STAND IN THE POCKET AND THROW THE BALL

[Anthony!]

I don't feel like going through this whole thread but are people still claiming Wilson didn't play well yesterday? Seriously? He had a passer rating over 120, would of had another TD if not for a ticky tack call on Kearse, had zero turnovers and flat out played great football against a very good defense that was flying all over the place.

He wasn't inaccurate yesterday which was huge. He's been good the past two games but he's still struggling with owning the pocket.

Passer Rating doesn't include sacks, hits or hurries, whether they were coverage, missed assignments or RW holding onto the ball or not speeding up his progression. Not a complete picture of his game.

Did you just give a massive endorsement of QBR?

EDIT: oh....I read further down... and you did....... ouch.........

Please tell me how RW was so amazing at 17-22 for 200 yards. PLEASE. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU SAYING SUCH A HO-HUM STAT LINE WAS AMAZING.

Lets see QB rating 121.6 YPa 9.6 70 yards rushing, 77% complt % that is great sorry deal with it.

 

[SonicHawk]

I love Russ, he can be a great QB, but he just wasn't that on Sunday. He was effective enough for our team to win comfortably and that's all that matters.

 

[Anthony!]

I love Russ, he can be a great QB, but he just wasn't that on Sunday. He was effective enough for our team to win comfortably and that's all that matters.

Yeah I do not believe any of that, he was great Sunday the facts and stats show it.

 

[Cartire]

I don't feel like going through this whole thread but are people still claiming Wilson didn't play well yesterday? Seriously? He had a passer rating over 120, would of had another TD if not for a ticky tack call on Kearse, had zero turnovers and flat out played great football against a very good defense that was flying all over the place.

He wasn't inaccurate yesterday which was huge. He's been good the past two games but he's still struggling with owning the pocket.

Passer Rating doesn't include sacks, hits or hurries, whether they were coverage, missed assignments or RW holding onto the ball or not speeding up his progression. Not a complete picture of his game.

Did you just give a massive endorsement of QBR?

EDIT: oh....I read further down... and you did....... ouch.........

Please tell me how RW was so amazing at 17-22 for 200 yards. PLEASE. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU SAYING SUCH A HO-HUM STAT LINE WAS AMAZING.

Well, panties are officially bunched I can tell. But I said nothing about RW and his amazingness. I just pointed out your use of QBR. Thats all I did.

But, while were at it. I see you are now in the overall yards factor..... ouch.....

 

[Anthony!]

Well, panties are officially bunched I can tell. But I said nothing about RW and his amazingness. I just pointed out your use of QBR. Thats all I did.

But, while were at it. I see you are now in the overall yards factor..... ouch.....

He had to find some excuse, adn it failed badly.

 

[SonicHawk]

I just am amazed of the homerism here.

Wilson vs the Bills in Toronto? Uhh, that was amazing. That was great. You want to compare his performance yesterday to that? Seriously, tell me it's great still.

 

[Cartire]

I just am amazed of the homerism here.

Wilson vs the Bills in Toronto? Uhh, that was amazing. That was great. You want to compare his performance yesterday to that? Seriously, tell me it's great still.

Got it, so Peytons games are usually subpar compared to his 7 TD performance against teh Ravens last year. Great comparison.

 

[SonicHawk]

Well, panties are officially bunched I can tell. But I said nothing about RW and his amazingness. I just pointed out your use of QBR. Thats all I did.

But, while were at it. I see you are now in the overall yards factor..... ouch.....

QBR is one of a billion stats that say RWs performance was no better than an average, good-enough performance.

But, go ahead and hop on the QBR bandwagon hate, I mean, it's easier than having your own opinion.

 

[SonicHawk]

I just am amazed of the homerism here.

Wilson vs the Bills in Toronto? Uhh, that was amazing. That was great. You want to compare his performance yesterday to that? Seriously, tell me it's great still.

