Which Russ Wilson would you rather have, current or rookie?

[Hawkpower]

Russ is not the same person he was when he first came into the league. He’s certainly much different appearance-wise since marrying a pop queen. My OP made no judgement on whether Ciara factor was a good thing or bad thing, you all who took issue, made those judgments or assumptions on your own.

Yeah I'm with you, I have no idea why so many took such an indignant tone to her being part of the calculation.

It wasn't that long ago that her "impact" on Russ was nearly a daily conversation here on .net. Maybe some of these guys jumping down your throat weren't here back then. We can't have it as part of a poll but we can have multiple threads about it in 2017?? Or when he was flirting with New York? Geez that was like 6 months ago that her name was all over these boards- supposedly influencing him to move to the big apple. Either way, you can't argue that he presents a different persona now than he did his rookie year. Is that becaue of Ciara? Maybe. Does it affect his football playing? Hard to know for sure.

 

[soxhawk]

Rookie, easy. Cheap contract allows us to beef up our defense and sign play makers. Plus he could run back then. Slightly concerned he's here to put butts in seats, kinda like Ichiro was for the M's circa 2010.

Really you are going to do all that in 1 year? The question was you only get which ever you pick for 1 year?

Yeah a faster Russ with Antonio Brown and a healthy ET sounds pretty awesome for 2019... Instead of just Russ.

Lol yeah throw In Julio Jones too. Now back to ralitynuou were not going to get Brown and if they thought ET was worth the money they they would have kept him.

Julio wasn't available. Not sure where you're trying to head but the money for ET wasn't available either. We'd be able to pay AB, ET, and BWagz with a rookie contact at QB.

 

[John63]

Really you are going to do all that in 1 year? The question was you only get which ever you pick for 1 year?

Yeah a faster Russ with Antonio Brown and a healthy ET sounds pretty awesome for 2019... Instead of just Russ.

Lol yeah throw In Julio Jones too. Now back to ralitynuou were not going to get Brown and if they thought ET was worth the money they they would have kept him.

Julio wasn't available. Not sure where you're trying to head but the money for ET wasn't available either. We'd be able to pay AB, ET, and BWagz with a rookie contact at QB.

For one the money for ET was available, they even said so, That said you assumed they wanted to resign ET or Brown would have wanted to come here lots of assumptions, and once again it would have all been for only 1 year? Or did you not read the criteria. Also, what makes you think they wanted Brown? Like I said you make a lot of assumptions, and if all or any of your assumptions are wrong we are left with a rookie QB for 1 year and a lot of money. That's all.

 

[erik2690]

Russ is not the same person he was when he first came into the league. He’s certainly much different appearance-wise since marrying a pop queen. My OP made no judgement on whether Ciara factor was a good thing or bad thing, you all who took issue, made those judgments or assumptions on your own.

Yeah I'm with you, I have no idea why so many took such an indignant tone to her being part of the calculation.

It wasn't that long ago that her "impact" on Russ was nearly a daily conversation here on .net. Maybe some of these guys jumping down your throat weren't here back then. We can't have it as part of a poll but we can have multiple threads about it in 2017?? Or when he was flirting with New York? Geez that was like 6 months ago that her name was all over these boards- supposedly influencing him to move to the big apple. Either way, you can't argue that he presents a different persona now than he did his rookie year. Is that becaue of Ciara? Maybe. Does it affect his football playing? Hard to know for sure.

The New York stuff was literally just 1 rumor report right? How did he flirt with New York? It would be really silly to blame them for rumors. And your argument that b/c there were past silly Ciara threads means that it can't be called silly now is a pretty weak argument. Unless you know the people saying something about it now had different tones then, I guess that would be a solid point.

 

[KiwiHawk]

LOL that is great except you brushed over the fact that for his career here even using this metric they have been bad, And ranked 19th makes them the bottom half of the league.

You were talking about the 51 sacks last year, so how the line ranked before last year is not relevant. Different OC, different OL coach, different OL personnel.

It's totally dishonest of you to factor in other seasons' offensive line ranking and then go on about last year's sack totals.

Have it it your way - if you are going to cheat the numbers it's worthless discussing with you.

 

[Popeyejones]

I said the Rookie version for two reasons:

(1) The salary. I just honestly don't know how to think about a QB who is paid 35 million per year who you only want throwing the ball 25 or 26 times per game. QBs are still so undervalued that the math on it very well might still make sense, but it just all makes my head hurt. He's a better player than he was seven years ago, but not 40x better. I'll take 2012 Wilson for 750K per and 4 years of team control over 2019 Wilson for 35 million per and four years of team control all day everyday.

