Mick063
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 1,531
Luck forces quite a few of his throws. Wilson intentionally throws away quite a few of his.
I think there is a happy medium in there. I don't think Russell gives his receivers enough chances to win their matchup. We have collectively spent the last two years complaining about receivers that don't get separation, but in reality, sometimes a QB has to stick it in there and let his receiver make a play. It isn't really common for NFL receivers to be consistently open. How else does one explain the increasingly fashionable back shoulder fade? A play designed to complete passes against covered receivers.
Even if it means a Lockette playing defensive back for a down (as we witnessed against Denver), an occasional gamble isn't always a bad play. A play followed up in the same series by Russell's best pass of the day, a score to a covered Lockette in the endzone. Those two measured gambles resulted in a 14 point swing. Lockette literally saved the day, but only because Wilson gave him the opportunity to do so.
The "Fail Mary" was a historically covered play. At the point when Phillip Rivers releases the ball, the aging Antonio Gates always looks blanketed. Bret Farve made a living at giving his receivers an opportunity (which explains Sydney Rice's best statistical season). Sure Farve paid the price in interceptions....all the way to the Hall of Fame.
Every wager from a professional gambler is measured, knowing the odds of success, and accepting the possibility of a loss. Each loss or win represents a specific wager (a single play). The key is to win more plays than you lose, and to not bet more than you can afford on any given play (Romo). It is the cumulative affect of correctly playing the odds that brings home the money (a game).
Perhaps you agree with a philosophy change or perhaps not, but this is the single biggest difference between Luck and Wilson. Perhaps Luck gambles too much and Wilson doesn't gamble enough. Of the two, the one that finds the happy medium will be the one that becomes the clear cut leader.
When Seattle's defense/running game becomes less competent, or the Colt's defense/running game becomes more competent, such changes in philosophy may be respectfully forced upon them.
I think there is a happy medium in there. I don't think Russell gives his receivers enough chances to win their matchup. We have collectively spent the last two years complaining about receivers that don't get separation, but in reality, sometimes a QB has to stick it in there and let his receiver make a play. It isn't really common for NFL receivers to be consistently open. How else does one explain the increasingly fashionable back shoulder fade? A play designed to complete passes against covered receivers.
Even if it means a Lockette playing defensive back for a down (as we witnessed against Denver), an occasional gamble isn't always a bad play. A play followed up in the same series by Russell's best pass of the day, a score to a covered Lockette in the endzone. Those two measured gambles resulted in a 14 point swing. Lockette literally saved the day, but only because Wilson gave him the opportunity to do so.
The "Fail Mary" was a historically covered play. At the point when Phillip Rivers releases the ball, the aging Antonio Gates always looks blanketed. Bret Farve made a living at giving his receivers an opportunity (which explains Sydney Rice's best statistical season). Sure Farve paid the price in interceptions....all the way to the Hall of Fame.
Every wager from a professional gambler is measured, knowing the odds of success, and accepting the possibility of a loss. Each loss or win represents a specific wager (a single play). The key is to win more plays than you lose, and to not bet more than you can afford on any given play (Romo). It is the cumulative affect of correctly playing the odds that brings home the money (a game).
Perhaps you agree with a philosophy change or perhaps not, but this is the single biggest difference between Luck and Wilson. Perhaps Luck gambles too much and Wilson doesn't gamble enough. Of the two, the one that finds the happy medium will be the one that becomes the clear cut leader.
When Seattle's defense/running game becomes less competent, or the Colt's defense/running game becomes more competent, such changes in philosophy may be respectfully forced upon them.
