NFL coaches on Wilson, according to Cossell

[Snohomie]

I believe Cosell about the coaches. There's an appreciation in the NFL for guys who carry the load and do it well. The vast majority of teams are pass heavy, or have a bad QB (often both). They can't win if they run the ball more than they throw. So they value guys that can succeed throwing the ball 60% of the time.

Their mistake is that they view Wilson's lack of attempts to mean that he couldn't succeed if given more attempts. Look at Chris Bosh - he's probably at least as good today as he was in 2009, but most people thought he was much better in 2009 because his scrub team needed him to do more to have a chance. Wilson probably wouldn't be AS efficient if he threw the ball 550 times on a mediocre team, but he'd still be more efficient than almost every QB over their first two seasons.

 

[billio155]

The NFL has always been slow to adjust to change. These scouts and coaches are trained in the old ways...you win with a big, strong pocket passer. They don't give Wilson credit because his presence goes against their religion. Also, they all passed on him so every time he lights them up, they have to devalue his impact. I don't give two hoots what these old wind bags have to say because Russ is going to win several Super Bowls and on the day Russ throws on the yellow jacket these blowhards will be sitting around the retirement home talking about how strange it was that Andrew Luck never won the big one.

 

[chris98251]

Everyone goes back to attempts and that you have to throw a lot, bad bad bad, you throw a lot if you have no running game or if defenses suck badly in pass defense, you throw a lot if you play from behind, you don't throw if you have a lead, you convert 3rd downs to keep ball control at times with a pass and make surgical strikes to keep the feild long and wide.

What people are saying is that Luck is better because he can go 160 miles an hour, they don't say he has to stop every 100 miles to get gas as he watches Wilson drive past the station at 70 getting 300 miles to the gallon.

More usage means more statistical significance on the numbers we do have. It really is as simple as that without any analogies needed. The fact is that with only 16 regular season games per year and a max of 20 total non-preseason games per year, statistical significance is not attained in two seasons, which is all either QB in question here has.

I don't want to get sidetracked by an argument of running vs. passing, but I'll just say that it's plain as day statistically that passing is a more efficient means of moving the ball than running is, and that the greatest utility of running SHOULD be (1) as a change of pace and (2) as a way of killing the clock when you have a late lead. Adjusted net yards per pass attempt is a stat that makes this super obvious. The fact that our coaches run a sub-optimal offense works out fine when given a historically elite defense to operate with but hardly makes a statement as to how offenses should be run.

Again, that last part isn't Wilson's fault; he can only do what he can with the attempts he's given. But it's what suppresses data on him so far and makes this question of Wilson vs. Luck an uncertain one.

There is the problem, a QB with a running game can have more time to scan and find a open guy, or a QB with elite lineman and pass blocking. Take away that and now you have a pin the ears back pass rush which will also skew numbers. The only way to get the numbers you want that I can see is a controlled design experiment where you have a clock, fixed and moving targets and amount of attempts. Also you can't have live targets since a drop would be skewing numbers also. It would need to be a area, basket or hole thrown to.

 

[randomation]

Everyone goes back to attempts and that you have to throw a lot, bad bad bad, you throw a lot if you have no running game or if defenses suck badly in pass defense, you throw a lot if you play from behind, you don't throw if you have a lead, you convert 3rd downs to keep ball control at times with a pass and make surgical strikes to keep the feild long and wide.

What people are saying is that Luck is better because he can go 160 miles an hour, they don't say he has to stop every 100 miles to get gas as he watches Wilson drive past the station at 70 getting 300 miles to the gallon.

More usage means more statistical significance on the numbers we do have. It really is as simple as that without any analogies needed. The fact is that with only 16 regular season games per year and a max of 20 total non-preseason games per year, statistical significance is not attained in two seasons, which is all either QB in question here has.

I don't want to get sidetracked by an argument of running vs. passing, but I'll just say that it's plain as day statistically that passing is a more efficient means of moving the ball than running is, and that the greatest utility of running SHOULD be (1) as a change of pace and (2) as a way of killing the clock when you have a late lead. Adjusted net yards per pass attempt is a stat that makes this super obvious. The fact that our coaches run a sub-optimal offense works out fine when given a historically elite defense to operate with but hardly makes a statement as to how offenses should be run.

Again, that last part isn't Wilson's fault; he can only do what he can with the attempts he's given. But it's what suppresses data on him so far and makes this question of Wilson vs. Luck an uncertain one.

