According to O'Neil, Wilson is doing above average then most rookie QBs over the past 20 years.

Of all the rookies who began the season as their team's starting quarterback over the past 20 years, only one attempted fewer passes than Russell Wilson through five games.

But none had more victories.

Coach Pete Carroll has tailored his team's approach to the fact that he went with a rookie. In evaluating the results of that decision after five games, the best comparison isn't to the rest of the quarterbacks who are starting in this league or the guy who could be starting here in Matt Flynn, but the 20 rookies who started at quarterback in Week 1 over the past 20 years.

http://seattletimes.com/html/dannyoneil/2019387527_oneil10.html

http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawksbl ... _comp.html

Last week was a step in the right direction, lets hope he continues to build on that!

I find this piece absurd. Wins are not a QB stat. If our defense doesn't play at an unbelievable level, we'd be 0-5 and Wilson would have been benched already.

And you know what? The Seahawks have done that. Through five games, Seattle not only has a winning record but has had a chance to win every game.

Yeah, and in no way is Wilson responsible for this. In a game where our defense was dominating beyond reasonable expecations, we were only up 6-0, and Russell managed to give away the lead.

Fearless Frog wrote:I find this piece absurd. Wins are not a QB stat. If our defense doesn't play at an unbelievable level, we'd be 0-5 and Wilson would have been benched already.

And you know what? The Seahawks have done that. Through five games, Seattle not only has a winning record but has had a chance to win every game.

Yeah, and in no way is Wilson responsible for this. In a game where our defense was dominating beyond reasonable expecations, we were only up 6-0, and Russell managed to give away the lead.

Ah, I see. So if we lose it's his fault but if we win it's none of his doing. Got it. Good talk.

Fearless Frog wrote:I find this piece absurd. Wins are not a QB stat. If our defense doesn't play at an unbelievable level, we'd be 0-5 and Wilson would have been benched already.

And you know what? The Seahawks have done that. Through five games, Seattle not only has a winning record but has had a chance to win every game.

Yeah, and in no way is Wilson responsible for this. In a game where our defense was dominating beyond reasonable expecations, we were only up 6-0, and Russell managed to give away the lead.

Actually Wilson kinda is responsible. Without his touchdown passes to Mccoy and Tate then we currently wouldn't have a 3-2 record.

Zebulon Dak wrote:

Fearless Frog wrote:I find this piece absurd. Wins are not a QB stat. If our defense doesn't play at an unbelievable level, we'd be 0-5 and Wilson would have been benched already.

And you know what? The Seahawks have done that. Through five games, Seattle not only has a winning record but has had a chance to win every game.

Yeah, and in no way is Wilson responsible for this. In a game where our defense was dominating beyond reasonable expecations, we were only up 6-0, and Russell managed to give away the lead.

Ah, I see. So if we lose it's his fault but if we win it's none of his doing. Got it. Good talk.

Wins are not a QB stat. This is not an opinion. Teams win games. A QB can throw 3 pick-sixes and his team can still win, do you credit that as a "QB win" and "he played well enough for the team to win"?

Fearless Frog wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:
Ah, I see. So if we lose it's his fault but if we win it's none of his doing. Got it. Good talk.

Wins are not a QB stat. This is not an opinion. Teams win games. A QB can throw 3 pick-sixes and his team can still win, do you credit that as a "QB win" and "he played well enough for the team to win"?

It depends on what he did with the rest of his snaps. No 1, 2 or even 3 plays win or lose a game on their own.

You're only as strong as your weakest link, right? Right now the Seahwks are 3-2. Russell Wilson is 3-2 as a starting QB. Take your bullshit somewhere else.

Zebulon Dak wrote:

Fearless Frog wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:
Ah, I see. So if we lose it's his fault but if we win it's none of his doing. Got it. Good talk.

Wins are not a QB stat. This is not an opinion. Teams win games. A QB can throw 3 pick-sixes and his team can still win, do you credit that as a "QB win" and "he played well enough for the team to win"?

It depends on what he did with the rest of his snaps. No 1, 2 or even 3 plays win or lose a game on their own.

You're only as strong as your weakest link, right? Right now the Seahwks are 3-2. Russell Wilson is 3-2 as a starting QB. Take your bullshit somewhere else.

