Ron Jaworski's 2014 top QB countdown - Russell Wilson #9

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • Last year he was #12. This year #9. Personally I think this is a bit low, I think he should be in the 5-6 range especially after a great season and winning the SB but who knows.

    Flacco is #10 lol. Kaep is #12.

    All that said, this is Jaws we're talking about and he did think Kaep could be the best QB ever so take it with a grain of salt I suppose.
    User avatar
    jblaze
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 914
    Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:38 am


  • BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    User avatar
    therealsm
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 147
    Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:20 am
    Location: Tri-Cities, WA


  • I would have Wilson #5.

    1. Aaron Rodgers
    2. Peyton Manning
    3. Tom Brady
    4. Drew Brees
    5. Russell Wilson
    User avatar
    hawknation2014
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1873
    Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:59 am


  • Jaws is losing it. Started last year....
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 825
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


  • Surprised he put him in the top 10. Guess that shows Jaws is trying to give him some credit for the past season. Must hurt him to have to put Kaep at #12.
    Image
    Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
    Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Les "PithyRadish" Norton 9/13/2014
    User avatar
    drdiags
    * The Doc *
    * The Doc *
     
    Posts: 9231
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
    Location: Covington, Washington


  • I can't help but deduce from his rankings over the past few years it's simply about yards and TD's. It has nothing to do with system you're in or situational football whatsoever. I think Wilson could throw for 4000 yards if necessary but that's not our philosophy and that should be accounted for but I guess Jaws does not see it that way.

    What about YPA? Or explosive pass plays (20+ yds)? Scrambling to run vs. scrambling to throw?

    This feels more like a fantasy football ranking than a true test of best QB's with all considerations taken into account.

    It is Jaws however...
    User avatar
    jblaze
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 914
    Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:38 am


  • hawknation2014 wrote:I would have Wilson #5.

    1. Aaron Rodgers
    2. Peyton Manning
    3. Tom Brady
    4. Drew Brees
    5. Russell Wilson



    I like your list, Jaws actually has Luck #6. The consensus is still that Luck is the better QB but I just don't see it. Sure, he's very talented and asked to do more but the numbers don't bear our the fact that he's better at all. Isn't this a numbers and "what have you done for me lately" league?

    Just think, in a few years when all those guys will have declined or retired, the new crop of QB's will be the only ones standing an RW should get some due then. Especially with another SB under his belt. :)
    User avatar
    jblaze
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 914
    Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:38 am


  • Probably about time to stop caring what Jaworski thinks. If it wasn't already.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15226
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Sarlacc83 wrote:Probably about time to stop caring what Jaworski thinks. If it wasn't already.


    I don't think anyone cares about his opinion. However, this is the slow period of the offseason and any excuse to talk Hawks I will take.
    User avatar
    jblaze
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 914
    Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:38 am


  • jblaze wrote:
    Sarlacc83 wrote:Probably about time to stop caring what Jaworski thinks. If it wasn't already.


    I don't think anyone cares about his opinion. However, this is the slow period of the offseason and any excuse to talk Hawks I will take.


    That seems like a contradiction to me. Talking about this, even as 'something to do' lends credence to his opinion. There are other, better, sources, ya feel me?
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15226
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


  • I don't do Jaws anymore. I don't care what anyone else ranks him anymore, the guy keeps drives alive and can wing it when he needs to. Heh.. in his first year he took a 7-9 team to 11-5 and won a road playoff game, should have been 2. In his second year he won the Super Bowl, passing his way to victory when the run wasn't there.

    I like me some RW. I get the feeling that his "ranking" will only improve.
    "The life you lose may be your own" - Drunk dude at the bar
    User avatar
    loafoftatupu
    I'M JIMMY!
     
    Posts: 5840
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
    Location: Auburn, WA


  • jblaze wrote:Last year he was #12. This year #9. Personally I think this is a bit low, I think he should be in the 5-6 range especially after a great season and winning the SB but who knows.

    Flacco is #10 lol. Kaep is #12.

    All that said, this is Jaws we're talking about and he did think Kaep could be the best QB ever so take it with a grain of salt I suppose.


    Jaws has always been about the prototypical QB, that meaning 6 foot and taller. So what would you expect.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • It's eating Jaws alive at night thinking he has to come to his senses and place Wilson ever so higher in his precious QB ranking. For shame should a 4 foot 2" QB have the ability to change the NFL's perception of what makes a great quarterback!