Got it, so Peytons games are usually subpar compared to his 7 TD performance against teh Ravens last year. Great comparison.

Subpar? When did I say Wilson was subpar?

 

[Ozzy]

I will say this if Russell completes 75%+ of his passes and has a passer rating of 120+ we win every game from here on out including the Super Bowl. That might not make your cut for a "great" game but I'll take it every single time.

17-22 for almost 300 total yards against a top 5 defense when you factor in the pressure AZ was getting, the talent at the skill positions and what this game meant is pretty damn good. I think he was borderline great and I think Sonic is saying he was very good. Not great, but pretty damn good. Am I right Sonic? Maybe we're not all that far off in our assessment(includes everyone here)?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Why the heck wasn't Bevell leaving a guy back there to help block? At least 5 of those sacks where when Russ was back there by himself. Stupid

 

[Recon_Hawk]

A coverage sack is not on the QB it is on the Wr for not getting open. It is easy to say it is on th eoline when every expert saysy it, when I watch adn rewatch games and see the asme thing WIson gettign pressur eon him in uner 3 seconds. Sorry you can try all you want but the oline sucks and is responsible for most of the sacks, its a fact deal with it. This stat5ment in that article make smy point "And one each for it describes as other pressure and “quarterback fault.”" Notice it says QB fault. Non of the other ssay that so agian nice try.

First off - If people are going to respond to your posts with limited spelling errors and correct punctuation, do them the courtesy of attempting the same.

As to the statistics you are using from FootballOutsiders, their criteria used to assign fault is hugely misleading. Here is what they have as the QB's fault:

"Any time a quarterback "sacks himself" by tripping on his own feet, his lineman's feet, or just dropping the ball without being hit."

I guess if that is the criteria YOU want to use then OF COURSE the sack numbers will be low. Using only this category as a measurement is, as I said, misleading. Try thinking for yourself and quit saying the word "fact" for subjective analysis.

 

[SonicHawk]

I will say this if Russell completes 75%+ of his passes and has a passer rating of 120+ we win every game from here on out including the Super Bowl. That might not make your cut for a "great" game but I'll take it every single time.

17-22 for almost 300 total yards against a top 5 defense when you factor in the pressure AZ was getting, the talent at the skill positions and what this game meant is pretty damn good. I think he was borderline great and I think Sonic is saying he was very good. Not great, but pretty damn good. Am I right Sonic? Maybe we're not all that far off in our assessment(includes everyone here)?

Sure, I would not actively argue if someone thought he was very good on Sunday.

But great? I mean 'great'. 29 of 30 is great. 5 TDs is great. Rushing for 150 yards is great. Throwing for 450 yards is great.

 

[SonicHawk]

I don't blame RW for getting pressured, I blame him for continuing to mis-react to pressure.

And I use the term 'blame' lightly. It's more of a, there are better options than what he is doing, but it's not the end-of-the-world type blame.

We can win with him playing exactly like he is right now.

 

[Ozzy]

Its all subjective. I agree all of your examples are great. I think where I disagree is sometimes numbers only tell have the story and a QB is prisoner to what is around him. If he is getting almost no help from the offensive linemen, his wr's are terrible and he is playing a very good defense then there is only so much he can do. So a lot lesser numbers can be great in my opinion than what would normally qualify as great like what you listed above.

I don't think anyone would of done a whole lot better than what Wilson did yesterday with the hand he was dealt. Under those circumstances I think he was very, very good and maybe great. I don't think anyone would argue a 121.6 passer rating is average because it's not. It's very, very good. Is "great" debatable here? Sure and I admit because of the circumstances its a tough game to judge because it is different.

 

[Anthony!]

I just am amazed of the homerism here.

Wilson vs the Bills in Toronto? Uhh, that was amazing. That was great. You want to compare his performance yesterday to that? Seriously, tell me it's great still.