Bullshit? Don't get mad at me for pointing out the obvious. Here's a better example: A team wins a game 3-0 on a field goal, or 2-0 from a safety. Is that a QB win? The QB played well enough to win?

I'm sorry, but this is football. It is the ultimate team sport. Saying Russell Wilson deserves to continue to start because the team is 3-2 flies in the face of all long and evidence that we've seen on the field.

It is possible to like Wilson and still recognize that team stats can be silly when applied to individual players.

The Cardinals are leading our division, does that make Kolb/Skelton the best QB tandem? The Falcons are undefeated, does that make Lousaka Polite the best fullback in the NFL? Of course not.

You only think it is persuasive because the argument fits your conclusion. If the GB game ended differently and we were 2-3 would you be arguing to bench Wilson based on our record? You wouldn't, because you don't actually believe that the team's record tells you what you need to know about QB play.

Imagine that TJack was our QB this year with the same passing production. Would you still be citing our 3-2 record as the reason why we needed to stick with him instead of giving Wilson a shot?

AgentDib wrote:It is possible to like Wilson and still recognize that team stats can be silly when applied to individual players.

The Cardinals are leading our division, does that make Kolb/Skelton the best QB tandem? The Falcons are undefeated, does that make Lousaka Polite the best fullback in the NFL? Of course not.

You only think it is persuasive because the argument fits your conclusion. If the GB game ended differently and we were 2-3 would you be arguing to bench Wilson based on our record? You wouldn't, because you don't actually believe that the team's record tells you what you need to know about QB play.

Imagine that TJack was our QB this year with the same passing production. Would you still be citing our 3-2 record as the reason why we needed to stick with him instead of giving Wilson a shot?

EXACTLY. Thank you for articulating this point in a way that I couldn't.

AgentDib wrote:Imagine that TJack was our QB this year with the same passing production. Would you still be citing our 3-2 record as the reason why we needed to stick with him instead of giving Wilson a shot?

Yes, if that's what Coach thought was the best thing to do.

I don't CARE who our QB is. I never have. I want the guy who the people in charge believe is our best option. Right now they think it's Wilson so that's who I think it is.

Zebulon Dak wrote:

AgentDib wrote:Imagine that TJack was our QB this year with the same passing production. Would you still be citing our 3-2 record as the reason why we needed to stick with him instead of giving Wilson a shot?

Yes, if that's what Coach thought was the best thing to do.

I don't CARE who our QB is. I never have. I want the guy who the people in charge believe is our best option. Right now they think it's Wilson so that's who I think it is.

We agree on this completely. And that is why we are both supporting Wilson, not because our record is 3-2 or 2-3 or 17-grapefruit.

Fearless Frog wrote:I find this piece absurd. Wins are not a QB stat. If our defense doesn't play at an unbelievable level, we'd be 0-5 and Wilson would have been benched already.

And you know what? The Seahawks have done that. Through five games, Seattle not only has a winning record but has had a chance to win every game.

Yeah, and in no way is Wilson responsible for this. In a game where our defense was dominating beyond reasonable expecations, we were only up 6-0, and Russell managed to give away the lead.

Did you not even look at the second article that compares the stats of some notable rookies and compares them through five games? He is on par and beyond some through five games with qb rating, completion %, and TD/int ratio. The only thing he is below on are on attempts and yards. There is nothing to hate about his progression. Nobody should expect him to be all world or Peyton Manning his rookie season.

Hmmm....where have I seen this thread before?

AF_Hawk wrote:

Fearless Frog wrote:I find this piece absurd. Wins are not a QB stat. If our defense doesn't play at an unbelievable level, we'd be 0-5 and Wilson would have been benched already.

And you know what? The Seahawks have done that. Through five games, Seattle not only has a winning record but has had a chance to win every game.

Yeah, and in no way is Wilson responsible for this. In a game where our defense was dominating beyond reasonable expecations, we were only up 6-0, and Russell managed to give away the lead.

Did you not even look at the second article that compares the stats of some notable rookies and compares them through five games? He is on par and beyond some through five games with qb rating, completion %, and TD/int ratio. The only thing he is below on are on attempts and yards. There is nothing to hate about his progression. Nobody should expect him to be all world or Peyton Manning his rookie season.