    Clutch the pearls Jaws! Clutch the pearls!!
    Image

    Les "The Radish" Norton - Ambassador/Grandfather of .NET, gone too soon but will never be forgotten. RIP
    User avatar
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 8092
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
    Location: Just 6 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • Would have Rivers at 6 (especially after his return to form last year). Wilson at 7 and Luck around 9.

    Hard for the younger QBs to crack the top five or six, due in part to their small sample size. Quality play over time is important and they haven't been around long enough. Teams win Super Bowls, so I count those less when evaluating QBs.
    lobohawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 238
    Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:22 am


  • Number 9?!?!?! Does he even watch football?! Russell Wilson is the the best pocket AND scrambling Qb in the NFL and no dummy from ESPN can change that! Here's my ranking of the best QBs.

    1. Russell Wilson (pocket passer)
    2. Russell Wilson (scrambling passer)
    3. Matt Flynn
    4. Johnny Manziel
    5. Jesus
    6. Eli Manning
    7. Pete Carroll (he still has a cannon)
    8. Jay Cutler

    You can take this list to the bank.
    User avatar
    endzorn
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1842
    Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:14 pm


  • Best part?
    Luck was number 5, and before a snap of the 2014 season was played, Jaws said he will probably be top 3 next year.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11074
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • hawknation2014 wrote:I would have Wilson #5.

    1. Aaron Rodgers
    2. Peyton Manning
    3. Tom Brady
    4. Drew Brees
    5. Russell Wilson



    Put the first four QB's on this list behind the OL Russell played behind from about games 3-9 last year and they would have gotten killed. Only a supreme escape artist like Wilson could survive the constant pressure he was under for that stretch of games and still put up W after W.
    seabowl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1143
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am


  • endzorn wrote:Number 9?!?!?! Does he even watch football?! Russell Wilson is the the best pocket AND scrambling Qb in the NFL and no dummy from ESPN can change that! Here's my ranking of the best QBs.

    1. Russell Wilson (pocket passer)
    2. Russell Wilson (scrambling passer)
    3. Matt Flynn
    4. Johnny Manziel
    5. Jesus
    6. Eli Manning
    7. Pete Carroll (he still has a cannon)
    8. Jay Cutler

    You can take this list to the bank.


    This plus your avatar = real life LOL. And I rarely laugh at things written on the internet.
    User avatar
    bmorepunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 726
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:56 pm


  • Scottemojo wrote:Best part?
    Luck was number 5, and before a snap of the 2014 season was played, Jaws said he will probably be top 3 next year.


    Thats on par with Steve Young discussing young QBs two years ago When talking about Luck, Grif, Kap and Wilson he said to take Luck out of it because it wasnt fair, "He's going to be a Hall of Famer."
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9226
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • I am kinda okay with Wilson at #9. He was 8th in passer rating last year in an offense that is kinda designed to boost QB efficiency stats. I would rank him a few spots higher on account of the NFC West, his playoff performances, and his 31st ranked protection last year. There are a lot of probable future HoF QBs playing right now and Wilson is younger than all but one of them, so I can understand putting Wilson 9th.

    I think Nick Foles is probably the NFL's most under-rated player. 15th on this list after posting the 4th highest rating in league history during his first full season. I know that his interception numbers are unsustainable, but give him 10 picks instead of 2 and he still has elite numbers. But more than that, I've been sold watching him play. He is not the same guy he was at Arizona. The current version of Nick Foles reminds me a lot of Brett Favre. Does just enough with his feet and arm to consistently be a pain in the ass. And he's dangerous in the red zone... one of the better "thread the needle" QBs in the league.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Let Jaws and the rest, roll with the stats, me?, I'll take the wins that RW stacks up.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3578
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • kearly wrote:I am kinda okay with Wilson at #9. He was 8th in passer rating last year in an offense that is kinda designed to boost QB efficiency stats. I would rank him a few spots higher on account of the NFC West, his playoff performances, and his 31st ranked protection last year. There are a lot of probable future HoF QBs playing right now and Wilson is younger than all but one of them, so I can understand putting Wilson 9th.

