Seahawkfan80
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,912
- Reaction score
- 1,820
Anthony!":3fiyq3o3 said:
Absolutely correct...The real game manager is
Pete Carroll
:thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:
If Russell was a Ram
- Thread starter EntiatHawk
- Start date
Absolutely correct...The real game manager is
Pete Carroll
:thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:
HawkAroundTheClock
New member
The term "game manager" has been used for a long time and I think it came about as a polite way of describing a guy who does positive things on the field, but nothing spectacular or dynamic. It was just nicer than saying, "He's adequate, but limited."
Over time, people began to associate that term with mediocre play, quite simply because it was being used when referring to mediocre QBs who sometimes won – despite their lack of special skills. At this point, anyone who uses it for Russell is just a rival fan or a woefully uninformed mediot. RW's play is full of spectacular and dynamic; he's a game changer, obviously.
But his play is also smart and efficient. He can "manage a game" in the sense of controlling tempo, preventing mistakes, and handling field position. Those are the qualities that, in the past, a QB without a deep ball, say, or without scrambling ability, would have to rely on for wins. The term eventually became associated with a QB who could ONLY do those things. That's where some ignorant fans and mediots (used to?) try to slag off Russell and mis-apply the old term "game manager" as an insult.
To me, it's less an indictment on RW and more an indication that the speaker knows very little of which they speak. Put another way, when used in a negative sense, "game manager" is just name-calling masquerading as football analysis.
Over time, people began to associate that term with mediocre play, quite simply because it was being used when referring to mediocre QBs who sometimes won – despite their lack of special skills. At this point, anyone who uses it for Russell is just a rival fan or a woefully uninformed mediot. RW's play is full of spectacular and dynamic; he's a game changer, obviously.
But his play is also smart and efficient. He can "manage a game" in the sense of controlling tempo, preventing mistakes, and handling field position. Those are the qualities that, in the past, a QB without a deep ball, say, or without scrambling ability, would have to rely on for wins. The term eventually became associated with a QB who could ONLY do those things. That's where some ignorant fans and mediots (used to?) try to slag off Russell and mis-apply the old term "game manager" as an insult.
To me, it's less an indictment on RW and more an indication that the speaker knows very little of which they speak. Put another way, when used in a negative sense, "game manager" is just name-calling masquerading as football analysis.
I blame fantasy football, which teaches people to emphasize individual stats over team wins. To those people, being a 'game manager' is a losing proposition.
In our system, Wilson will seldom put up gaudy passing stats, because he doesn't need to very often. Giving the MVP to the defense in SB48 was the right thing to do, but in fact Russ shredded Denver in that game. Frankly, we could have handed off to Lynch & Co 50 times and punted after 3 and outs 12 times and still won the game going away. Remember, our D and special teams scored enough to beat the spread.
So, while Russ is quite capable of and will occasionally put up great QB stats, it won't happen often enough for him to be a great FF pick. This makes him a less desirable QB to FF buffs, but he's still a great QB. So, when I hear someone use that term in a derogatory way, I just chalk it up to ignorance and that person's focus on the wrong things.
Like has been said here many times. If he 'manages' to help the team win 10+ games a year and a SB or three, I'm pretty happy as a Seahawks fan.
In our system, Wilson will seldom put up gaudy passing stats, because he doesn't need to very often. Giving the MVP to the defense in SB48 was the right thing to do, but in fact Russ shredded Denver in that game. Frankly, we could have handed off to Lynch & Co 50 times and punted after 3 and outs 12 times and still won the game going away. Remember, our D and special teams scored enough to beat the spread.
So, while Russ is quite capable of and will occasionally put up great QB stats, it won't happen often enough for him to be a great FF pick. This makes him a less desirable QB to FF buffs, but he's still a great QB. So, when I hear someone use that term in a derogatory way, I just chalk it up to ignorance and that person's focus on the wrong things.
Like has been said here many times. If he 'manages' to help the team win 10+ games a year and a SB or three, I'm pretty happy as a Seahawks fan.
Similar threads