There is the problem, a QB with a running game can have more time to scan and find a open guy, or a QB with elite lineman and pass blocking. Take away that and now you have a pin the ears back pass rush which will also skew numbers. The only way to get the numbers you want that I can see is a controlled design experiment where you have a clock, fixed and moving targets and amount of attempts. Also you can't have live targets since a drop would be skewing numbers also. It would need to be a area, basket or hole thrown to.

Normally I would agree with that but Russ is the most pressured QB in the league so Lynch isn't giving him that much more time then Luck's running game is giving him if any.

 

[brimsalabim]

Andrew Luck is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.....

 

[randomation]

Andrew Luck is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.....

besides Russell Wilson?

 

[MidwestHawker]

Normally I would agree with that but Russ is the most pressured QB in the league so Lynch isn't giving him that much more time then Luck's running game is giving him if any.

Where did you get this stat?

 

[brimsalabim]

Andrew Luck is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.....

besides Russell Wilson?

Sorry.. I went off on a "Dennis Miller". Its a reference to an old Sinatra movie about brain washing.

 

[themunn]

There is the problem, a QB with a running game can have more time to scan and find a open guy, or a QB with elite lineman and pass blocking. Take away that and now you have a pin the ears back pass rush which will also skew numbers. The only way to get the numbers you want that I can see is a controlled design experiment where you have a clock, fixed and moving targets and amount of attempts. Also you can't have live targets since a drop would be skewing numbers also. It would need to be a area, basket or hole thrown to.

And how does that work for a guy who prepares like Wilson to know what the moving targets that might get in his way are going to do, or a guy like Peyton who will change where the circles prior to the attempt?

QBs need to be evaluated on two things - how often they help their team win, and how often they help their team lose.
...and that DOESN'T mean how often the team wins and loses - Wilson helped us win in Atlanta, even though we lost, for example.

In that respect, Wilson is far far far above Luck, because while Luck is definitely single-handedly responsible (as far as you can be in the NFL) for helping the Colts win, the number of bad bad games he's had where he's also single-handedly responsible for helping them lose is far greater. In reality he's more like an anti-Tony Romo, he may throw the game away for three quarters and help them win in the 4th, but if he doesn't, they lose - whereas Romo will pick you apart for 3 quarters then lose it all at the end.

The difference is, if Romo had a decent defense, he'd rarely get into the position he needs a 4th Q comeback to win it, whereas Luck puts the Colts in that position all by himself far too often

 

[chris98251]

If you want a measurement of how well they can pass within a window my thoughts or something comparable is how to do it, the arguement about hypothetical situations taken out of the equation. 2 min drills not considered. coming from behind not considered, running game not considered, line play not considered, if you want to test throwing on the run you set up the field for roll outs and targets.

It's a pure passing and accuracy test really, not about decisions, the intangibles that we know are taken out for the most part.

Now is this an accurate assessment of skills, hell no. but thats what the MidwestHawker was trying to get at.

 

[Anthony!]

You want to know the truth, here is a bunch of it.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... ignite.com

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... out/28480/

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/173 ... rback-ever

There is a lot more. Also believe we will be throwing more this year, than last and there will be less conservative play calling.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

You want to know the truth, here is a bunch of it.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... ignite.com

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... out/28480/

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/173 ... rback-ever

There is a lot more. Also believe we will be throwing more this year, than last and there will be less conservative play calling.

Hilarious. By the way I completely agree starting in 2014 we will be far more offensively focused it's just what the rules dictate. I see us going 55/45 pass/run like San Francisco.

 

[randomation]

Normally I would agree with that but Russ is the most pressured QB in the league so Lynch isn't giving him that much more time then Luck's running game is giving him if any.

Where did you get this stat?

Can't remember where I found it originally but my friend google got me to here http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-note ... on-manning Russ was pressured on 43.8% of his dropbacks highest in the league. Also they talked about it a lot during the super bowl pre game when they were trying to make a case for the broncos D. So yeah line is an area of concern tbh. Manning by contrast was pressured 22.7% of the time.

 

[TXHawkFan]

Andrew Luck is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.....

besides Russell Wilson?

Sorry.. I went off on a "Dennis Miller". Its a reference to an old Sinatra movie about brain washing.

The Manchurian Candidate! I got the brainwashing reference right away and it does sound a bit like some media talking heads and coaches who seem programmed to gush like infatuated schoolgirls over Luck no matter what he does or doesn't do on the field. Meanwhile Russell Wilson continues to have to prove himself even after winning a Super Bowl.

 

[ManBunts]

We've heard the comment "he works well in the system he's in and does what's needed" statement a lot. I won't argue with that. He does. But how does doing that make him a lesser QB?