    I think Nick Foles is probably the NFL's most under-rated player. 15th on this list after posting the 4th highest rating in league history during his first full season. I know that his interception numbers are unsustainable, but give him 10 picks instead of 2 and he still has elite numbers. But more than that, I've been sold watching him play. He is not the same guy he was at Arizona. The current version of Nick Foles reminds me a lot of Brett Favre. Does just enough with his feet and arm to consistently be a pain in the ass. And he's dangerous in the red zone... one of the better "thread the needle" QBs in the league.



    Actually that is in correct he is not in a offense that boosts efficiency, he is in an offense that requires efficiency. For example


    If you through 25 times a game and you start 1-10 you have to go 15-15 on the next 15 to get to 64%.
    If you through 35 times a game and you start 1-10 you can go 22-25 and get to 64+% so you have more margin for error.

    So again less throws means less margin for error. That is not good for efficiency.

    You could say through out all the other QBs they are in offenses that throw a lot so they will get a lot of yards, really.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • scutterhawk wrote:Let Jaws and the rest, roll with the stats, me?, I'll take the wins that RW stacks up.



    But you see other than yards they are not rolling with stats because of they did Rw would be higher than luck, as Rw stats are higher than luck in everything but yards.

    Rw 6473 yards, 800 attempts Comp% 63.6, 8.1 ypa, 52 tds, 6.5td%, 19 ints, 2.4 int%, 100.5 QB rating, 1028 rushing yards

    Luck 8196 yards, 1197 attempts, complt% 57, 6.85 ypa, 46tds, 3.8td%, 27int, 2.3int%, 81.5 Qb rating, 632 rushing yards

    The reason Luck is above Rw is because he was anointed and he is 6 foot tall.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Interesting. Why even argue about it? We spend so much time discussing this, but the only ranking that matters is our TEAM ranking. We are #1, and that's undisputed.

    It seems like every 5th thread is arguing over Wilson's rank among other quarterbacks.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1440
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • lukerguy wrote:Interesting. Why even argue about it? We spend so much time discussing this, but the only ranking that matters is our TEAM ranking. We are #1, and that's undisputed.

    It seems like every 5th thread is arguing over Wilson's rank among other quarterbacks.


    Well, it is a football discussion board.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9226
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • I get that, but it's been discussed at nauseum.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1440
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • Anthony! wrote:Actually that is in correct he is not in a offense that boosts efficiency, he is in an offense that requires efficiency. For example


    If you through 25 times a game and you start 1-10 you have to go 15-15 on the next 15 to get to 64%.
    If you through 35 times a game and you start 1-10 you can go 22-25 and get to 64+% so you have more margin for error.

    So again less throws means less margin for error. That is not good for efficiency.

    You could say through out all the other QBs they are in offenses that throw a lot so they will get a lot of yards, really.


    I wasn't basing my argument on throwing volume.

    My point was more along the lines that opposing defenses are putting 8 in the box to stop Lynch, while Wilson is throwing most of his passes on play-action when the defense is thinking "run." Seattle led the NFL last season in play-action throw percentage, by a decently large margin, too.

    We know this impacts a QBs efficiency. Look at Andrew Luck at Stanford vs. Indy. At Stanford he was in almost the same kind of system Russ is now, and he put up monster passer ratings. At Indy, where he must force more throws and generally faces a defense that is keying on Indy throwing the ball, his efficiency numbers have dropped dramatically.

    Alex Smith pre and post Harbaugh is a great example of this as well.

    You could also look at Wilson's numbers at NC State (underwhelming throw first team) vs. Wisconsin (overwhelming run first team). Wilson's numbers exploded when he went to Wisconsin because the Badgers were a team that ran the ball to set up the pass instead of vice-versa. Whichever you are feared and do less of, that is where you probably have the best efficiency. Just look at how efficient Detroit and Denver's RBs were last season with teams keying on Manning and Stafford, or Foles and Smith with defenses keying on McCoy and Charles. The smarter teams know how to take advantage how a defense game plans them, and Seattle is one such team.

    I don't think this makes Wilson any less awesome as a QB, but if we are grading these QBs fairly who all play in different situations we should take these kind of things into account. Of course, having Luck higher than Wilson is a stretch, but I do think if Luck was our QB his numbers would be pretty close to Wilson's. That said, I agree that Luck is over-rated because of who he is, not because of what he's done.
    Last edited by kearly on Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • kearly wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:Actually that is in correct he is not in a offense that boosts efficiency, he is in an offense that requires efficiency. For example


    If you through 25 times a game and you start 1-10 you have to go 15-15 on the next 15 to get to 64%.
    If you through 35 times a game and you start 1-10 you can go 22-25 and get to 64+% so you have more margin for error.