(2) Some people aren't going to like this, but although Wilson has improved in some areas for sure, there's just parts of his game that I was pretty certain would develop by now that just haven't developed in the way I was expecting them to. He still has time and he's still a very, very good QB, but looking back he seems to have come in more fully formed than most QBs. From 2012 until just the past couple years I always comped him to my favorite QB of all time, Steve Young, but I've backed off that of late, just because over the last seven years I haven't seen the growth in a few areas I was expecting form him in areas that I think are very hard to work around (namely, using the pocket, manipulating the pocket, and cutting down on the streakiness).

He might be the best deep ball thrower I've ever seen, but back on his first deal I was kind of expecting him to grow into what may have been the best QB I've ever seen, and so far that hasn't happened. At this point into his career he's just a really, really good QB. Maybe he still develops in the way I was expecting, but I'd still prefer the 2012 version when that growth was more likely to still happen (there's really no way to know if it was about coaching or just who he is).*

*To reiterate for those who are itching to call me a troll just for being honest, the criticism here is that I think Wilson is a really good QB, whereas back then I thought he had a real chance to develop into being the best QB in the history of the game. If saying that so far he's just a really, really good QB upsets you and draws your knives out, so be it. :lol:

 

[xray]

The online was ranked in the bottom 5 in pass blocking, Wilson has been one of the top 3 most hit, sacked, pressured and hurried in under 2.5 seconds every year in the league. That is on the online period.

No it's not.

Wilson plays a high-risk, high-reward game when it comes to extending the play. Yes we've had OL problems, but our pass success (holding a block for 2.5 seconds) are not bad. The problem is that our QB's average time to release is longer than average.

Part of that is Wilson's self-confidence that he can avoid the pass rush and make a better play down field than taking a dump-off underneath or throwing it away, and sometimes he gets it wrong. Part of it may be Carroll's mandate that we not turn over the ball, so Wilson waits for larger windows that may or may not open up.

Part of it is the benefit of having a mobile QB, and those extended plays hitting Lockett way down field are daggers in the back of the opposition - particularly when they were so close to catching him.

Take a look at this. At 4:01 Ahmad Brooks (55) has one job, which is to spy Wilson. He moves in thinking he has a sack, gets juked, and ends up on the ground. He gets up and continues pursuit, and gets juked and once more ends up n the ground. At 4:14, he's so demoralized at chasing this ghost that he gets up slowly thinking he's out of the play, but Wilson cuts back across the field to where Brooks could have made the tackle had he got to his feet quickly, and instead Wilson runs for a decent gain, if not a first down.

[youtube]OiV2L_ilK-c[/youtube]

There are two takeaways from this play.

One: Wilson demoralized the opponent with his feet, extending the play.

Two: Wilson takes the snap at 4:03, and finally tucks the ball away at 4:16. There's no OL in the NFL that blocks for 13 seconds. This play isn't a sack, but you get the point - if the QB is going to keep the ball for that long, whether he gets sacked or not has nothing to do with the OL and everything to do with the QB.

So yeah, some (not all by any means) of those sacks are on Russell Wilson. Some are on the OL. Some are due to us regularly playing against some of the best pash-rushing teams in the league.

But sometimes he doesn't get sacked, and those times usually make the highlight reels.

So its not the oline fault when he is pressured, hit, hurried or sacked in under 2.5 seconds really? really. Sorry it is on the oline. Now I did not say every sack in on the oline but those are. The ranking that I referred to takes into account a sack were the QB is the problem, so it does not change they are ranked in the bottom 5. Sorry but the oline has never been great at pass blocking. ESPN did a break down of all the sacks and said of the 51 10% were on Wilson that means 5-6. I agree with that, now they did not blame them all on the oline another 10-20% were on the RB or TE. that means about 70% or 35 are on the oline and that is terrible. Now some of this I don't put on the oline as I think the long plays that PC likes to happen put them on an island way to much. However, they know going in they need to hold the block longer.

 

[xray]

The online was ranked in the bottom 5 in pass blocking, Wilson has been one of the top 3 most hit, sacked, pressured and hurried in under 2.5 seconds every year in the league. That is on the online period.

No it's not.

