Grantland: Russell Wilson and the "It Factor"

[kearly]

Jake Plummer was one of the more clutch 4th quarter QBs you will ever see both in college and in the pros. Unfortunately for him, he mostly sucked in the other 3 quarters.

Playing your best football in the face of adversity is not a trait that's exclusively limited to elite QBs.

In fairness to you, Elway is the only one of those QBs who was universally given his fair due as a clutch QB by the media, and it only happened after he started posting winning records and reaching SBs. But even when he was struggling to win games at Stanford, he was still the same "it factor" QB he would be in the pros. Which is why he went #1 overall in one of the best QB drafts of all time.

 

[bigDhawk]

[. . .]

Presented with the most obvious It Factor guys in football, not a single team trusted their read enough to snap up Brady or Wilson with their first- or even their second-round pick. The next time you read about somebody having the It Factor, remember that the professionals couldn’t see it even when it was staring them in the face.

[. . .]

This applies a little more to Brady than Wilson. It's not like Seattle just stumbled upon Wilson in the third round after passing on him twice. Schneider knew exactly the kind of franchise QB he might be getting in Wilson and wanted to pull the trigger before 75. He didn't because there was no chance Irvin or Wagz would be there at 75 but Wilson was likely to be. Schneider understood this but still Pete had to talk him into it.

So it wasn't so much a matter of teams like Seattle not grading Wilson as a first round talent, but instead recognizing his value to the field at large relative to other players on their board.

 

[Scottemojo]

Does anyone else not see the correlation between 'IT' and winning?

Is it possible to have the 'IT' factor, but just be on a really bad team? Can someone name an Athlete with IT that has a losing career?

Jake Locker.

Jake Plummer before 2005.

There is a little bit of 'it' to Ryan Fitzpatrick, hence the nickname "Fitzmagic". Of course, he's still a pretty bad QB despite that.

John Elway never had a winning season at Stanford. He was .500 or worse in all four of his starting seasons.

Tony Romo is among the all time leaders in 4th quarter comebacks, and he's basically a career .500 starter at QB.

Wait, are you saying they all have "IT"? Please tell me thats not what you are saying. Cause IT is sounding worse and worse.

And "tilt the field" is equally incapable of capturing specifics.

Besides, how do you ever say Elway didn't have "it"?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

My problem is that they seem to only use the "it factor" to define late round picks that unexpectedly succeed. For example, you always hear the term to describe Tom Brady but not Aaron Rodgers.

I will say, your definition actually makes me appreciate the term somewhat.

I think if you polled the Green Bay coaches and players they'd say that Rodger's has an "it" factor. IMO it's just something innate that you can't tangibly teach. The personality to lead and captivate those around you.

Plenty of QB's have the talent but not an "it factor." No one says guys like Matt Ryan, RG3, Michael Vick, Cam Newton, Jay Cutler, Tony Romo, Philip Rivers, Kaeperstink, etc has an it factor. They're just supremely talented athletes, but IMO they don't possess the intangible it factor that allows them to become the leaders of their teams like Russell.

 

[Cartire]

Jake Plummer was one of the more clutch 4th quarter QBs you will ever see both in college and in the pros. Unfortunately for him, he mostly sucked in the other 3 quarters.

Playing your best football in the face of adversity is not a trait that's exclusively limited to elite QBs.

In fairness to you, Elway is the only one of those QBs who was universally given his fair due as a clutch QB by the media, and it only happened after he started posting winning records and reaching SBs. But even when he was struggling to win games at Stanford, he was still the same "it factor" QB he would be in the pros. Which is why he went #1 overall in one of the best QB drafts of all time.

So it sounds like, the word your looking for, is clutch. Every way I have heard "it" described is way better then ever saying IT.

Those were "Clutch" QB's who had the ability to rally the team and create "comebacks". Both words are far better then "It".

Scott,

As for Elway, he was very good at the beginning of his career, and at the end of his career. But he did have an 8 year stretch with only a few winning seasons. He also averaged about 3 4th Qtr Comebacks a year. Dont get me wrong. Elway is not a bad QB. He was very good. And I could easily see the argument for him being "Clutch" at times.

I just hate this "IT" factor everyone seems to like. The fact that there is 10 different definitions that everyone seems to agree with in this thread alone, should tell you how dumb it is.

 

[Scottemojo]

Cartire, it's just semantics. Clutch, It, Tilt the field. All ways of saying a guy makes the players around him better in critical moments.

Funny enough, great careers described those 3 ways often come down to just a few moments. Fair? Hardly. If Montana played for years with a shitty D like Marino, would we say Montana was Joe Cool? Not likely. Circumstances matter too.

 

[Tech Worlds]

Clutch doesn't describe what it is either. The coaches didn't know Russell was clutch when he came to camp but they certainly knew that he had IT by his presence.