    So again less throws means less margin for error. That is not good for efficiency.

    You could say through out all the other QBs they are in offenses that throw a lot so they will get a lot of yards, really.


    I wasn't basing my argument on throwing volume.

    My point was more along the lines that opposing defenses are putting 8 in the box to stop Lynch, while Wilson is throwing most of his passes on play-action when the defense is thinking "run." Seattle led the NFL last season in play-action throw percentage, by a decently large margin, too.

    We know this impacts a QBs efficiency. Look at Andrew Luck at Stanford vs. Indy. At Stanford he was in almost the same kind of system Russ is now, and he put up monster passer ratings. At Indy, where he must force more throws and generally faces a defense that is keying on Indy throwing the ball, his efficiency numbers have dropped dramatically.

    Alex Smith pre and post Harbaugh is a great example of this as well.

    You could also look at Wilson's numbers at NC State (underwhelming throw first team) vs. Wisconsin (overwhelming run first team). Wilson's numbers exploded when he went to Wisconsin because the Badgers the run set up the pass instead of vice-versa.

    I don't think this makes Wilson any less awesome as a QB, but if we are grading these QBs fairly who all play in different situations we should take these kind of things into account. Of course, having Luck higher than Wilson is a stretch, but I do think if Luck was our QB his numbers would be pretty close to Wilson's. That said, I agree that Luck is over-rated because of who he is, not because of what he's done.



    Ahh but opposing defenses are not pulling 8 in the box all the time, and in fact given we have been a run, run pass for most of our fist half's the defense knows exactly what we are doing to include when we pass.

    If we are grading these QBs fairly we must also take into account that most play in pass happy offenses, most play in the AFC were it is much easier, all have much better pass blocking o-lines, and most have better WRs, you see all that must go into the equation as well, and given that they more than out weight the perceived 8 man in the box stuff.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Anthony! wrote:Ahh but opposing defenses are not pulling 8 in the box all the time, and in fact given we have been a run, run pass for most of our fist half's the defense knows exactly what we are doing to include when we pass.


    Teams stack the box against our O. If you haven't noticed this I don't know what to tell you.

    Anthony! wrote:If we are grading these QBs fairly we must also take into account that most play in pass happy offenses, most play in the AFC were it is much easier, all have much better pass blocking o-lines, and most have better WRs, you see all that must go into the equation as well, and given that they more than out weight the perceived 8 man in the box stuff.


    I agree and actually mentioned a few of those things already. But you probably didn't notice because you are in argumentative mode.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • lukerguy wrote:I get that, but it's been discussed at nauseum.


    No disrespect intended, I love this place, but 75% of the posts at .net this time of year I open just to close so that they'll turn grey and I can easily skip over them in the future. People make posts about it being 12:12 o'clock this time of year (sorry Aros, just the first example I thought of).

    Wilson's perception nationally is a valid and intellectual topic that could lead to potentially interesting and informative debate or discussion. It's also relatively unlikely to cause pissing matches, which makes it infinitely preferable to posts about athlete tweets, etc.

    So, I don't really see what your issue is. I'm also a firm believer that if a topic is not for you, it's poor manners to dump on the thread in disapproval. Just close the browser and read a different topic like most everyone else.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Jaws, living up to his nickname. Just trying to piss off the best fans in the league. Looks like it worked. Now he thinks he matters again, he drew the ire of the 12s. He doesn't matter. It's just words, stupid words. I say they don't count.
    Image
    __________________________________________________________________________________
    Save a place at the table for us "Big Willie"
    User avatar
    halfrack
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 165
    Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:43 pm
    Location: Lakin, KS


  • kearly wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:Actually that is in correct he is not in a offense that boosts efficiency, he is in an offense that requires efficiency. For example


    If you through 25 times a game and you start 1-10 you have to go 15-15 on the next 15 to get to 64%.
    If you through 35 times a game and you start 1-10 you can go 22-25 and get to 64+% so you have more margin for error.

    So again less throws means less margin for error. That is not good for efficiency.

    You could say through out all the other QBs they are in offenses that throw a lot so they will get a lot of yards, really.


