Wilson's First 3 Years Are Arguably the Best in NFL History

[Anthony!]

Also, RE: the original post.

Wilson's numbers are great, but, as I alluded to in my post above, he has the benefit of playing in the high-octane, modern NFL. Look at how devalued running backs have become. Sure, there are elite ones (Beast, Peterson, Charles, etc), but many teams view running backs as plug-and-play types and wouldn't even consider taking one in the first round anymore.

To put some perspective on this, chew on this:
- in the 1970's, there were only 11 quarterback seasons with a rating over 90 (~ 1.1 / season)
- in the 1980's, there were only 27 quarterback seasons with a rating over 90 (~2.7 / season)
- in the 1990's, there were only 33 quarterback seasons with a rating over 90 (~3.3 / season)
- in the 2000's, there were 58 quarterback seasons with a rating over 90 (~5.8 / season)
- in the current half decade, there have been 54 quarterback seasons with a rating over 90 (~5.4 / season)
- during Wilson's time in the league, there have been 39 quarterbacks with a rating over 90 (~13 / season)

- in the 1970's, there were only 2 quarterback seasons with a rating over 100 (~ 1 every 5 years)
- in the 1980's, there were only 4 quarterback seasons with a rating over 100 (~1 every other year)
- in the 1990's, there were only 10 quarterback seasons with a rating over 100 (~ 1 / season)
- in the 2000's, there were 18 quarterback seasons with a rating over 100 (~ 1.8 / season)
- in the current half decade, there have been 21 quarterback seasons with a rating over 100 (~2.1 / season)
- during Wilson's time in the league, there have been 16 QB seasons with a rating over 100 (~5.3 / season)

League Average QB stats by year:
1970: 62.5 passer rating ... 5.2 INT% ... 0.84:1 TD:INT ... 51.1 CMP% ... 16.4 pass TD (league: 427 TD passes, 510 INT)
1975: 62.8 passer rating ... 5.3 INT% ... 0.81:TD TD:INT ... 52.5 CMP% ... 16.7 pass TD
1980: 71.3 passer rating ... 4.6 INT% ... 0.97:1 TD:INT ... 56.2 CMP% ... 21.6 pass TD
1985: 70.7 passer rating ... 4.2 INT% ... 0.99:1 TD:INT ... 54.8 CMP% ... 21.4 pass TD
1990: 75.0 passer rating ... 3.6 INT% ... 1.19 TD:INT ... 56.0 CMP%... 20.5 pass TD
1995: 77.5 passer rating ... 3.1 INT% ... 1.29 TD:INT ... 58.2 CMP% ... 22.1 pass TD
2000: 76.2 passer rating ... 3.3 INT% ... 1.19 TD:INT ... 58.2 CMP% ... 20.5 pass TD
2005: 78.2 passer rating ... 3.1 INT% ... 1.27 TD:INT .... 59.9 CMP% ... 20.1 pass TD
2010: 82.2 passer rating ... 3.0 INT% ... 1.47 TD:INT ... 60.8 CMP% ... 23.5 pass TD
'12-'14: 85.0 passer rating ... 2.6 INT% ... 1.67 TD:INT ... 61.6 CMP% ... 24.6 pass TD
2014: 87.1 passer rating ... 2.5 INT% ... 1.79 TD:INT ... 62.6 CMP% ... 25.2 pass TD (league: 807 TD passes, 450 INT)

Wilson's efficiency stats are very good... but so is league-wide efficiency across the board. His numbers still compare favorably to league average, but I don't think it's fair to compare Wilson's numbers to Manning's first three years, or Marino's first three years, etc... we're talking about very different eras. We acknowledge change and inflation with money, so why not do it with stats?

I think Wilson is very good, and I think he has the potential to be elite. He's certainly on that trajectory. However, I think some of the stats thrown around are a bit disingenuous and overzealous. I love Wilson and I'm happy he's our quarterback, but I can't ignore this stuff when entering discussions about him. This is NOT an attack on Wilson or an attempt to take him down, it's just an honest look and something I think a lot of people are either oblivious to or choose to ignore.

so the league avg qb rating is 85 and you think 95 makes him avg. Wow

Enough said only QB to have 95+ QB rating first 3 year sin the league that includes the "modern" era enough said

 

[Anthony!]

His interception rate is low, but not as low as you think. The NFL is a different game than it was 10, 20 years ago.