Wilson plays a high-risk, high-reward game when it comes to extending the play. Yes we've had OL problems, but our pass success (holding a block for 2.5 seconds) are not bad. The problem is that our QB's average time to release is longer than average.

Part of that is Wilson's self-confidence that he can avoid the pass rush and make a better play down field than taking a dump-off underneath or throwing it away, and sometimes he gets it wrong. Part of it may be Carroll's mandate that we not turn over the ball, so Wilson waits for larger windows that may or may not open up.

Part of it is the benefit of having a mobile QB, and those extended plays hitting Lockett way down field are daggers in the back of the opposition - particularly when they were so close to catching him.

Take a look at this. At 4:01 Ahmad Brooks (55) has one job, which is to spy Wilson. He moves in thinking he has a sack, gets juked, and ends up on the ground. He gets up and continues pursuit, and gets juked and once more ends up n the ground. At 4:14, he's so demoralized at chasing this ghost that he gets up slowly thinking he's out of the play, but Wilson cuts back across the field to where Brooks could have made the tackle had he got to his feet quickly, and instead Wilson runs for a decent gain, if not a first down.

[youtube]OiV2L_ilK-c[/youtube]

There are two takeaways from this play.

One: Wilson demoralized the opponent with his feet, extending the play.

Two: Wilson takes the snap at 4:03, and finally tucks the ball away at 4:16. There's no OL in the NFL that blocks for 13 seconds. This play isn't a sack, but you get the point - if the QB is going to keep the ball for that long, whether he gets sacked or not has nothing to do with the OL and everything to do with the QB.

So yeah, some (not all by any means) of those sacks are on Russell Wilson. Some are on the OL. Some are due to us regularly playing against some of the best pash-rushing teams in the league.

But sometimes he doesn't get sacked, and those times usually make the highlight reels.

So its not the oline fault when he is pressured, hit, hurried or sacked in under 2.5 seconds really? really. Sorry it is on the oline. Now I did not say every sack in on the oline but those are. The ranking that I referred to takes into account a sack were the QB is the problem, so it does not change they are ranked in the bottom 5. Sorry but the oline has never been great at pass blocking. ESPN did a break down of all the sacks and said of the 51 10% were on Wilson that means 5-6. I agree with that, now they did not blame them all on the oline another 10-20% were on the RB or TE. that means about 70% or 35 are on the oline and that is terrible. Now some of this I don't put on the oline as I think the long plays that PC likes to happen put them on an island way to much. However, they know going in they need to hold the block longer.

The Hawks have been trying for years to put together and retain a top 10-15 OL at least . Realistically ; unless there is a big surprise with this starting five and they suddenly can pass protect ; Wilson will be running for his life again . He cannot be asked to continue to pull " rabbits from his hat " another season. IMO neither Upati or Fluker are likely to play the whole season without down time due to injury....now what ?

 

[Popeyejones]

The oline was ranked in the bottom 5 in pass blocking, Wilson has been one of the top 3 most hit, sacked, pressured and hurried in under 2.5 seconds every year in the league. That is on the oline period.

Where is this stat coming from, and what % of his sacks were under 2.5 seconds?

I ask because of the 1,195 sacks in the NFL last year, only 20 of them (1.7%) occured at or under 2.5 seconds.

Because of that, we could go crazy and QUADRUPLE over the league average the rate at which Wilson was sacked in under 2.5 seconds last year, and we'd still be talking about 3.5 of the 51 times he was sacked.

Put another way, even after that crazy quadrupling if we removed all the times he was sacked in under 2.5 seconds and didn't remove them for anyone else he'd be the 6th most sacked QB in the league last year instead of the 3rd.

None of this means the Hawks' o-line is good, but it does mean that 2.5 seconds is probably a pretty bad yardstick to judge line play.

 

[xray]

The oline was ranked in the bottom 5 in pass blocking, Wilson has been one of the top 3 most hit, sacked, pressured and hurried in under 2.5 seconds every year in the league. That is on the oline period.

Where is this stat coming from, and what % of his sacks were under 2.5 seconds?

I ask because of the 1,195 sacks in the NFL last year, only 20 of them (1.7%) occured at or under 2.5 seconds.

Because of that, we could go crazy and QUADRUPLE over the league average the rate at which Wilson was sacked in under 2.5 seconds last year, and we'd still be talking about 3.5 of the 51 times he was sacked.