    I wasn't basing my argument on throwing volume.

    My point was more along the lines that opposing defenses are putting 8 in the box to stop Lynch, while Wilson is throwing most of his passes on play-action when the defense is thinking "run." Seattle led the NFL last season in play-action throw percentage, by a decently large margin, too.

    We know this impacts a QBs efficiency. Look at Andrew Luck at Stanford vs. Indy. At Stanford he was in almost the same kind of system Russ is now, and he put up monster passer ratings. At Indy, where he must force more throws and generally faces a defense that is keying on Indy throwing the ball, his efficiency numbers have dropped dramatically.

    Alex Smith pre and post Harbaugh is a great example of this as well.

    You could also look at Wilson's numbers at NC State (underwhelming throw first team) vs. Wisconsin (overwhelming run first team). Wilson's numbers exploded when he went to Wisconsin because the Badgers were a team that ran the ball to set up the pass instead of vice-versa. Whichever you are feared and do less of, that is where you probably have the best efficiency. Just look at how efficient Detroit and Denver's RBs were last season with teams keying on Manning and Stafford, or Foles and Smith with defenses keying on McCoy and Charles. The smarter teams know how to take advantage how a defense game plans them, and Seattle is one such team.

    I don't think this makes Wilson any less awesome as a QB, but if we are grading these QBs fairly who all play in different situations we should take these kind of things into account. Of course, having Luck higher than Wilson is a stretch, but I do think if Luck was our QB his numbers would be pretty close to Wilson's. That said, I agree that Luck is over-rated because of who he is, not because of what he's done.


    Not to rain on your parade but Wilson had a 191.8 QB rating his last year in college. Luck had 169.7 which was a tad lower than the year before. They were both in very similar offenses except for that was Wilsons first year in that offense and school.
    Image
    User avatar
    WilsonMVP
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 867
    Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am


  • Didn't Jaworski have Russ rated one slot below Matt Ryan? If so, my comment is "c'mon man".
    All your points are well taken kearly but there's no way in hell Matt Ryan is a better QB than Russ. So move him up one slot at least in my eyes.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11386
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les, I'll always know you as Pithy Radish.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23732
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


  • kearly wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:Ahh but opposing defenses are not pulling 8 in the box all the time, and in fact given we have been a run, run pass for most of our fist half's the defense knows exactly what we are doing to include when we pass.


    Teams stack the box against our O. If you haven't noticed this I don't know what to tell you.

    Anthony! wrote:If we are grading these QBs fairly we must also take into account that most play in pass happy offenses, most play in the AFC were it is much easier, all have much better pass blocking o-lines, and most have better WRs, you see all that must go into the equation as well, and given that they more than out weight the perceived 8 man in the box stuff.


    I agree and actually mentioned a few of those things already. But you probably didn't notice because you are in argumentative mode.



    so when we are in obvious passing downs they are still stacking the box? Really and yet Rw still gets it done. Not to mention it is Rw who calls the plays, he gest 3-4 plays sent to him he decided what to call run or Pass, so them stacking the box means little. I am pretty sure any QB in the league will change to a pass play if they stack the box and go run when they do not.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Anthony! wrote:so when we are in obvious passing downs they are still stacking the box?


    Oh boy. Anyone else want to explain it to this guy?

    Anyway... let's change gears here. Where would you rank Wilson? I'd probably put him 5th or 6th. What is the floor for what you think is a fair ranking for Wilson? I'd say 9th and I only say that because there are so many amazing QBs right now.
    Last edited by kearly on Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:41 pm, edited 5 times in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • WilsonMVP wrote:Not to rain on your parade but Wilson had a 191.8 QB rating his last year in college. Luck had 169.7 which was a tad lower than the year before. They were both in very similar offenses except for that was Wilsons first year in that offense and school.


    I think you are actually making my point, not contradicting it. Both QBs were outstanding in a run-first offense. Wilson was a little extra outstanding in 2011 thanks to a then record setting streak without an interception which occurred during that particular season. Luck had very similar numbers but didn't have the outlier season for interceptions that Wilson had. Point is, both were really, really good in that offense.
    Last edited by kearly on Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • kearly wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:so when we are in obvious passing downs they are still stacking the box?


    Oh boy. Anyone else want to explain it to this guy?