Sorry but Wilson does not have the luxury of playing like a rookie when there is a perfectly good veteran option on the bench (who I'm betting money on will still be a far better pro than Wilson). And Wilson is in a FAR better situation than the other rookie QBs being compared. Realistically, this may be the best team Wilson will ever be a part of. This is the best defense in franchise history and a rushing game that compares favorably with 2005's.

Usually, when a team a picks a top QB in the draft, it is because they were terrible the year before. That is not the case here.

We have a top 5 defense, and a top 5 running game. For a true comparison, you would have to compare RW only with teams with same strengths or weaknesses. IMHO.

Last time I looked, football was a team game. Did Luck inherit a team with the same talent as Wilson? If not, then the comparisons are flawed.

The Colts give up 27.5 points a game.

We give up 14. points a game.

Just sayin'.

Fearless Frog wrote:I find this piece absurd. Wins are not a QB stat. If our defense doesn't play at an unbelievable level, we'd be 0-5 and Wilson would have been benched already.

And you know what? The Seahawks have done that. Through five games, Seattle not only has a winning record but has had a chance to win every game.

Yeah, and in no way is Wilson responsible for this. In a game where our defense was dominating beyond reasonable expecations, we were only up 6-0, and Russell managed to give away the lead.

Awesome to know that losses are to blame on qbs but wins are not.

Fearless Frog wrote:

AF_Hawk wrote:

Fearless Frog wrote:I find this piece absurd. Wins are not a QB stat. If our defense doesn't play at an unbelievable level, we'd be 0-5 and Wilson would have been benched already.

[quote]And you know what? The Seahawks have done that. Through five games, Seattle not only has a winning record but has had a chance to win every game.

Yeah, and in no way is Wilson responsible for this. In a game where our defense was dominating beyond reasonable expecations, we were only up 6-0, and Russell managed to give away the lead.

Did you not even look at the second article that compares the stats of some notable rookies and compares them through five games? He is on par and beyond some through five games with qb rating, completion %, and TD/int ratio. The only thing he is below on are on attempts and yards. There is nothing to hate about his progression. Nobody should expect him to be all world or Peyton Manning his rookie season.

Sorry but Wilson does not have the luxury of playing like a rookie when there is a perfectly good veteran option on the bench (who I'm betting money on will still be a far better pro than Wilson). And Wilson is in a FAR better situation than the other rookie QBs being compared. Realistically, this may be the best team Wilson will ever be a part of. This is the best defense in franchise history and a rushing game that compares favorably with 2005's.[/quote]

You do realize that despite some hiccups Wilson has played against some good defenses and faired well considering poor offensive line play right? And why do people think automatically that Flynn would be any better considering the poor oline play?

Fearless Frog wrote:Sorry but Wilson does not have the luxury of playing like a rookie when there is a perfectly good veteran option on the bench (who I'm betting money on will still be a far better pro than Wilson). And Wilson is in a FAR better situation than the other rookie QBs being compared. Realistically, this may be the best team Wilson will ever be a part of. This is the best defense in franchise history and a rushing game that compares favorably with 2005's.

Less starting experience than Wilson does not make him a veteran. Sitting on the bench for all but one season of your eight year college and professional career does not make you a veteran. Wilson had more starts in college and has more starts in the pro's. Game experience is far more valuable than sitting for years.

Fearless Frog wrote:
Sorry but Wilson does not have the luxury of playing like a rookie when there is a perfectly good veteran option on the bench (who I'm betting money on will still be a far better pro than Wilson).

Dude should have beat out the rookie, then.

Zebulon Dak wrote:

Fearless Frog wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:
Ah, I see. So if we lose it's his fault but if we win it's none of his doing. Got it. Good talk.

Wins are not a QB stat. This is not an opinion. Teams win games. A QB can throw 3 pick-sixes and his team can still win, do you credit that as a "QB win" and "he played well enough for the team to win"?

It depends on what he did with the rest of his snaps. No 1, 2 or even 3 plays win or lose a game on their own.

You're only as strong as your weakest link, right? Right now the Seahwks are 3-2. Russell Wilson is 3-2 as a starting QB. Take your bullshit somewhere else.