Put another way, even after that crazy quadrupling if we removed all the times he was sacked in under 2.5 seconds and didn't remove them for anyone else he'd be the 6th most sacked QB in the league last year instead of the 3rd.

None of this means the Hawks' o-line is good, but it does mean that 2.5 seconds is probably a pretty bad yardstick to judge line play.

51 sacks are 51 sacks...stop rationalizing to put a positive spin on it . The down side of these sacks are numerous... like stalled drives...loss of downs...loss of yards...potential for fumbles and turnovers...and worst of all....having the backup QB under center because your starter has been injured.

 

[Tical21]

Definitely the first, when we could still create a top-notch roster. Since he got paid the first time it has been downhill.

 

[Popeyejones]

The oline was ranked in the bottom 5 in pass blocking, Wilson has been one of the top 3 most hit, sacked, pressured and hurried in under 2.5 seconds every year in the league. That is on the oline period.

Where is this stat coming from, and what % of his sacks were under 2.5 seconds?

I ask because of the 1,195 sacks in the NFL last year, only 20 of them (1.7%) occured at or under 2.5 seconds.

Because of that, we could go crazy and QUADRUPLE over the league average the rate at which Wilson was sacked in under 2.5 seconds last year, and we'd still be talking about 3.5 of the 51 times he was sacked.

Put another way, even after that crazy quadrupling if we removed all the times he was sacked in under 2.5 seconds and didn't remove them for anyone else he'd be the 6th most sacked QB in the league last year instead of the 3rd.

None of this means the Hawks' o-line is good, but it does mean that 2.5 seconds is probably a pretty bad yardstick to judge line play.

51 sacks are 51 sacks...stop rationalizing to put a positive spin on it . The down side of these sacks are numerous... like stalled drives...loss of downs...loss of yards...potential for fumbles and turnovers...and worst of all....having the backup QB under center because your starter has been injured.

Don't know if my post was unclear, but not sure what I'm trying to rationalize or a put a positive spin on. The number of sacks? The Oline being bad? I really don't know.

My point was just that using sacks within 2.5 seconds as a measure to evaluate o-line play isn't a good one, because sacks within 2.5 seconds only happen incredibly rarely to begin with (less than 2% of all sacks last year).

More generally I think two things:

(1) It is *very hard* to reliably assign blame on sacks, and the advanced analytics sites don't really have the tools do it. We don't know the playcalls, the route combos, what QBs are instructed to do and in what situations, etc., etc., etc.

(2) All that said, while both are obviously involved, I think all across the NFL fans over-attribute sacks to O-lineman and under-attribute sacks to quarterbacks. There's not enough data on it because starting QBs don't change teams enough, but AFAIK a QB's sack rate the year before a move is more predictive of his sack rate the year after a move (on his new team) than his original team's sack rate the next yeawr with their new QB.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

The wife is just a symptom, not the cause. No reason to blame her for anything.

What happens is that people achieve their goals and then they adjust their priorities. You've got to bust your ass off to earn that first big contract in the NFL. Then you can let off the gas just a bit so that you can focus on other things. Everybody in the history of humanity does this.

 

[Seymour]

Definitely the first, when we could still create a top-notch roster. Since he got paid the first time it has been downhill.

It wasn't just Wilson getting paid that brought the slide.

Baldwin, Sherman, Kam, Earl, Wagner all got paid after our SB run. :roll:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Funny how it does seem that some ONLY bring up Russ when it comes to $. As if he is the only high paid player this team has ever had.....double :roll:

 

[John63]

Funny how it does seem that some ONLY bring up Russ when it comes to $. As if he is the only high paid player this team has ever had.....double :roll:

It fits their narrative better.

 

[KiwiHawk]

My point was just that using sacks within 2.5 seconds as a measure to evaluate o-line play isn't a good one, because sacks within 2.5 seconds only happen incredibly rarely to begin with (less than 2% of all sacks last year).

You'll have to take that one up with the stat-makers. 2.5 seconds is the benchmark for a "successful" OL pass block.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...ushing-stats-analytics-explainer-faq-how-work

Our new Pass Block Win Rate metric tells us the rate at which linemen can sustain their blocks for 2.5 seconds or longer. Likewise, our Pass Rush Win Rate metric tells us how often a pass-rusher is able to beat his block within 2.5 seconds. Our model of pass blocking harnesses player tracking data from NFL Next Gen Stats.