    Anyway... let's change gears here. Where would you rank Wilson? I'd probably put him 5th or 6th. What is the floor for what you think is a fair ranking for Wilson? I'd say 9th and I only say that because there are so many amazing QBs right now.


    Dude I understand what you are saying but I do not believe it is happening as much as you think. I put RW 5th
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • kearly wrote:...........Where would you rank Wilson? I'd probably put him 5th or 6th.......

    That's my feeling too. Certainly I'd put him above #8 ranked Matt Ryan as I mentioned above and I'd put him above Phillip Rivers who was 7th I believe. He's smarter with the football, no matter the situation, than both of those guys.
    From the white sands
    To the canyon lands
    To the redwood stands
    To the barren lands

    Image
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11386
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • If I were a sports journalist, I would rank Wilson 17th so that I could get an immense amount of revenue from people that can't control themselves.
    User avatar
    bmorepunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 726
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:56 pm


  • Anthony! wrote:Dude I understand what you are saying but I do not believe it is happening as much as you think.


    If we were talking 2012 I would agree, but stuffing Lynch seemed to be the major priority of every defense Seattle faced in 2013, and defenses were quite open in saying this before games, including Denver before XLVIII. Which made sense, Seattle was #1 in the NFL in rushing percentage and #1 by a lot in 1st down rushing percentage last season. Eight in the box or not, teams were keying on Lynch which has additional benefits to a QB, such as drawing fewer nickle defenses.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • kearly wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:Dude I understand what you are saying but I do not believe it is happening as much as you think.


    If we were talking 2012 I would agree, but stuffing Lynch seemed to be the major priority of every defense Seattle faced in 2013, and defenses were quite open in saying this before games, including Denver before XLVIII. Which made sense, Seattle was #1 in the NFL in rushing percentage and #1 by a lot in 1st down rushing percentage last season. Eight in the box or not, teams were keying on Lynch which has additional benefits to a QB, such as drawing fewer nickle defenses.



    That's all true except without RWs rushing we are not #1 and in fact middle of the pact and most teams identified they need to keep Rw from running, and again do to our predictable play calling most teams knew when we were running and when we were passing, so on running plays they would stack the box some, and on passing downs not stack the box. As to the keying on Lynch or not, not sure it really matters because as I said great, but that does not make up for the better o-lines, wrs, and passing offense other QB have.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Anthony! wrote:That's all true except without RWs rushing we are not #1 and in fact middle of the pact.


    Well, that's just flat incorrect. Seattle's non-QB carries are among the highest in the league, and Lynch in particular leads the NFL in carries over the past three seasons.

    I agree with the latter half of what you said, that's the reason why I have Wilson 5th or 6th despite his passer rating being only 8th last season. He made chicken salad out of chicken shit on many occasions.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • I know our O Line was weak a large portion of the season which contributed to RW running for his life on so many plays. That being said, the middle of the season he definitely didn't look like a top 5 QB perhaps not a top10. So I'm okay with the ranking. RW will continue to get better. I think by declaring he's a top 5 QB next to Brady, Manning, Brees in RW second year is just disrespectful to those other QBs. I love RW, he's a great QB who I think can and will become Elite, but he's not there yet. That's my 2 cents.
    ZagHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 766
    Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:42 pm


  • kearly wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:That's all true except without RWs rushing we are not #1 and in fact middle of the pact.


    Well, that's just flat incorrect. Seattle's non-QB carries are among the highest in the league, and Lynch in particular leads the NFL in carries over the past three seasons.

    I agree with the latter half of what you said, that's the reason why I have Wilson 5th or 6th despite his passer rating being only 8th last season. He made chicken salad out of chicken shit on many occasions.



    Dude you really should look at the stats before you write
    here is a easy subset just looking at a few teams, take out the Qbs rushing and here is what happens


    Denver 1873 yards 461 attempts 4.1 ypa
    GB 1955 yards 412 attempts 4.7 ypa
    Detroit 1723 yards 408 attempts 4.3 ypa
    NE 2047 yards 438 attempts 4.67 ypa
    Seattle 1649 yards 413 attempts 3.99 ypa


    That is just 5 teams, and we end up low remember Rw had well 539 yards rushing and we as a team only had 2188 so without RW that leaves 1649 as you can see above that difference makes the teams above have more rushing yards.