Here are the league leaders* in INT% since Wilson entered the league in 2012 (i.e. cumulative INT%, 2012-2014):
1. Aaron Rodgers - 1.40%
2. Alex Smith - 1.51%
3. Tom Brady - 1.52%
4. Colin Kaepernick - 1.89%
5. Ben Roethlisberger - 1.89%
6. Nick Foles - 1.90%
7. Peyton Manning - 1.96%
8. Russell Wilson - 2.08%
9. Tony Romo - 2.35%
10. Andrew Luck - 2.37%
(* excluded from the list were RG3 and Sam Bradford who ranked 9th and 10th, respectively; I removed them because they had what I deemed to be too few attempts)

I wouldn't call that "obscenely low". Relative to league history his rate is very good, but relative to the modern day NFL it's not obscene. I also think that our defense allows Wilson to play conservatively, which permits things like "take what the defense gives you" instead of "our team revolves around you, thread the needle" -- that type of thing mitigates errors and turnovers. Just my opinion, but I think a high volume passer like Rodgers/Brady having a low INT% is more impressive than Wilson or Kaepernick throwing 400-450 times a year and doing the same thing.

That said, his ability to remain composed and not force throws is one of the qualities I really enjoy about him. That's good decision-making. However, I do think it takes two to tango: it's not just his good decision making, it's also the fact that our relentless defense gives him the opportunity to play conservatively. I think he's a very good fit for our team in that respect.

hmmm. I got my stats from Profootball Reference, which shows the INT % I listed:

Here is the link to QB carreer INT%
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/l ... career.htm

They excluded RW, but here are his stats:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... lsRu00.htm

Hmm that puts Wilson 3rd and added to the other overwhelming facts and stats shows that is Elite.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Wow why would they exclude him but have Andrew Luck in there, but if the list is not for game managers than why is Alex Smith on the list and not Wilson....

 

[Willyeye]

Wow why would they exclude him but have Andrew Luck in there, but if the list is not for game managers than why is Alex Smith on the list and not Wilson....

I think the list you're maybe referring to goes by NFL guidelines, which require a 1500 pass minimum for a QB to qualify for such career stats. Wilson only has 1252 attempts, so on his 248th attempt in this upcoming season, he will be included on the list you're looking at...I think.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Ok gotcha forgot to read their guidlines look like they made it 1500 attempts before you can be on the list

 

[JimmyG]

hmmm. I got my stats from Profootball Reference, which shows the INT % I listed:

Here is the link to QB carreer INT%
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/l ... career.htm

They excluded RW, but here are his stats:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... lsRu00.htm

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Tom Brady's rookie season was almost 15 years ago. The game has changed a lot since then. I reasoned that if you wanted to compare Wilson to other players, you should do it using years during which they were in the league together and in the same environment.

The list I posted is not the career numbers of the quarterbacks. It's their cumulative stats from 2012 through 2014. For example, Aaron Rodgers has a career INT% of 1.6, but if you look at only his 2012, 2013, 2014 seasons (i.e. the same time Wilson was in the league), that drops to 1.4%.

 

[JimmyG]

so the league avg qb rating is 85 and you think 95 makes him avg. Wow

Enough said only QB to have 95+ QB rating first 3 year sin the league that includes the "modern" era enough said

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

so the league avg qb rating is 85 and you think 95 makes him avg. Wow

Enough said only QB to have 95+ QB rating first 3 year sin the league that includes the "modern" era enough said

Did you even read what I wrote?

That isn't how he operates whenever Russell Wilson is mentioned. His polar opposite would be Tical21 so you got the full spectrum from the start.

:2: Welcome to .Net

 

[Anthony!]

so the league avg qb rating is 85 and you think 95 makes him avg. Wow

Enough said only QB to have 95+ QB rating first 3 year sin the league that includes the "modern" era enough said

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes comparing favorably to league avg and being 10 points higher are not the same thing.

 

[Tical21]

95 Rating qualifies for 10th. You could argue pretty easily that it falls somewhere within the "average" spectrum. Unless Brock Huard has said otherwise of course.

 

[Tical21]

so the league avg qb rating is 85 and you think 95 makes him avg. Wow

Enough said only QB to have 95+ QB rating first 3 year sin the league that includes the "modern" era enough said

Did you even read what I wrote?

If you ever write anything other than "Russell Wilson is the greatest QB in the history of the NFL", prepare to have your thread flooded by at least 15-20 patented Anthony! Russell Wilson worship posts within the next few hours. It doesn't matter if you're right, as long as you post in the thread more often than anyone else.