 

[DavidSeven]

I think of it as this: When all around you is going to shit, Elway, Wilson, Brady, Montana, and a rare few like them not only get better, but have a calming effect on their teammates.

Yep. Bingo.

This is what Pete Carroll said in February 2012 when asked about evaluating new QBs:

"We're looking for a guy that can really carry it when it's tough and make plays when you need it to happen, that affects guys around him in a real positive way because of what he brings," Carroll said.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... uarterback

He's alluding to "tilt-the-field" i.e. "it factor" here. I think the ability to affect your teammates when everything is going to crap by just being who you are is the key ingredient of this definition and how a QB with "it" can help a team in a tangible way. When the team feels like their QB has "it", they're not going to quit on him (consciously or subconsiously) when the going gets tough.

 

[irocdave]

The "it factor" seems to be used more times than not in hindsight. I don't think you can measure the IT Factor. If you could there would be a test in HS for "IT". It = 's an accumulative thing, life experiences, genetics, athletic ability, will to succeed, personality traits, work ethic, on and on it goes.

If Tom B had the health issues of a certain Rams QB, he could have every ounce of "it" in the world and guess what? He would still be without a job after his rookie contract was up. If he had the arm and mind to play QB at a high level but no leadership skills, think Jeff George. To claim it's as simple as "IT factor" is just stupid.

What if Wilson and Tom B were #1 picks and had the load on them from day one in OTA's on crappy teams? Would they have the same mentality they do know? We will never know. I would like to think yes to both but who knows.

When the Hawks made Rick Mirer the 2nd pick in the 93 draft he was supposed to have the "it". He looked like he had "it" after his first season. Then the rest of his career happened.

Wilson doesn't have "it" nor does Tom Brady. They earned "it".

 

[Sac]

RW has "IT" alright.

 

[kearly]

RW has "IT" alright.

Big hands?

 

[Sac]

RW has "IT" alright.

Big hands?

Exactly.

 

[hawker84]

i don't care what any of the doubters say,, "IT" exist, whatever "IT" is, and RW definitely has "IT"..... I don't need stats and career comparison numbers to tell me, i can see with my own two eyes. I saw "IT" in his very first pre-season game, and i continued to see "IT" last friday night against Chicago.

By comparison i do not see "IT" in Kaeperdink. I see a tremendous amount of raw talent and athletisism, but i have yet to see "IT" from him to this point. You can lump RGIII in that catagory as well.

 

[chawx]

I think you can quantify in stats the "IT" factor of a player, it would take a lot of film watching and a lot of time compiling not only the players stats in certain situations and stats of others around him, but I think you could put a number on it.

First off, you have to define "IT". Does it mean they win when they shouldn't, or play better when the team is down and needs to comeback from behind, or make plays when none are there to be made, or make others better around him?

Because you could make a case that Russell does all of that and there is a way to see if the stats prove it. One small part of that would be to find out what his completion % or yards (passing or rushing) when there is 5 minutes or less left in the half/game. That would give you a good idea, if the guy goes 1/6 for 8 yards on the final drive, then he probably didn't have IT. On the other hand, if he drove 97 yards in 3:16 IN Chicago and went 7/10 for 80 yards, ran for 19 yards and recovered a fumble...then proceeded to do it all again in OT, you would legitimately have the stats to say that the guys had IT in that game.

There are obviously other stats you could find and use those to compare players (comebacks, win %, etc.) who may or may not have "IT".

But, once you get a big enough sample, you could use the stats to back up your "IT" factor argument pretty easy. But like other posters said, you can't be lazy and just say he has "IT" when there are actual legitimate ways to see stats that link a player to being someone who can do what's needed to win the game when another guy (Romo, Culter, others) would fail.

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

Sanchez. Easy.

I remember a few years back on .Net when gents were falling all over themselves wishing we'd drafted the Sanchize. Funny how things change.

 

[Sac]

Sanchez. Easy.

I remember a few years back on .Net when gents were falling all over themselves wishing we'd drafted the Sanchize. Funny how things change.

I was NOT one of those people.

 

[SeaToTheHawks]

Having the "it" factor is certainly real, just not really quantifiable. The way I always think about it is finding a way to win. One of my favorite players to watch in college was Jason Gesser. He just had that uncanny way of always willing his team to victory and figuring out a way to do it. He wasn't the most talented. Wasn't the most athletic. Not the biggest. But he always figured out a way to get the job done.

If you can't see the "it" in players, then I'm sorry, you don't have "it"

 

[Cartire]

If you can't see the "it" in players, then I'm sorry, you don't have "it"

Well if it takes 'IT' to see 'IT', then there is a large amount of people on this forum that have 'IT'. Leave your jobs now, you have millions to go make.