You can look at the Brees, Brady, Manning type and say they're great. No argument here. They put up massive stats and carry their team. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO! Wilson doesn't need to do that (but has shown, see Chicago game, that he can). He needs to put his team in a position to win. So, by effectively managing his team and maneuvering them in a position to win THE SUPER BOWL, I see that as greatness.

 

[Seahawks1983]

I like Cowherd's response. He countered by saying Wilson plays mistake-free against the toughest defenses in the league. Then, after Cosell proceeded with the "coaches will laugh at you comment", Cowherd paused for a second (as if he's thinking WTF?) and then moved on without even acknowledging Cosell's comments. I didn't listen to the rest of it so not sure if they came back to the topic.

Wasn't Cowherd just ripping Wilson a few weeks ago, leading up to the NFCCG?

:roll:

 

[JMR]

I like Cowherd's response. He countered by saying Wilson plays mistake-free against the toughest defenses in the league. Then, after Cosell proceeded with the "coaches will laugh at you comment", Cowherd paused for a second (as if he's thinking WTF?) and then moved on without even acknowledging Cosell's comments. I didn't listen to the rest of it so not sure if they came back to the topic.

Wasn't Cowherd just ripping Wilson a few weeks ago, leading up to the NFCCG?

:roll:

Most of those guys were pointing out a dip in production over the last handful of games. It was fair criticism, though I think a bit overblown due to the Arizona game. Cowherd is generally a big RW advocate, but he also picked SF to win the NFCC.

 

[formido]

I like Cowherd's response. He countered by saying Wilson plays mistake-free against the toughest defenses in the league. Then, after Cosell proceeded with the "coaches will laugh at you comment", Cowherd paused for a second (as if he's thinking WTF?) and then moved on without even acknowledging Cosell's comments. I didn't listen to the rest of it so not sure if they came back to the topic.

Wasn't Cowherd just ripping Wilson a few weeks ago, leading up to the NFCCG?

:roll:

Most of those guys were pointing out a dip in production over the last handful of games. It was fair criticism, though I think a bit overblown due to the Arizona game. Cowherd is generally a big RW advocate, but he also picked SF to win the NFCC.

I've never understood why a criticism is "fair" just because it's popular among people with a superficial understanding of the circumstances, i.e., the media and fans who don't follow Seattle closely. I guess it's fair in the sense of "you can't expect everyone to know everything about every team" or "honest mistake". But, in my view, fairness is correctness, and it's not correct that Wilson struggled any more than he should have. The defenses Wilson faced over the last few weeks of the season were elite. Every QB's efficiency suffers when he plays tougher defenses, c.f., Peyton Manning in the Super Bowl. It just happened to be that Seattle faced one after anther after another. Even the Giants, the defense most people would regard as the easiest of the bunch, had a home defensive passer rating of 73. 73! By comparison, Seattle's defensive passer rating at the time was 69, so New York's home pass defense was almost as good as Seattle's league-leading per game pass defense.

To those of us who had a correct understanding of the situation, and not just a fair one, Wilson's efficiency in the Super Bowl was utterly predictable. Denver's defense was league average and it was the first time Wilson had faced a defense that was only average since Atlanta or Minnesota. By contrast, those "fairly" criticizing Wilson's end-of-year play didn't see it coming at all. They thought the defense would have to carry Wilson if Seattle were lucky enough to squeak out a win. In point of fact, while the defense deservedly got the headlines, Seattle's offense posted a 28% DVOA, which would be second only to Denver's offense if averaged for the season.

If Wilson had dominated the set of defenses faced over the final quarter of the season, he would have finished with the best passer rating in the league, the highest yards per attempt, and we would be talking about Wilson being irrefutably the best quarterback in the NFL in only his second season. But he didn't (partly because of play calling designed to, misguidedly in my opinion, protect him), so we can only say for certain that he is one of the best quarterbacks in the league in only his second season.

 

[BamKam]

I don't care anymore, people are too stubborn these days to admit they are wrong, he could win 8 lombardi trophies and the people who called him above average initially will still hold onto that and defer the wins to the defense, his offensive line, WR corps etc.'

Case and point, RW wins a Super Bowl in his 2nd year and is still a "Game manager" while Kaepernick is still the next big thing even though he hasn't won a SB and puts up numbers almost completely identical to RW. Andrew Luck throws 9000000000000 interceptions in his 2 playoff games this year and is still the next coming of Joe Montana.

 

[Mick063]

Luck rimes with suck.

Because it is true.

Russell will have triple the rings of Luck by the time his career is over. When the team turnover occurs through free agency, and Russell is still outperforming Luck, like he has in college, like he has in the NFL, folks will still be making excuses for neckbeard.