Amazing game by Russell Wilson today

[John63]

Curious, if you don’t mind. How does this compare to 15 and 18?

What specifically are you asking about? What stat?

Dont ask him what he means ?
Make him sonthe work. He will not and until he does he has nothing, same with the arguement about passing rating, show a stat that gives us a better stat for showing how well a QB played against zone? They can't, and you can vet if QB rating showed what they want to they would be all over it. They are playing their game, provide nothing to prove their point, keep saying it, and hope we realize it's a waste of time and they say they won because we were smart enough to realize ignorance is bliss and they are blissful.

 

[Scorpion05]

Wait why would those stats be more relevant than things like Passer Rating against zone coverage? LOL. Sacks can happen in zone or man. The passer rating stat cited is specific to the thing you're talking about. I can't see how that wouldn't be more relevant.

Sacks is not one of the components of passer rating. It couldn't be less relevant in a discussion about sacks.

I feel like you've missed something b/c your comment doesn't make sense. Tical is through this thread arguing Wilson doesn't do good against zone coverages. Someone posted a stat that Wilson had the highest passer rating against zone coverage of any QB in the league, seems pretty relevant to a disscussion about if he's good against zone. Instead Tical says the stats that prove he's bad against zone are TTT and sacks. I'm saying both of those things happen against zone and man coverage so aren't really direct links at all to his point about zone coverage. However the passer rating stat cited earlier was specifically about vs. Zone coverage therefore more relevant. I was in no way saying that sacks were part of passer rating. So yeah, the overarching discussion was about zone coverage reading not sacks as you said. Tical is just saying that sacks being high is a stat that proves his point about Russ vs. zone, that's were the sacks talk came from.

Ok, I'll explain.

Let's use a completely silly hypothetical model to highlight the point. Our fictional QB throws the ball 10 times for 10 completions for 120 yards and 2 touchdowns. He gets a perfect passer rating of 156.3. But let's say he did that on 67 passing attempts, where the remainder ended in sacks. 10 passes, 10 completions, but 57 sacks. What is his QB rating now? Still 156.3. As long as he doesn't throw the ball, the passer rating remains perfect.

Now, 10/10 for 120 and 2TD says the guy is effective against the zone, without any more information. However, if you include the sacks, you can't say he's an effective passer against the zone.

So because one of the points is that Wilson takes too many sacks vs zone coverage, you can't say that passer rating is a valid measure of effectiveness vs zone, because it ignores any plays resulting in sacks.

In fact, passer rating is really a measure of interceptions, since that is what it punishes hardest. Let's say our guy throws no TDs. Rating drops to 116.7. Still impressive. But let's say he does throw 2 TDs, but also throws an Int. 116.7 again. One INT negates 2 TDs. What about the yards? One INT negates ALL of the yards. Even with only 2 yards passing, both for 1-yard TDs, our QB has a rating of 118.8.

So yards are not important, and TDs are only half as good as INTs are bad, and sacks don't count at all.

If I said "this guys is good against the zone" while ignoring yards, discounting TDs, and not counting sacks, you'd laugh at me.

As long as Wilson doesn't throw picks, it doesn't matter if he holds the ball forever (TTT) and eventually take sacks, because those numbers don't show up on Passer Rating. Therefore, Passer Rating is not evidence against either of those claims, and is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation (in part because it's one of the NFL's most irrelevant stats to begin with).

You know why Wilson has a great passer rating over his career? Because his head coach hates turnovers and teaches him not to make them. That's it.

This is a completely weak argument. You seem more interested in winning an argument than following objective information.

Wilson’s turnover percentage is low because he’s an accurate passer, and because he makes good decisions. He led the league in tight window throws last year. That’s not someone who simply has low turnovers because Pete doesn’t want to turn over the ball.