Wow, just wow. Do you have some man crush on Wilson? No logic to this argument and you use profanity. Classy!

edogg23 wrote:Wow, just wow. Do you have some man crush on Wilson? No logic to this argument and you use profanity. Classy!

GFY.

Well, at least now we know who's alias Fearless Frog is.

Cool 2 posts in a row that make no sense...

edogg23 wrote:Cool 2 posts in a row that make no sense...

wtf is your problem?

You are cursing at people who have a valid point and then accusing me of using different usernames. That's my problem. I've been trying to stay out of these arguments lately but this is ridiculous.

edogg23 wrote:You are cursing at people who have a valid point and then accusing me of using different usernames. That's my problem. I've been trying to stay out of these arguments lately but this is ridiculous.

You don't like it? Take it to the Shack then buddy. There's no personal attacks in the main forum.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Well, at least now we know who's alias Fearless Frog is.

Fearless Frog isn't anybody's alias. He's QUITE notorious over at Fieldgulls, where he's long since been banned. I always liked his contributions though, personally.

kearly wrote:

Zebulon Dak wrote:Well, at least now we know who's alias Fearless Frog is.

Fearless Frog isn't anybody's alias. He's QUITE notorious over at Fieldgulls, where he's long since been banned. I always liked his contributions though, personally.

Seems like a real class act.

this argument sounds exactly like every argument i ever heard from a senior in highschool who lost his job to some "frosh who didn't deserve to be there" and how the team would be doing so much better if they were in there........

LymonHawk wrote:Hmmm....where have I seen this thread before?

Preach it brother.
Here's something else O'Neil said regarding the QB situation. It pretty much sums up these boards the last several weeks:


They signed Flynn in free agency, and could have gone with him, and when Carroll still opted for the rookie it meant that Wilson wasn't going to be measured against other rookies, he was going to be compared to what everyone imagined Flynn might be doing with this same opportunity.

The result is an argument that is endlessly circular and not all that informative about how Wilson is either performing or progressing.

Fearless Frog. Nice to see you make your way over from every opponents board over at SBN to ours. I agree, wins are not a QB stat that can be equally applied.

But what about comeback wins in the 4th quarter? while still a vague way to measure, that is a stat I have always looked at because of it's clutch indicator and it's correlation to a quarterback getting a grasp of the defense he is facing.

BASF wrote:

Fearless Frog wrote:Sorry but Wilson does not have the luxury of playing like a rookie when there is a perfectly good veteran option on the bench (who I'm betting money on will still be a far better pro than Wilson). And Wilson is in a FAR better situation than the other rookie QBs being compared. Realistically, this may be the best team Wilson will ever be a part of. This is the best defense in franchise history and a rushing game that compares favorably with 2005's.

Less starting experience than Wilson does not make him a veteran. Sitting on the bench for all but one season of your eight year college and professional career does not make you a veteran. Wilson had more starts in college and has more starts in the pro's. Game experience is far more valuable than sitting for years.

Wilson does indeed have more playing experience in the NFL, but Flynn is undoubtedly better at the mechanics of the game, Carroll mentioned as much. Those years in the NFL actually help Flynn in that regard. Wilson is seeing coverages, and certain pressure packages that he has never seen when he played in the NCAA. Flynn has had 4 years to study the pro game, and as I said Carroll eluded to Flynn being more adept at pre-snap reads, and audibles. I have no doubt that Flynn is the better player right now, but there are some reasons why Carroll went with Wilson.

The first of which is potential, and schematic fit. Carroll wants a very specific type of player and Russell Wilson fits his description of what he calls the "point guard" QB, Flynn does not. Secondly Wilson is more athletic and has the bigger arm than Flynn, and he has intangibles off of the chart. Carroll simply decided to go with potential rather than a player that may be better now.

I really hope that Wilson doesn't have more experience because that is what is holding him back and if he has more experience then either we are seeing his ceiling or Flynn's floor is already higher.

Make up your mind. Either Wilson needs to gain experience over Flynn or Flynn has the higher ceiling. It doesn't add up.