Unfortunately, I have had to play the "slow your roll, he does not have elite tape" role around here, which in these Russell Wilson shrine threads makes me the Negative Nancy of the group. I guess I would rather be right than blindly loyal. To each their own.

 

[RichNhansom]

The comparison game by nature is difficult. How do you think Wilson would look if he sat for three years waiting to get his shot. Meanwhile he was learning behind an elite, possibly future HOF QB. Learning the play book and how to read defenses. Practicing with his team mates and gaining valuable lessons that he never had a chance to because he was thrust onto the field. How many QB's in the modern era have had elite level numbers when asked to start from day one?

Plus 1 for our defense and plus one for Lynch but then minus one for our receiving corp and minus one for the O-line play. It's pretty much a wash that understandably should hold Wilson's stats back as well as our win total yet his dual threat numbers and our win total are in the elite variety.

The Colts get a minus one for the defense and a minus one for the running game but a plus one for the receiving corp and a plus one for O-line play. Again its understandable why Lucks numbers are inflated but his win percentage is lower.

Is there someone who believes our receiving corp is better than Wayne, Hilton and Fleener? How about O-line?

What about schedules? And division opponents as well as the quality of defenses each have faced?

Why am I using Luck? Because he is the only other QB viewed to have at least similar success to Wilson from the modern era who started week one for his team.

Give Wilson those weapons and line, in that division and facing those defenses and I think the Colts don't skip a beat. Wilson would still have less passing yards than Luck has had but make up for it with his legs. Put Luck here is Seattle and his numbers would be dramatically reduced. We probably also don't miss a beat and are likely right were we are right now but Lucks numbers would also be significantly reduced even though our win total would still likely be similar.

Don't buy the media hype. John Clayton actually said if Luck was our QB we probably never lose a game. Yeah, NEVER. I don't know why the media is so hell bent on convincing everyone that Luck is doing it all by himself with the worst roster ever assembled, even though his GM got executive of the year three years ago for supposedly putting talent around him but they sure are. They can't get enough of shoving Luck down our throats. Meanwhile in the media to many, Wilson is just a game manager who is only successful because of Lynch and our defense. It really is pretty dumb IMO.

 

[RichNhansom]

95 Rating qualifies for 10th. You could argue pretty easily that it falls somewhere within the "average" spectrum. Unless Brock Huard has said otherwise of course.

10th? Hmm not bad, How does Andrew Luck fall in their? I am curious.

 

[Tical21]

95 Rating qualifies for 10th. You could argue pretty easily that it falls somewhere within the "average" spectrum. Unless Brock Huard has said otherwise of course.

10th? Hmm not bad, How does Andrew Luck fall in their? I am curious.

Luck was 7th this year at 96.5. No, 10th, for a 3rd year QB without a great line or WR's is pretty darn excellent.

 

[ctrcat]

Why am I using Luck? Because he is the only other QB viewed to have at least similar success to Wilson from the modern era who started week one for his team.

How Newton is not seen as = to or > than Luck is another mystery. Last October, Cam had the worst rating of his 4 year career at home on TNF against the Saints. He was bad. He was also busted to pieces physically and had an UDFA rookie from Montreal named David Foucault who had never played American football in America before last year STARTING @LT!!! You read that right. And yet he STILL had a higher QBR than Luck did in his last outing against the Pats in the playoffs, a stinker the likes of which Cam has honestly never known. The same Patriots that a healthy Cam ran around, over, and through last year on MNF, throwing a game winning TD to Ted Ginn, who has been an underwhelming at best WR every other place he's been. I won't bore with more of the details, but compare age, total resumes, skill sets, supporting casts (or lack thereof), and it remains a mystery IMO.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread and your statement is not wrong, it is what it is I guess.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

95 Rating qualifies for 10th. You could argue pretty easily that it falls somewhere within the "average" spectrum. Unless Brock Huard has said otherwise of course.

10th? Hmm not bad, How does Andrew Luck fall in their? I am curious.

Luck was 7th this year at 96.5. No, 10th, for a 3rd year QB without a great line or WR's is pretty darn excellent.

I'm assuming you're trying to give Wilson a backhanded compliment by that reference? Which if that's what you meant, it was just in time to save what little dignity you have left concerning him. So bravo to you, I guess.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Why am I using Luck? Because he is the only other QB viewed to have at least similar success to Wilson from the modern era who started week one for his team.