Your point about sacks would hold up except that’s not what the All-22 shows. You’re basically projecting a theory without anything to back it up. The film shows our offense often had long developing routes. The film also has shown over the years that Russell was PRESSURED in under 3 seconds, more than most QBs in the league over that span. Meaning not just that he was blitzed, but that our O-linemen simply got beat.

If you are going to try to support your argument, do you have any source of information showing how many sacks were as a result of blitzes? Or, how many attempts, compared to other QBs has Russell effectively beaten the blitz?

So in other words, you’re trying desperately to diminish his numbers against the blitz. While failing miserably to find an effective comparison amongst his peers? Let’s say your logic about a QB taking 50 sacks, but passing 10/10 times and having a perfect QB rating. Beyond the fact that not rushing throws and causing turnovers will lead to more wins...how is taking 50 sacks WORSE than Tom Brady, Big Ben, or other GREAT O-lines in the league giving their QB up to 4-5 seconds to throw???

So your logic is, a QB who’s pressured under 3 seconds consistently and takes a sacks, should have his blitz numbers diminished. But a QB who’s consistently comfortable in the pocket because of O-line protection, shouldn’t be judged the same way? It’s obvious several of you here failed philosophy class, you’re not even trying to logically analyze your argument from different angles. Again, this argument is weak

 

[John63]

Okay let's get this organized


The original knock was Wilson cant throw short. There was no facts to support it. Facts were provided showing he could indeed throw short and way above avg.

Then th knock was changed tongue cant read a zone. Again no fact was provided to support this. Again facts were provided to prove he could.

Despite all the FACTS and STATS proving both of these knocks are in correct and tactless, some continue to argue their factually incorrect stance is wrong.

Now they are trying to confuse everyone with outlandish, factless statements that are not well thought out or written our and border on gibberish.

Here is an idea find a concrete fact that supports your stance or admit your wrong or do what people who cant admit there wrong do and fade away.

 

[HawkStrong]

Sacks is not one of the components of passer rating. It couldn't be less relevant in a discussion about sacks.

I feel like you've missed something b/c your comment doesn't make sense. Tical is through this thread arguing Wilson doesn't do good against zone coverages. Someone posted a stat that Wilson had the highest passer rating against zone coverage of any QB in the league, seems pretty relevant to a disscussion about if he's good against zone. Instead Tical says the stats that prove he's bad against zone are TTT and sacks. I'm saying both of those things happen against zone and man coverage so aren't really direct links at all to his point about zone coverage. However the passer rating stat cited earlier was specifically about vs. Zone coverage therefore more relevant. I was in no way saying that sacks were part of passer rating. So yeah, the overarching discussion was about zone coverage reading not sacks as you said. Tical is just saying that sacks being high is a stat that proves his point about Russ vs. zone, that's were the sacks talk came from.

Ok, I'll explain.

Let's use a completely silly hypothetical model to highlight the point. Our fictional QB throws the ball 10 times for 10 completions for 120 yards and 2 touchdowns. He gets a perfect passer rating of 156.3. But let's say he did that on 67 passing attempts, where the remainder ended in sacks. 10 passes, 10 completions, but 57 sacks. What is his QB rating now? Still 156.3. As long as he doesn't throw the ball, the passer rating remains perfect.

Now, 10/10 for 120 and 2TD says the guy is effective against the zone, without any more information. However, if you include the sacks, you can't say he's an effective passer against the zone.

So because one of the points is that Wilson takes too many sacks vs zone coverage, you can't say that passer rating is a valid measure of effectiveness vs zone, because it ignores any plays resulting in sacks.

In fact, passer rating is really a measure of interceptions, since that is what it punishes hardest. Let's say our guy throws no TDs. Rating drops to 116.7. Still impressive. But let's say he does throw 2 TDs, but also throws an Int. 116.7 again. One INT negates 2 TDs. What about the yards? One INT negates ALL of the yards. Even with only 2 yards passing, both for 1-yard TDs, our QB has a rating of 118.8.