Pretty obvious to most, Flynn has improved each year and we should expect the same from Wilson. Trying to compare college starts and 5 rookie games to Flynn's time in the league is ridiculous. If it were not then it would be fair to say Flynn still has better numbers in two games than Wilson has in five. Just not as many picks.

RichNhansom wrote:I really hope that Wilson doesn't have more experience because that is what is holding him back and if he has more experience then either we are seeing his ceiling or Flynn's floor is already higher.

Make up your mind. Either Wilson needs to gain experience over Flynn or Flynn has the higher ceiling. It doesn't add up.

Pretty obvious to most, Flynn has improved each year and we should expect the same from Wilson. Trying to compare college starts and 5 rookie games to Flynn's time in the league is ridiculous. If it were not then it would be fair to say Flynn still has better numbers in two games than Wilson has in five. Just not as many picks.

Look what Flynn had in GB and compare that to what Wilson has in Seattle. The only thing going for Wilson is a great running game. GB is built around a passing attack that passes 60%+ times a game. Seattle under Carroll has been pretty 50/50 in terms of pass/run. I would think it would be much harder to get into a passing rhythm with your receivers when you are dedicated to establishing a run game as well.

I think a better way to compare Wilson is with his PEERS starting this year in the NFL: 92 yrs or less:

Luck -- Playing very well looks be the SUPERSTAR everyone expected him to be.

Tannahill --- Playing Amazingly well and keeping his team in the game (They are 2 OT away from being 4-1 thats amazing! and he threw for over 400 yards against AZ? I think.)

Wilson -- Smart QB, who reminds me personally a lot of Tom Brady in 2001. He is doing enough to win but not making the big mistake (usually) to cost the team the game.

Cleveland QB (I forgot hi name) -- got feel sorry for him no one to throw to and the line is gawd awful.. I say INC since he has no chance.


Locker -- very slow delivery and can be easily fooled by D right now, has a lot of growing to do still.

RG3 --- Is a good QB, but I see a short life span with his scrambling causing him injuries and can he fall into the NEWTON TRAP?


Cam Newton -- Over rated and pouting big time. He is nothing more than a glorified Young, a below average QB wit running ability

AF the Pack are 2-3 right now with that vaunted offense and who many believe to be the best QB in football and he has, Jennings and Starks and a much better D then Flynn had so your argument is kind of mute right now

Here he would have an even better D and way better running game to take pressure off. Being able to read defenses, utilize a three step drop and the middle of the field along with throwing receivers open should help instead of hurt his chances.

Wait, so O'Neil's point is that out of all the rookie QB's, Wilson has sucked the least?

This is the NFL, nobody cares if your QB is a rookie, he's held up to EVERY QB in the league, not just the rookies. Fair or not, this is about performing........and so far Wilson's at the bottom of just about every statistical QB category.

RichNhansom wrote:AF the Pack are 2-3 right now with that vaunted offense and who many believe to be the best QB in football and he has, Jennings and Starks and a much better D then Flynn had so your argument is kind of mute right now

Here he would have an even better D and way better running game to take pressure off. Being able to read defenses, utilize a three step drop and the middle of the field along with throwing receivers open should help instead of hurt his chances.

I'm talking about when Flynn played for GB, not the current GB Packers.

Danny O'Neil wrote:

Of all the rookies who began the season as their team's starting quarterback over the past 20 years, only one attempted fewer passes than Russell Wilson through five games.

But none had more victories.

Few rookies had the talent in place on the roster already that Wilson inherited. I'd say off the top of my head, only maybe Big Ben and Flacco had more on D in recent memory.

The team is winning in SPITE of Wilson, not BECAUSE of Wilson.

Fearless Frog wrote:Bullshit? Don't get mad at me for pointing out the obvious. Here's a better example: A team wins a game 3-0 on a field goal, or 2-0 from a safety. Is that a QB win? The QB played well enough to win?

I'm sorry, but this is football. It is the ultimate team sport. Saying Russell Wilson deserves to continue to start because the team is 3-2 flies in the face of all long and evidence that we've seen on the field.

Don't bring logic to the table with Wilson backers.

Everything good that happens = Wilson did it.

Everything bad = His OL, Darrell Bevell, the WR's, the temperature of Lake Washington, etc etc etc.