    Other teams who had more yards then us without the starting QB are

    Philly
    Buff
    SF
    Was
    NYJ
    Minn
    SD
    Chicago

    So that would be 12 teams that would be above us making us 13th which is middle of the pack.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • ZagHawk wrote:I know our O Line was weak a large portion of the season which contributed to RW running for his life on so many plays. That being said, the middle of the season he definitely didn't look like a top 5 QB perhaps not a top10. So I'm okay with the ranking. RW will continue to get better. I think by declaring he's a top 5 QB next to Brady, Manning, Brees in RW second year is just disrespectful to those other QBs. I love RW, he's a great QB who I think can and will become Elite, but he's not there yet. That's my 2 cents.



    You do realize the middle of the season is games 6-10, you realize we went 6-0 during that time and RWs lowest QB rating during that time was 91.3 and in fact his qb rating in those games were 98.5, 122.1, 117.6, 91.3, 134.6, and the 2 games after or games 11-12 he was at 151.4 and 139.6? You mean towards the end specifically games 13-16 were he had QB rating of 81.8, 86.3, 49.6 and 102.1. Of course that was a spread against 4 top 10 defenses. With 85 being the line for good QB play Rw only went below it 5 times, and was above 100 8 times. Comparing to Luck who was above 100 4 times and below 85 8 times, Brady was above 100 4 times, and below 85 7 times. So Rw actually did very well. Brees was above 100 8 times and below 85 5 times hmm just like RW.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • kearly wrote:
    WilsonMVP wrote:Not to rain on your parade but Wilson had a 191.8 QB rating his last year in college. Luck had 169.7 which was a tad lower than the year before. They were both in very similar offenses except for that was Wilsons first year in that offense and school.


    I think you are actually making my point, not contradicting it. Both QBs were outstanding in a run-first offense. Wilson was a little extra outstanding in 2011 thanks to a then record setting streak without an interception which occurred during that particular season. Luck had very similar numbers but didn't have the outlier season for interceptions that Wilson had. Point is, both were really, really good in that offense.


    I just found it interesting...Luck was actually 5th that year behind Wilson, RG3, Moore, and Keenum.

    Wilson actually is THE most effecient QB to EVER play Football in FBS. Single greatest college QB rating season. I was pointing out in my earlier post that it was also his first year at that program and in that offense in which he had to relearn an entire playbook. Unlike Luck who was at Stanford for his whole time.

    This would actually be the counterargument to anyone who claims Luck would be even better than Wilson on the Seahawks when under similar circumstances in college Wilson cant even be touched by Luck. In the 2 common opponents they played Wilson smoked Luck
    Image
    User avatar
    WilsonMVP
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 867
    Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am


  • Anthony! wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:That's all true except without RWs rushing we are not #1 and in fact middle of the pact.


    Well, that's just flat incorrect. Seattle's non-QB carries are among the highest in the league, and Lynch in particular leads the NFL in carries over the past three seasons.

    I agree with the latter half of what you said, that's the reason why I have Wilson 5th or 6th despite his passer rating being only 8th last season. He made chicken salad out of chicken shit on many occasions.



    Dude you really should look at the stats before you write
    here is a easy subset just looking at a few teams, take out the Qbs rushing and here is what happens


    Denver 1873 yards 461 attempts 4.1 ypa
    GB 1955 yards 412 attempts 4.7 ypa
    Detroit 1723 yards 408 attempts 4.3 ypa
    NE 2047 yards 438 attempts 4.67 ypa
    Seattle 1649 yards 413 attempts 3.99 ypa


    That is just 5 teams, and we end up low remember Rw had well 539 yards rushing and we as a team only had 2188 so without RW that leaves 1649 as you can see above that difference makes the teams above have more rushing yards.

    Other teams who had more yards then us without the starting QB are

    Philly
    Buff
    SF
    Was
    NYJ
    Minn
    SD
    Chicago

    So that would be 12 teams that would be above us making us 13th which is middle of the pack.


    So what happens when you make that into a percentage of total snaps? It looks to me like those first 4 teams you list run a high volume offense, and IIRC Seattle took the lowest number of snaps on the season.
    Denver 675 pass attempts. 1156 total plays.
    Green Bay 570 pass attempts. 1074 plays. (with Aaron Rodgers out for a time, or the numbers would be higher)
    Detroit 634 pass attempts. 1102 plays.
    New England 628 pass attempts. 1128 plays.
    Seattle 420 pass attempts. 973 plays. One of these teams is not like the others?