So yards are not important, and TDs are only half as good as INTs are bad, and sacks don't count at all.

If I said "this guys is good against the zone" while ignoring yards, discounting TDs, and not counting sacks, you'd laugh at me.

As long as Wilson doesn't throw picks, it doesn't matter if he holds the ball forever (TTT) and eventually take sacks, because those numbers don't show up on Passer Rating. Therefore, Passer Rating is not evidence against either of those claims, and is pretty much irrelevant to the conversation (in part because it's one of the NFL's most irrelevant stats to begin with).

You know why Wilson has a great passer rating over his career? Because his head coach hates turnovers and teaches him not to make them. That's it.

Nailed it.

Nailed nothing. Kiwi & Tical are throwing out a hypothetical theory, trying to make it a reality.

When I got the numbers right here. The Real Reality.

2017 1st qtr split
69/119
57.98% Completion
671 yards
4 TDs
3 INTs
5.6 YPA -->(Bubble Screens) (Conservative, don't lose the game.) <--
74.6 Passer Rating
Sacked 14 times

2017 4th qtr split (By now the gameplan is in the trash.)
94/139
67.63%
1303 yards
19 TDs (NFL Record)
1 INT
9.4 YPA
134.1 Passer Rating
Sacked only 3 times!!!

Wilson had no running game to lean on in the 4th qtr. 22 eyeballs were on Wilson, and they couldn't stop him.

Let me guess opponents were running zone in the 1st qtr, and they played man in the 4th qtr. The scheme and Pete's philosophy itself had very little to do with it. LOL. Wilson can't read zone defenses. LMAO. No, this was a product of scheme and poor gameplanning (Cabevell).

Take a long hard look at the sacks please.

/thread

 

[KiwiHawk]

You guys are somehow lumping me in with Tical's argument. My only "horse" in this race is illustrating why passer rating is a bad stat for countering Tical's argument.

I am not agreeing with him or supporting him in any way.

My goal is for us here to be able to think critically, which means not using irrelevant responses to people's arguments.

The arguments in this thread are never going to come to anything because you are all arguing past one another using examples that don't relate vs stats that don't relate. It's incredibly stupid.

Passer rating doesn't count sacks, so it's not a valid argument against the TTT/sacks argument.

However, TTT/sacks is a stat in a vacuum unless it can be isolated to zone defense opportunities and definitively linked to TTT, which I believe I adequately showed was not the case vs Pittsburgh, with supporting visual evidence (y'all kinda forgot that when you lumped me in with Tical, didn't ya).

1st quarter vs 4th quarter stats also don't mean anything because down-vs-distance is not considered, nor defensive front, blitzes, etc. including the influence of early running on the stamina of the 4th-quarter defensive line.

This is a team sport with a metric ton of variables, and to pick out any one and say it definitively proves anything is moronic in the extreme.

If you want to make a point, provide reasoned arguments and if possible provide visual examples of what you are talking about.

And please don't just assume I am with someone else's argument just because I can't stand false logic. I only want us, as a group, to think better. Be more rational. Make clear, concise, and supported arguments.

 

[John63]

You guys are somehow lumping me in with Tical's argument. My only "horse" in this race is illustrating why passer rating is a bad stat for countering Tical's argument.

I am not agreeing with him or supporting him in any way.

My goal is for us here to be able to think critically, which means not using irrelevant responses to people's arguments.

The arguments in this thread are never going to come to anything because you are all arguing past one another using examples that don't relate vs stats that don't relate. It's incredibly stupid.

Passer rating doesn't count sacks, so it's not a valid argument against the TTT/sacks argument.

However, TTT/sacks is a stat in a vacuum unless it can be isolated to zone defense opportunities and definitively linked to TTT, which I believe I adequately showed was not the case vs Pittsburgh, with supporting visual evidence (y'all kinda forgot that when you lumped me in with Tical, didn't ya).