The kid can do no wrong on this message board.. when ANY other QB would have far more backlash..

Well, if you take this debate to its most illogical conclusion, then we should just get rid of the QB and run a Single Wing. That way the QB can’t screw-up all those “team” wins…

Hasselbeck wrote:

Fearless Frog wrote:Bullshit? Don't get mad at me for pointing out the obvious. Here's a better example: A team wins a game 3-0 on a field goal, or 2-0 from a safety. Is that a QB win? The QB played well enough to win?

I'm sorry, but this is football. It is the ultimate team sport. Saying Russell Wilson deserves to continue to start because the team is 3-2 flies in the face of all long and evidence that we've seen on the field.

Don't bring logic to the table with Wilson backers.

Everything good that happens = Wilson did it.

Everything bad = His OL, Darrell Bevell, the WR's, the temperature of Lake Washington, etc etc etc.

The kid can do no wrong on this message board.. when ANY other QB would have far more backlash..

And here's my problem. You "non Wilson supporters" act like it's somehow our fault when things don't go well. Like if there's not enough "backlash" then the team's not going to get better. It's just plain stupid. You think how you feel and what you say has an effect on what happens on the field and IT DOES NOT.

I'm not a Wilson supporter. Sure, I like the kid, but he's not more important to me than the team. I'm a Seahawks QB supporter. So until that's somebody other than Wilson, I'm gonna root for the guy who's playing and I'm reasonable and rational enough to not jump ship when there's some bumps in the road.

Just like I supported TJ! last year. And Hass before that. And Seneca. And Dilfer. And Kitna. And Moon. And Friesz. And Mirer. And Gelbaugh. And McGwire. And Stouffer. And Krieg. And Mathison. And Gilbert. And Kemp. That's as far back as I can go. Although I'm sure I would have supported Zorn were I aware of the situation at the time.

Hasselbeck wrote:

Danny O'Neil wrote:

Of all the rookies who began the season as their team's starting quarterback over the past 20 years, only one attempted fewer passes than Russell Wilson through five games.

But none had more victories.

Few rookies had the talent in place on the roster already that Wilson inherited. I'd say off the top of my head, only maybe Big Ben and Flacco had more on D in recent memory.

The team is winning in SPITE of Wilson, not BECAUSE of Wilson.

Flacco was 2-3 to start out his 2008 season with worse stats then Wilson overall BY FAR. I'm sure Ravens fans are happy they stuck with Flacco. Flacco had a 1/7 td/int ratio and threw for barely more yards then Wilson (844 to 815) but he also threw 19 more passes.

Roethlisberger was a different animal all together, I don't think any rookie did as well as him his first season.

Oooh! And the Charlies too. Both em.

AF- hAWK,

I think Newton broke records as a Rookie last year, but most 1st yr starters struggle, there are rare exceptions to that rule. 9Brady,newton, Big Ben, etc)

I mean even P Manning struggled as a rookie, does ANYONE think of him as a bust?

PatsFanNH wrote:AF- hAWK,

I think Newton broke records as a Rookie last year, but most 1st yr starters struggle, there are rare exceptions to that rule. 9Brady,newton, Big Ben, etc)

I mean even P Manning struggled as a rookie, does ANYONE think of him as a bust?

Brady was 1/3 for 6 yards his rookie year.

*I know you said 1st year starter.

Zebulon Dak wrote:

PatsFanNH wrote:AF- hAWK,

I think Newton broke records as a Rookie last year, but most 1st yr starters struggle, there are rare exceptions to that rule. 9Brady,newton, Big Ben, etc)

I mean even P Manning struggled as a rookie, does ANYONE think of him as a bust?

Brady was 1/3 for 6 yards his rookie year.

*I know you said 1st year starter.

BUST!

Zebulon,

READ my post again.... I said 1st yr STARTERS.. As in the 1st year they take the reighns of the O...

PatsFanNH wrote:Zebulon,

READ my post again.... I said 1st yr STARTERS.. As in the 1st year they take the reighns of the O...

I did. And even though that doesn't really factor into our discussion here, it's duly noted.

Btw despite my avatar I don't hate the Pats. Fyi. I just hate the Pats until after Sunday. That's all.