Turbin to improve. Maybe we lose a couple hundred yards rushing but that would very likely be made up in passing and probably then some and our 3rd down and red zone efficiency would likely vastly improve.

It's easy for some like Ramsfan to try and credit our defense and running game for Wilson's success but the truth is without Wilson our running game is not impressive and as for the defense holding opponents to low scores so Wilson doesn't have to do much? Well that is a crock also because it completely discounts all the times our defense gave games away that Wilson put us in position to win. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Wilson obviously benefits from a good defense but it is not like he hasn't done his part. Nearly every time we have needed Wilson to take over a game he has come through. Unfortunately our elite defense has had many game losing melt downs including the super bowl.

All stats were taken off NFL.com

 

[JimmyG]

The area I will give Lynch credit is that he has been putting up those numbers even when our opponents stack the box and the last couple years that was pretty much constant but in the same regard Wilson put up 849 yards against that same stacked box. Now the reason for the stacked box is pretty simple. There was no threat in our receiving corp to prevent it. Teams could stack the box and leave every corner on an island while bringing a safety up to help stop the run.

I was one who didn't want to give Lynch 12 mill. I believe we could have went with Turbin and Michael and used that 12 Mill to bring in an elite receiver. Would our running game suffer? Sure a little but we were already only 10th in the league without Wilson's numbers. Having Jimmy paired up with a Fitzgerald type receiver would open up our passing game and unload the box enabling Michael and Turbin to improve. Maybe we lose a couple hundred yards rushing but that would very likely be made up in passing and probably then some and our 3rd down and red zone efficiency would likely vastly improve.

I think it's a conscious decision to not invest heavily in a receiver. We've only been passing 400-450 times a year, and I think the coaching staff wants it that way. It's hard to justify spending a lot in an area that we don't utilize nearly as often as other teams.

Our philosophy and identity is ball control and defense. Stifle the opposing offense, and wear down the defense/clock with a power running game. Being a predominantly run-heavy team makes playaction passes that much more effective. Since coming into the league, Wilson is one of the best deep passers in the league. Do you not think a loaded box contributes favorably to that?

I know intuitively "better receiving corps = better numbers", but I don't necessarily think that's always true. For example, look at San Francisco this year. Kaepernick had more weapons than he's ever had in his career, but statistically it was his worst season. Who would've predicted that his efficiency stats would drop across the board?

All I'm saying is, yeah, you "unload the box" and Michael/Turbin have more success. But if you do that, I think that Wilson's efficiency numbers would take a corresponding hit. The deep ball is probably not as readily available anymore. Playaction isn't as devastating. Overthrown passes now carry greater risk (i.e. more likely that a defender is in a position to make a play on it). More passing means more incompletions, which makes it harder to control the clock.

Our offense has been very efficient with our current setup. I don't think a big personnel change makes much such. I don't know about you, but I thought Percy Harvin was going to be absolutely deadly here. Instead, he was a steaming pile of trash. On paper it was a great addition, in hindsight it was a disaster. (I know, I know -- bring on the Darrell Bevell scapegoating. It's all his fault, right? God created offensive coordinators to provide us with a convenient scapegoat.)

 

[RichNhansom]

The area I will give Lynch credit is that he has been putting up those numbers even when our opponents stack the box and the last couple years that was pretty much constant but in the same regard Wilson put up 849 yards against that same stacked box. Now the reason for the stacked box is pretty simple. There was no threat in our receiving corp to prevent it. Teams could stack the box and leave every corner on an island while bringing a safety up to help stop the run.

I was one who didn't want to give Lynch 12 mill. I believe we could have went with Turbin and Michael and used that 12 Mill to bring in an elite receiver. Would our running game suffer? Sure a little but we were already only 10th in the league without Wilson's numbers. Having Jimmy paired up with a Fitzgerald type receiver would open up our passing game and unload the box enabling Michael and Turbin to improve. Maybe we lose a couple hundred yards rushing but that would very likely be made up in passing and probably then some and our 3rd down and red zone efficiency would likely vastly improve.

I think it's a conscious decision to not invest heavily in a receiver. We've only been passing 400-450 times a year, and I think the coaching staff wants it that way. It's hard to justify spending a lot in an area that we don't utilize nearly as often as other teams.

Our philosophy and identity is ball control and defense. Stifle the opposing offense, and wear down the defense/clock with a power running game. Being a predominantly run-heavy team makes playaction passes that much more effective. Since coming into the league, Wilson is one of the best deep passers in the league. Do you not think a loaded box contributes favorably to that?

I know intuitively "better receiving corps = better numbers", but I don't necessarily think that's always true. For example, look at San Francisco this year. Kaepernick had more weapons than he's ever had in his career, but statistically it was his worst season. Who would've predicted that his efficiency stats would drop across the board?

All I'm saying is, yeah, you "unload the box" and Michael/Turbin have more success. But if you do that, I think that Wilson's efficiency numbers would take a corresponding hit. The deep ball is probably not as readily available anymore. Playaction isn't as devastating. Overthrown passes now carry greater risk (i.e. more likely that a defender is in a position to make a play on it). More passing means more incompletions, which makes it harder to control the clock.

Our offense has been very efficient with our current setup. I don't think a big personnel change makes much such. I don't know about you, but I thought Percy Harvin was going to be absolutely deadly here. Instead, he was a steaming pile of trash. On paper it was a great addition, in hindsight it was a disaster. (I know, I know -- bring on the Darrell Bevell scapegoating. It's all his fault, right? God created offensive coordinators to provide us with a convenient scapegoat.)