1st quarter vs 4th quarter stats also don't mean anything because down-vs-distance is not considered, nor defensive front, blitzes, etc. including the influence of early running on the stamina of the 4th-quarter defensive line.

This is a team sport with a metric ton of variables, and to pick out any one and say it definitively proves anything is moronic in the extreme.

If you want to make a point, provide reasoned arguments and if possible provide visual examples of what you are talking about.

And please don't just assume I am with someone else's argument just because I can't stand false logic. I only want us, as a group, to think better. Be more rational. Make clear, concise, and supported arguments.

Ths original arguement for me was tical saying wilson cant read or play well against a zone defense. The stat qb rating against zone defenses proves that is wrong. All the rest was Tical knowing he got caught and trying to come up with some alternate thing that allows him to maintain his factually incorrect stance. As to your assertion that the facts provided do not entirelt support the stances in response to ticals other attempts, perhaps they do not entirely but they do support them alot more than tical who has supplied nothing. I and any one with a clear head would much rather side with someone who supplies some facts than someone who supplies nothing. Until someone can provide facts to the contrary what we have is what we have and as such rivals entire line of arguments wrong.

 

[Fade]

You guys are somehow lumping me in with Tical's argument. My only "horse" in this race is illustrating why passer rating is a bad stat for countering Tical's argument.

I am not agreeing with him or supporting him in any way.

My goal is for us here to be able to think critically, which means not using irrelevant responses to people's arguments.

The arguments in this thread are never going to come to anything because you are all arguing past one another using examples that don't relate vs stats that don't relate. It's incredibly stupid.

Passer rating doesn't count sacks, so it's not a valid argument against the TTT/sacks argument.

However, TTT/sacks is a stat in a vacuum unless it can be isolated to zone defense opportunities and definitively linked to TTT, which I believe I adequately showed was not the case vs Pittsburgh, with supporting visual evidence (y'all kinda forgot that when you lumped me in with Tical, didn't ya).

1st quarter vs 4th quarter stats also don't mean anything because down-vs-distance is not considered, nor defensive front, blitzes, etc. including the influence of early running on the stamina of the 4th-quarter defensive line.

This is a team sport with a metric ton of variables, and to pick out any one and say it definitively proves anything is moronic in the extreme.

If you want to make a point, provide reasoned arguments and if possible provide visual examples of what you are talking about.

And please don't just assume I am with someone else's argument just because I can't stand false logic. I only want us, as a group, to think better. Be more rational. Make clear, concise, and supported arguments.

TTT is heavily influenced by scheme. Wilson is playing in a scheme that takes deep shots, with long developing playaction, of course he has a long TTT. But as he proved last week, and sporadically in the past he can get the ball out quick, when it is required. Coach doesn't like playing that way though. Pete hates dink and dunk.

This was already discussed, and debunked earlier in this thread btw. Schotty also explained this as well.

 

[Fade]

Enough said. Offensive coor Brian Schottenheimer says reason #Seahawks just don’t go quick throws in pass game all the time is they value the deep, play-action passes and using the run to set that up. “It varies,” he says. @thenewstribune https://t.co/CNJeMimkm7

Yes, and as I have tried to explain ad nauseam. Because that is how coach wants it. Pete hates dink & dunk. We will just have to keep hammering it home I guess.

This is a completely weak argument. You seem more interested in winning an argument than following objective information.

Wilson’s turnover percentage is low because he’s an accurate passer, and because he makes good decisions. He led the league in tight window throws last year. That’s not someone who simply has low turnovers because Pete doesn’t want to turn over the ball.

Your point about sacks would hold up except that’s not what the All-22 shows. You’re basically projecting a theory without anything to back it up. The film shows our offense often had long developing routes. The film also has shown over the years that Russell was PRESSURED in under 3 seconds, more than most QBs in the league over that span. Meaning not just that he was blitzed, but that our O-linemen simply got beat.