How Newton is not seen as = to or > than Luck is another mystery. Last October, Cam had the worst rating of his 4 year career at home on TNF against the Saints. He was bad. He was also busted to pieces physically and had an UDFA rookie from Montreal named David Foucault who had never played American football in America before last year STARTING @LT!!! You read that right. And yet he STILL had a higher QBR than Luck did in his last outing against the Pats in the playoffs, a stinker the likes of which Cam has honestly never known. The same Patriots that a healthy Cam ran around, over, and through last year on MNF, throwing a game winning TD to Ted Ginn, who has been an underwhelming at best WR every other place he's been. I won't bore with more of the details, but compare age, total resumes, skill sets, supporting casts (or lack thereof), and it remains a mystery IMO.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread and your statement is not wrong, it is what it is I guess.

I do agree both life and the media's unnatural and up until now totally off base syphocantic worship of Luck is a mystery which I think borders on insanity the majority of the time.

 

[KiwiHawk]

If you ever write anything other than "Russell Wilson is the greatest QB in the history of the NFL", prepare to have your thread flooded by at least 15-20 patented Anthony! Russell Wilson worship posts within the next few hours. It doesn't matter if you're right, as long as you post in the thread more often than anyone else.

Unfortunately, I have had to play the "slow your roll, he does not have elite tape" role around here, which in these Russell Wilson shrine threads makes me the Negative Nancy of the group. I guess I would rather be right than blindly loyal. To each their own.

Actually I'd characterize your role as "passive-aggressive self-martyr who overplays the logical fallacy of false dilemma", but again to each his own.

The reality is a middle ground. By some yardsticks he's incredible. By other yardsticks he's average. All yardsticks use are flawed because of the ridiculously small sample sizes of the NFL, the fallacy of inferring an individual's performance in a team sport, and the lack of valid comparisons since different QBs play on different teams who in turn play against different teams.

As far as observational data goes, I disagree he doesn't have elite tape. He has some poor tape, but he also has some incredible, and I dare say elite, tape.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Tical21 I was wondering if you could make some screen grab gifs showing the receivers not getting open/Wilson's mistakes and making a thread about it. You said you've seen the tape and have access to the All-22. I would like to see what you see as well as others here too. Could you also tell me the specific games where you had concerns about Wilson missing open wide receivers.

 

[rideaducati]

Why does Wilson throw the ball away more often than anybody else? Why does he take so long to get rid of the football? Go to the videotape.

You don't see many guys that watch tape talk about how elite Russell Wilson is. Just sayin'. Tape don't lie and tape don't skew numbers in a weak attempt to validate its theories.

Wilson throws the ball away because he doesn't trust his receivers to win matchups and Pete preaches from day one that the most important thing in football is the BALL. Keeping it and getting it when you don't have it...THAT IS WHAT MATTERS MOST.

I have watched every snap Russell has ever taken on the coaches film, and there is one constant from Russell and that is he is always getting better. He knows what he needs to work on and he works on it until he gets a chance to use what he learned in live action.

I think he still needs to learn to take what the defense gives and not go for the big play EVERY time. When he does go for the kill shot on broken plays, he usually throws the ball short which isn't a good thing with the receivers he is throwing the ball to. Russell needs to get rid of the ball on time on intermediate pass plays. He seems to be late on all of his longer passes, accurate, but late delivering the ball. His anticipation on intermediate and long passes is something he should get better at this year.

Does anyone else remember the conversations in the 80's about which QBs were "elite"? I remember hearing Fouts, Marino, and Elway. Those were the three. In the 80's those "elite" QBs won ZERO championships COMBINED. There was ALWAYS a knock on Montana and Aikman because THEIR teams had great running games and great defenses and they were not NEEDED to do as much as Fouts, Marino and Elway. Same conversations these days, only the names have changed.

I feel the same now as I did back in the 80's. I think it's silly that they ALWAYS find a way to knock the QB on the better TEAM when all he does is WIN.

Ask ANYONE now if Joe Montana was "elite" and they'll say he was, but his "stats" say he really wasn't. Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, and Roger Staubach forced their way into the "elite" with wins rather than stats. ALL OF THEM won Super Bowls with the number one defense in the NFL and great running games too. I believe Russell will join their group of "elite", but until his career is over, people will say that he NEEDED that defense and running game, just like people said with Montana, Aikman, Bradshaw and Staubach... Some people will never learn.