Also

http://insider.espn.com/nfl/blogs/i...-russell-wilson-new-stat-shows-proof-2018-nfl

 

[Popeyejones]

My point was just that using sacks within 2.5 seconds as a measure to evaluate o-line play isn't a good one, because sacks within 2.5 seconds only happen incredibly rarely to begin with (less than 2% of all sacks last year).

You'll have to take that one up with the stat-makers. 2.5 seconds is the benchmark for a "successful" OL pass block.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...ushing-stats-analytics-explainer-faq-how-work

Our new Pass Block Win Rate metric tells us the rate at which linemen can sustain their blocks for 2.5 seconds or longer. Likewise, our Pass Rush Win Rate metric tells us how often a pass-rusher is able to beat his block within 2.5 seconds. Our model of pass blocking harnesses player tracking data from NFL Next Gen Stats.

Also

http://insider.espn.com/nfl/blogs/i...-russell-wilson-new-stat-shows-proof-2018-nfl

Thanks, but my questions were where the stat that the Seahawks gave up more sacks than anyone in under 2.5 seconds came from, and what % of Wilson's sacks came at or under 2.5 seconds?

Are these in the second paywalled article? I can't see it. Or maybe I just missed em in the first? From the title and first paragraph of the second it seems that the argument of that article is that Wilson holds a lot of responsibility for his sack rate, and despite everyone trashing the line all time it's pretty average (again tho, it's paywalled). For example, in the table in the sidebar of that article it shows that through the first four weeks last year the Seahawks O-line had the 4th highest pass block win rate in the NFL, but just looked it up and he took 16 sacks in those games with top 4 pass blocking.

All that said I did notice where I think our disconnect in the validity of this stat is. In your first post you said sacked hit or hurried in under 2.5 seconds, which I was objecting to as a metric because that describes less than 2% of sacks. The article I can read isn't about that though: it's about BLOCKS BEING HELD for 2.5 or less seconds.

That's a tiny difference in specifics that makes a TON of difference when measuring outcomes in seconds in the low single digits (e.g. holding a block for 2.5 and it taking another second to get from the block to the QB would be a "successful" pass block that we were mistakenly referring to as "unsuccessful" by confusing how long a block is held from the snap and how long until a sack occurs after the snap :2thumbs: ).

 

[KiwiHawk]

Thanks, but my questions were where the stat that the Seahawks gave up more sacks than anyone in under 2.5 seconds came from, and what % of Wilson's sacks came at or under 2.5 seconds?

Sorry, I don't have those stats - that's someone else's argument. I was just expanding on where they got the 2.5 seconds thing, which is the KPI for a successful pass block.

I believe the average time-to-throw is around 2.75 seconds. Wilson was 37th in the NFL last year (3rd from bottom) at 3.01 seconds to throw. However, he was also 3rd from the top in air yards per catch, so he was throwing longer than most.

But we could guess all that just by seeing him play. It's just what Wilson does. Cue the Benny Hill theme and watch Baldwin make a spectacular grab on the other end (or wonder why the hell Lockett was so open - weren't they covering him?).

But that comes at a cost, and that cost is sacks. The OL is not bad (tm) at holding blocks for 2.5 seconds, but the QB is averaging a half second longer to get the ball off, so that extra time is all on Wilson to make up for, and defensive linemen don't make the big bucks for being slow and lazy.

Not to mention that we seem to run into the best defensive lines on a regular basis - not exactly how that works.

 

[soxhawk]

Yeah a faster Russ with Antonio Brown and a healthy ET sounds pretty awesome for 2019... Instead of just Russ.

Lol yeah throw In Julio Jones too. Now back to ralitynuou were not going to get Brown and if they thought ET was worth the money they they would have kept him.

Julio wasn't available. Not sure where you're trying to head but the money for ET wasn't available either. We'd be able to pay AB, ET, and BWagz with a rookie contact at QB.

For one the money for ET was available, they even said so, That said you assumed they wanted to resign ET or Brown would have wanted to come here lots of assumptions, and once again it would have all been for only 1 year? Or did you not read the criteria. Also, what makes you think they wanted Brown? Like I said you make a lot of assumptions, and if all or any of your assumptions are wrong we are left with a rookie QB for 1 year and a lot of money. That's all.

So the OP can make assumptions but no one else can? Thanks, bud. Russ without a great defense has been meh outside of personal stats. What makes you think it'll be any different this year?