If you are going to try to support your argument, do you have any source of information showing how many sacks were as a result of blitzes? Or, how many attempts, compared to other QBs has Russell effectively beaten the blitz?

So in other words, you’re trying desperately to diminish his numbers against the blitz. While failing miserably to find an effective comparison amongst his peers? Let’s say your logic about a QB taking 50 sacks, but passing 10/10 times and having a perfect QB rating. Beyond the fact that not rushing throws and causing turnovers will lead to more wins...how is taking 50 sacks WORSE than Tom Brady, Big Ben, or other GREAT O-lines in the league giving their QB up to 4-5 seconds to throw???

So your logic is, a QB who’s pressured under 3 seconds consistently and takes a sacks, should have his blitz numbers diminished. But a QB who’s consistently comfortable in the pocket because of O-line protection, shouldn’t be judged the same way? It’s obvious several of you here failed philosophy class, you’re not even trying to logically analyze your argument from different angles. Again, this argument is weak

Fantastic post. And I also would like to add that Russell Wilson has murdered the blitz over his entire career.

/thread

It is /thread, but I don't mind watching them flail around, with failed theories, fables, and fairy tales, only to be rejected. It is quite funny to me, every time they try to come with a new angle
I be like ->

 

[TwilightError]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... n-rankings

Wilson is listed as 3rd best QB in nfl.com, only behind Mahomes and Brady. Not much disrespect left. No longer Too Short, no longer Game Manager.

But. Is he black enough?

 

[erik2690]

You guys are somehow lumping me in with Tical's argument. My only "horse" in this race is illustrating why passer rating is a bad stat for countering Tical's argument.

I am not agreeing with him or supporting him in any way.

My goal is for us here to be able to think critically, which means not using irrelevant responses to people's arguments.

The arguments in this thread are never going to come to anything because you are all arguing past one another using examples that don't relate vs stats that don't relate. It's incredibly stupid.

Passer rating doesn't count sacks, so it's not a valid argument against the TTT/sacks argument.

However, TTT/sacks is a stat in a vacuum unless it can be isolated to zone defense opportunities and definitively linked to TTT, which I believe I adequately showed was not the case vs Pittsburgh, with supporting visual evidence (y'all kinda forgot that when you lumped me in with Tical, didn't ya).

1st quarter vs 4th quarter stats also don't mean anything because down-vs-distance is not considered, nor defensive front, blitzes, etc. including the influence of early running on the stamina of the 4th-quarter defensive line.

This is a team sport with a metric ton of variables, and to pick out any one and say it definitively proves anything is moronic in the extreme.

If you want to make a point, provide reasoned arguments and if possible provide visual examples of what you are talking about.

And please don't just assume I am with someone else's argument just because I can't stand false logic. I only want us, as a group, to think better. Be more rational. Make clear, concise, and supported arguments.

This would be an awesome post if the argument had ever been about passer rating negating sacks/TTT or even being an argument against high sacks/TTT. That just wasn't the argument. The argument was which of these 2 things is more relevant to a discussion specific to QB play vs. Zone coverage:

1. Sacks/TTT non-specifc to any coverage
2. Passer Rating specific to Zone coverage

This seems so simple to me, the stat that's specific to the coverage being talked about clearly has more relevance than the stat that doesn't take coverage into account if the argument is specific to a type of coverage. Am I taking crazy pills or what? It seems so simple and yet you've convoluted it into some weird passer rating vs. sacks, no perfect stat debate that it never was. I genuinely don't get where this became complicated, if you are arguing about a certain coverage citing stats that don't break down by coverage is kinda silly and thus less relevant than a stat that does. It was never about passer rating being the ultimate stat or that sacks/TTT don't matter, none of that. The argument again seems kinda simple. If the stat was about sacks/TTT vs. Zone and the differential between zone/man it would become hugely more relevant.

 

[John63]

You guys are somehow lumping me in with Tical's argument. My only "horse" in this race is illustrating why passer rating is a bad stat for countering Tical's argument.