    Sure, total number of runs put Seattle in the middle of the pack. But when measured vs total plays, Seattle is one of two teams that ran more than they passed. In a low volume offense.

    Context is everything.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11074
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    Anthony! wrote:That's all true except without RWs rushing we are not #1 and in fact middle of the pact.


    Well, that's just flat incorrect. Seattle's non-QB carries are among the highest in the league, and Lynch in particular leads the NFL in carries over the past three seasons.

    I agree with the latter half of what you said, that's the reason why I have Wilson 5th or 6th despite his passer rating being only 8th last season. He made chicken salad out of chicken shit on many occasions.



    Dude you really should look at the stats before you write
    here is a easy subset just looking at a few teams, take out the Qbs rushing and here is what happens


    Denver 1873 yards 461 attempts 4.1 ypa
    GB 1955 yards 412 attempts 4.7 ypa
    Detroit 1723 yards 408 attempts 4.3 ypa
    NE 2047 yards 438 attempts 4.67 ypa
    Seattle 1649 yards 413 attempts 3.99 ypa


    That is just 5 teams, and we end up low remember Rw had well 539 yards rushing and we as a team only had 2188 so without RW that leaves 1649 as you can see above that difference makes the teams above have more rushing yards.

    Other teams who had more yards then us without the starting QB are

    Philly
    Buff
    SF
    Was
    NYJ
    Minn
    SD
    Chicago

    So that would be 12 teams that would be above us making us 13th which is middle of the pack.


    So what happens when you make that into a percentage of total snaps? It looks to me like those first 4 teams you list run a high volume offense, and IIRC Seattle took the lowest number of snaps on the season.
    Denver 675 pass attempts. 1156 total plays.
    Green Bay 570 pass attempts. 1074 plays. (with Aaron Rodgers out for a time, or the numbers would be higher)
    Detroit 634 pass attempts. 1102 plays.
    New England 628 pass attempts. 1128 plays.
    Seattle 420 pass attempts. 973 plays. One of these teams is not like the others?

    Sure, total number of runs put Seattle in the middle of the pack. But when measured vs total plays, Seattle is one of two teams that ran more than they passed. In a low volume offense.

    Context is everything.



    Dude you measure a run game by yards not attempts. If you only avg 2 ypc but run the ball 20 more times than nay other team that is not going to bring 8 in the box. Its about success running the ball not attempts, and as I showed they had more yards and if you look at the initial 5 not only do they get more yads but their ypc are higher. Not to mention if your run game is sucking teams are not going to stack the box. While lynch was the #6 rusher he actually did not have a great season avg 4.2 ypc, which is okay, but he has 9 games were he avg under 4 ypc, and 13 game sunder 100 yards, and 9 game sunder 90 yards. Team were not having to stack the box to stop him much last year. Example first game against Carolina he only had 17 carries, for 2.5 ypc, Carolina stopped stacking the box in qtr 2. Teams may have been starting stacking the box,,,, but after a while of him struggling which happened more often than not, they stopped stacking the box. or went to a run blitz designed to stop the run by both ML and RW and get pressure on the QB before he can get rid of the ball, given how hard it was for our WR to get open.

    The point is the stacking of the box just to stop our RB run game is not as prevalent as you think. I mean Denver stopped it after the first Qtr and it did not matter much. Add to that we are pretty easy to figure out in the first qtr run, run , pass, its not until the 2nd qtr and we are passed the scripted plays we get tricky.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 902
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • We were talking about play call percentage, not rushing yard totals. Seattle's rushing plays as a percentage are one of the highest in the league. That is a fact. Even when you take Wilson's 92 carries out, it is still true. Lynch has the most rush attempts of any RB the last three years, and that doesn't even factor that Seattle has fewer total plays than just about any other team during that period.

    When a defense is deciding whether he's going to key on a RB or not in a given play, it has nothing to do with counting stats and everything to do with the probability that the play will in fact be a run. Otherwise, teams would be keying on guys like Knowshon Moreno or Reggie Bush just because those offenses rushed for a lot of yards last season. Which of course, they do not.
    Last edited by kearly on Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:52 am, edited 5 times in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11034
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Next


It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:13 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information