You bring up some excellent points and I agree and understand why we would never change our focus from ball control and the running game. It's always fun to make the argument but it is kind of like saying your jealous of those hot fantasy teams that never win anything.

I will say that the Keap example is flawed IMO because his O-line went to crap last year. Add that to his inability to scan the playing field and you have a recipe for poor performance even if you gave him 5 Megatrons and a Gronk.

The deep passing game would likely suffer but the trade off would likely be an improved short game, 3rd down and RZ efficiency and ultimately more offensive production. The loss would not just be the 200 or so yards either. We would likely drop off some in TOP and that would lend to our defense spending more time on the field as well as probably more defensive injuries.

All that said though I still question if we have to change our philosophy or not. Why couldn't we still emphasize the running game and ball control using Turbin and Michael? If we had better receiving weapons it could offset the loss of Lynch. Maybe.

 

[HansGruber]

If someone can't differentiate between the proper uses of than and then, that really speaks to the quality of their degree.

ITT

Sheesh! It was more of a typo than anything else. I'm sorry if my use of 'then' instead of 'than' was confusing to you or made you miss the point of my post.

...And what do they call the graduate with the lowest grades in med. school?

Your court.

LOL, I wasn't talking to you bro. It was more of a general shot in the dark.

To answer your question:
A chiropractor

 

[LymonHawk]

If someone can't differentiate between the proper uses of than and then, that really speaks to the quality of their degree.

ITT

Sheesh! It was more of a typo than anything else. I'm sorry if my use of 'then' instead of 'than' was confusing to you or made you miss the point of my post.

...And what do they call the graduate with the lowest grades in med. school?

Your court.

LOL, I wasn't talking to you bro. It was more of a general shot in the dark.

To answer your question:
A chiropractor

Good one!

 

[Willyeye]

Maybe we should be asking if Lynch is elite. There is a lot of hype surrounding our running game but the truth is if you take away Wilson's rushing yards or make them average to other teams, our running game is somewhere around 10th in the league.

Lynch has averaged pretty close to 1300 yards per year nearly his whole career. That is impressive but not really elite. Even when Tjack was our starter he ran 1200 yards in 15 games. Pretty much on par with his other seasons. His outlying year was 2012 when he rushed for over 1500 yards. That was Wilson's rookie year and the league had to adjust to the read option but it was the threat of Wilson that enabled Lynch to have his best year and best year by far.

Last year we were #1 in the league in rushing stats with 2762 yards but Wilson put up 849 of them. Look around the league at other QB's and they average for the entire year somewhere close to 65 yards. That's the whole year, not one game. Take 785 yards off our stats and we are at 1977 yards on the year. That's giving Wilson 65 yards. That has us ranked #10 behind Philly.

The area I will give Lynch credit is that he has been putting up those numbers even when our opponents stack the box and the last couple years that was pretty much constant but in the same regard Wilson put up 849 yards against that same stacked box. Now the reason for the stacked box is pretty simple. There was no threat in our receiving corp to prevent it. Teams could stack the box and leave every corner on an island while bringing a safety up to help stop the run.

I was one who didn't want to give Lynch 12 mill. I believe we could have went with Turbin and Michael and used that 12 Mill to bring in an elite receiver. Would our running game suffer? Sure a little but we were already only 10th in the league without Wilson's numbers. Having Jimmy paired up with a Fitzgerald type receiver would open up our passing game and unload the box enabling Michael and Turbin to improve. Maybe we lose a couple hundred yards rushing but that would very likely be made up in passing and probably then some and our 3rd down and red zone efficiency would likely vastly improve.

It's easy for some like Ramsfan to try and credit our defense and running game for Wilson's success but the truth is without Wilson our running game is not impressive and as for the defense holding opponents to low scores so Wilson doesn't have to do much? Well that is a crock also because it completely discounts all the times our defense gave games away that Wilson put us in position to win. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Wilson obviously benefits from a good defense but it is not like he hasn't done his part. Nearly every time we have needed Wilson to take over a game he has come through. Unfortunately our elite defense has had many game losing melt downs including the super bowl.

All stats were taken off NFL.com

Some great points here. I have never really considered the argument that our rushing yards without Wilson would actually be 1977 yards, which places us in the #10 slot. Extremely clever argument.

The Hawks offense compiled 6012 yards last year...#9 in the NFL...Lynch had 1306 rushing yards. That's 21.7%. So who's responsible for the other 78.3% of the Hawks offense...not Lynch! And no other QB in the NFL could survive with Wilson's O-Line and receiver corps. And the O-Line and receiver corps is where the Hawks saved cap space that they used to build that #1 defense. Only Wilson allows them to take that path...not Lynch. Even when Lynch retires in the next year or two, the Hawks will be able to replace him with another RB or 2 that can easily run for 1200 yards per season. Wilson on the other hand is irreplaceable...there is no other QB in the NFL who can do what Wilson does for this team. The reality is, without Wilson, there is no #1 D.

I also wanted to point out, that the way Bevell used Harvin, played right into that stacked box. The same guys who were already there, focused on Wilson and Lynch, just had to stay aware of Harvin...but they were already in a good position to defend against Harvin. This is where Graham and a #1 WR that can run routes and go deep would be helpful, unlike Harvin. Geez, in hindsight, it seems so apparent that Harvin wasn't a good fit for our offense. I think Richardson was on the right path, but unfortunately he tore up his knee. Apparently, Matthews could have been another guy that might have been able to contribute down the stretch. If Richardson and Matthews had built up a little of a reputation in the regular season, perhaps defenses would have had to stop stacking the box as much, especially in the playoffs.