I am not agreeing with him or supporting him in any way.

My goal is for us here to be able to think critically, which means not using irrelevant responses to people's arguments.

The arguments in this thread are never going to come to anything because you are all arguing past one another using examples that don't relate vs stats that don't relate. It's incredibly stupid.

Passer rating doesn't count sacks, so it's not a valid argument against the TTT/sacks argument.

However, TTT/sacks is a stat in a vacuum unless it can be isolated to zone defense opportunities and definitively linked to TTT, which I believe I adequately showed was not the case vs Pittsburgh, with supporting visual evidence (y'all kinda forgot that when you lumped me in with Tical, didn't ya).

1st quarter vs 4th quarter stats also don't mean anything because down-vs-distance is not considered, nor defensive front, blitzes, etc. including the influence of early running on the stamina of the 4th-quarter defensive line.

This is a team sport with a metric ton of variables, and to pick out any one and say it definitively proves anything is moronic in the extreme.

If you want to make a point, provide reasoned arguments and if possible provide visual examples of what you are talking about.

And please don't just assume I am with someone else's argument just because I can't stand false logic. I only want us, as a group, to think better. Be more rational. Make clear, concise, and supported arguments.

This would be an awesome post if the argument had ever been about passer rating negating sacks/TTT or even being an argument against high sacks/TTT. That just wasn't the argument. The argument was which of these 2 things is more relevant to a discussion specific to QB play vs. Zone coverage:

1. Sacks/TTT non-specifc to any coverage
2. Passer Rating specific to Zone coverage

This seems so simple to me, the stat that's specific to the coverage being talked about clearly has more relevance than the stat that doesn't take coverage into account if the argument is specific to a type of coverage. Am I taking crazy pills or what? It seems so simple and yet you've convoluted it into some weird passer rating vs. sacks, no perfect stat debate that it never was. I genuinely don't get where this became complicated, if you are arguing about a certain coverage citing stats that don't break down by coverage is kinda silly and thus less relevant than a stat that does. It was never about passer rating being the ultimate stat or that sacks/TTT don't matter, none of that. The argument again seems kinda simple. If the stat was about sacks/TTT vs. Zone and the differential between zone/man it would become hugely more relevant.

That's the plan If you cant win with facts, try to confuse everyone. The FACT is the only stat provided that's supports the original discussion of Wilson not being able to read or perform well against the zone is QB rating. QB rating takes the following stat points into account compmlt%, ypa, tds per attempt and int per attempt to make up the QB rating. In this case the QB rating in question is specific to zone. Even if we had the ttt and sacks vs zone the problem with it is we would need a break down of assignment of guilt for each sack and then the play design and actual results for each play to determine 1 was its Wilson's fault of the sack, 2 was the ttt elevated due to play call and design. QB rating is all about the things that all experts judge a QB by. So with that given Wilson has the top QB rating against zone the whole cant read zone or perform well against zone is pretty much proven FACTUALLY wrong.

 

[McGruff]

You guys are somehow lumping me in with Tical's argument. My only "horse" in this race is illustrating why passer rating is a bad stat for countering Tical's argument.

I am not agreeing with him or supporting him in any way.

My goal is for us here to be able to think critically, which means not using irrelevant responses to people's arguments.

The arguments in this thread are never going to come to anything because you are all arguing past one another using examples that don't relate vs stats that don't relate. It's incredibly stupid.

Passer rating doesn't count sacks, so it's not a valid argument against the TTT/sacks argument.

However, TTT/sacks is a stat in a vacuum unless it can be isolated to zone defense opportunities and definitively linked to TTT, which I believe I adequately showed was not the case vs Pittsburgh, with supporting visual evidence (y'all kinda forgot that when you lumped me in with Tical, didn't ya).

1st quarter vs 4th quarter stats also don't mean anything because down-vs-distance is not considered, nor defensive front, blitzes, etc. including the influence of early running on the stamina of the 4th-quarter defensive line.