No problem is was great just in a different way. But lets look at that

in that Bills game he was 14-23 61% complt, 205 yards, 8.91 YPA, 1td, 104 qb rating agasint the hapless Bills and that was great but
17/22 77% complt, 211 yards, 9.59 ypa, 1td, 121.6 qb rating agasint the best team in the NFl and a top defense is not great

R-I-G-H-T

 

[Anthony!]

Well, panties are officially bunched I can tell. But I said nothing about RW and his amazingness. I just pointed out your use of QBR. Thats all I did.

But, while were at it. I see you are now in the overall yards factor..... ouch.....

QBR is one of a billion stats that say RWs performance was no better than an average, good-enough performance.

But, go ahead and hop on the QBR bandwagon hate, I mean, it's easier than having your own opinion.

Really please provid ethe billion stats that show his perfiormance was avg? remember a billion lets go?

again

77% coimplt, 9.6 YPa, 121.6 QB rating a great game, le tme knwo when you find thos ebillion stats please.

 

[Anthony!]

A coverage sack is not on the QB it is on the Wr for not getting open. It is easy to say it is on th eoline when every expert saysy it, when I watch adn rewatch games and see the asme thing WIson gettign pressur eon him in uner 3 seconds. Sorry you can try all you want but the oline sucks and is responsible for most of the sacks, its a fact deal with it. This stat5ment in that article make smy point "And one each for it describes as other pressure and “quarterback fault.”" Notice it says QB fault. Non of the other ssay that so agian nice try.

First off - If people are going to respond to your posts with limited spelling errors and correct punctuation, do them the courtesy of attempting the same.

As to the statistics you are using from FootballOutsiders, their criteria used to assign fault is hugely misleading. Here is what they have as the QB's fault:

"Any time a quarterback "sacks himself" by tripping on his own feet, his lineman's feet, or just dropping the ball without being hit."

I guess if that is the criteria YOU want to use then OF COURSE the sack numbers will be low. Using only this category as a measurement is, as I said, misleading. Try thinking for yourself and quit saying the word "fact" for subjective analysis.

Of course it is misleading other wqise it would not help you. Those are the stats used through out theleague so I think I will go with them. No matter how you slice it the oline sucks.

 

[Anthony!]

I will say this if Russell completes 75%+ of his passes and has a passer rating of 120+ we win every game from here on out including the Super Bowl. That might not make your cut for a "great" game but I'll take it every single time.

17-22 for almost 300 total yards against a top 5 defense when you factor in the pressure AZ was getting, the talent at the skill positions and what this game meant is pretty damn good. I think he was borderline great and I think Sonic is saying he was very good. Not great, but pretty damn good. Am I right Sonic? Maybe we're not all that far off in our assessment(includes everyone here)?

Sure, I would not actively argue if someone thought he was very good on Sunday.

But great? I mean 'great'. 29 of 30 is great. 5 TDs is great. Rushing for 150 yards is great. Throwing for 450 yards is great.

Ahh so 29/30 is great to youi so 97% complt, Hmm so that settles it there are not great QBs int heNFl becasue noone does 97%

You definition of great is warped at best.

 

[SonicHawk]

I just don't think our o-line is as bad as people suggest. We've had a competent run game all year and RW's itchy feet and refusal to throw in tight coverage and his ability to run get him out of the pocket so freakin quick.

Football Outsiders doesn't even have us ranked in the bottom 10, and top 5 in run. Obviously Unger's injury hurts us and it would be nice to have Miller helping to protect, but I put much of the blame on Russ.

The question then of course is, if Russ were to stay in the pocket and get the ball out quicker, would there be more INTs? Probably. Peyton Manning has no mobility at all and doesn't have a particularly good O-line but he gets through his reads quickly and when pressure is coming knows where the defense is and who should be the most likely open receiver.

It may be a testament to the necessity of skill WRs, because there's no comparison between Denver's WR ours. 'Pedestrian' would be a compliment.