This is a team sport with a metric ton of variables, and to pick out any one and say it definitively proves anything is moronic in the extreme.

If you want to make a point, provide reasoned arguments and if possible provide visual examples of what you are talking about.

And please don't just assume I am with someone else's argument just because I can't stand false logic. I only want us, as a group, to think better. Be more rational. Make clear, concise, and supported arguments.

Brilly.

 

[HawkStrong]

You guys are somehow lumping me in with Tical's argument. My only "horse" in this race is illustrating why passer rating is a bad stat for countering Tical's argument.

I am not agreeing with him or supporting him in any way.

My goal is for us here to be able to think critically, which means not using irrelevant responses to people's arguments.

The arguments in this thread are never going to come to anything because you are all arguing past one another using examples that don't relate vs stats that don't relate. It's incredibly stupid.

Passer rating doesn't count sacks, so it's not a valid argument against the TTT/sacks argument.

However, TTT/sacks is a stat in a vacuum unless it can be isolated to zone defense opportunities and definitively linked to TTT, which I believe I adequately showed was not the case vs Pittsburgh, with supporting visual evidence (y'all kinda forgot that when you lumped me in with Tical, didn't ya).

1st quarter vs 4th quarter stats also don't mean anything because down-vs-distance is not considered, nor defensive front, blitzes, etc. including the influence of early running on the stamina of the 4th-quarter defensive line.

This is a team sport with a metric ton of variables, and to pick out any one and say it definitively proves anything is moronic in the extreme.

If you want to make a point, provide reasoned arguments and if possible provide visual examples of what you are talking about.

And please don't just assume I am with someone else's argument just because I can't stand false logic. I only want us, as a group, to think better. Be more rational. Make clear, concise, and supported arguments.

Brilly.

Brilliant moving goalposts... Anyone backing Tical at this point is just willfully ignorant.

 

[Seymour]

Boy!!!

I sure hope the other 31 D coordinators out there do not read this thread and figure out from Tical and followers posts that Wilson cannot read and react to zones well as that would spell disaster to our season and Wilson's career!!

If that happens I'm sure that Tical will soon be employed in the NFL for his brilliant discovery of what no other DC has been able to figure out yet.

We could be in a world of shit if they find out this alternate reality!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Tical21]

Boy!!!

I sure hope the other 31 D coordinators out there do not read this thread and figure out from Tical and followers posts that Wilson cannot read and react to zones well as that would spell disaster to our season and Wilson's career!!

If that happens I'm sure that Tical will soon be employed in the NFL for his brilliant discovery of what no other DC has been able to figure out yet.

We could be in a world of shit if they find out this alternate reality!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Believe me, they all know it. In '17, we saw approximately 20% more zone than 2015 (you'll have to look me up on twitter for the exact numbers and research). The teams that aren't primarily man teams would love to run as much zone against us as possible. Problem is, if they run zone, we're just going to run it down their throats until we force them to go man.

The coverages were a little odd, but Russ ripped apart zone this week. Hopefully that's a sign of things to come. BTW I'm working on a project I think you all are going to enjoy quite a bit. Stay tuned big guy.

 

[Seymour]

BTW I'm working on a project I think you all are going to enjoy quite a bit. Stay tuned big guy.

Well given your impeccable credibility of useless conjecture I'm sure your project will overwhelm and impress the masses. 8) :2thumbs:

 

[Tical21]

BTW I'm working on a project I think you all are going to enjoy quite a bit. Stay tuned big guy.

Well given your impeccable credibility of useless conjecture I'm sure your project will overwhelm and impress the masses. 8) :2thumbs:

Contribute ONCE, one time, to any conversation on this board before you throw stones, my friend. Imagine you trying to criticize someone. C'mon.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

If this thread is more about other posters than the Seahawks at this point, it's probably run its course.