If Russell was a Ram

[EntiatHawk]

Was listening to the NFL channel while on the road and heard an interesting comment by Pat Kirwin. (Paraphrasing here)


He said to Jim Miller what if you took the Rams right now and put Russell Wilson on that team, what would you think of them now?

Miller replied they would be just like the Seahawks.

For all of those who think RW is just game manager you should Re-calibrate your thinking. He is a game changer. He's able to limit mistakes and make huge plays when you need him to. Those two factors have brought us a Lombardi.

 

[onanygivensunday]

The Lambs have no passing game.

Tough D but not much more.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

This is flat out silly. They have no one at RB that compares to Lynch and their d-backfield is in no way even close to ours. It's a team game despite the fact that the QB is the most important position on the team.

 

[chawx]

I agree. And I'll go one further. If you put Russell on the Texans last year instead of Schaub, they just might have gotten the #32nd pick in the draft instead of the #1st ...that's how much I feel RW changes the game.

#biggestHomerOnDotNet

 

[ImTheScientist]

For all of those who think RW is just game manager you should Re-calibrate your thinking. He is a game changer. He's able to limit mistakes and make huge plays when you need him to. Those two factors have brought us a Lombardi.

Does anyone think he is a game manager here?

 

[volsunghawk]

This is flat out silly. They have no one at RB that compares to Lynch and their d-backfield is in no way even close to ours. It's a team game despite the fact that the QB is the most important position on the team.

I don't know. They've got Stacy and just added Tre Mason, so I think their RB situation is quite good, even if they don't have a Beast Mode type of guy. They have weapons at WR, though little experience, so I think we have the edge there. They've arguably got at least as much quality on the O-line as we do. On defense, they're one of the few teams that has a clear advantage over us on the D-line/pass rush, and that makes up for the poorer secondary. I think if you give the Rams a real QB and a different OC, they'd be pretty damn dangerous and easily a threat to take the west.

Luckily, they seem to be content to hitch their wagon to Bradford and Schottenheimer, so we should be fine until they come to their senses.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I could agree with Game Changer....but prefer the term Game Challenger. He challenges his team mates to get better and be better in all they do. Just my humble thoughts..... :mrgreen:

:thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:

 

[dukestar]

For all of those who think RW is just game manager you should Re-calibrate your thinking. He is a game changer. He's able to limit mistakes and make huge plays when you need him to. Those two factors have brought us a Lombardi.

Does anyone think he is a game manager here?

Ugh...does anyone know who started this whole "game manager" thing about a QB being a bad thing to be? IMO, a QB must be a game manager. Move the chains, don't turn it over, burn the clock, get the ball into scoring position, use the sidelines etc. It's all about managing the game. How can a QB that manages the game effectively be considered a negative thing? Everytime I hear a so called expert bag on a QB by saying they are a game manager I think what a moron. Am I missing something here?

 

[EastCoastHawksFan]

The thought of Russell on any other team makes me want to puke

That being said us minus Wilson and Rams plus Wilson woild Definitely make them the favorites of our division .
Him on any other team besides the black hole would make them instant playoff contenders .

His work ethic alone raises everybody's game ; coaching staff included

 

[ImTheScientist]

For all of those who think RW is just game manager you should Re-calibrate your thinking. He is a game changer. He's able to limit mistakes and make huge plays when you need him to. Those two factors have brought us a Lombardi.

Does anyone think he is a game manager here?

Ugh...does anyone know who started this whole "game manager" thing about a QB being a bad thing to be? IMO, a QB must be a game manager. Move the chains, don't turn it over, burn the clock, get the ball into scoring position, use the sidelines etc. It's all about managing the game. How can a QB that manages the game effectively be considered a negative thing? Everytime I hear a so called expert bag on a QB by saying they are a game manager I think what a moron. Am I missing something here?

I blame Trent Dilfer.

 

[Cartire]

For all of those who think RW is just game manager you should Re-calibrate your thinking. He is a game changer. He's able to limit mistakes and make huge plays when you need him to. Those two factors have brought us a Lombardi.

Does anyone think he is a game manager here?

Ugh...does anyone know who started this whole "game manager" thing about a QB being a bad thing to be? IMO, a QB must be a game manager. Move the chains, don't turn it over, burn the clock, get the ball into scoring position, use the sidelines etc. It's all about managing the game. How can a QB that manages the game effectively be considered a negative thing? Everytime I hear a so called expert bag on a QB by saying they are a game manager I think what a moron. Am I missing something here?

I blame Trent Dilfer.

except i hate it when people call Dilfer a Game Manger. He couldnt even do that. he threw 12 TD's and 11 INT's his Super Bowl year. I repeat. He threw all of 12 TD's, and nearly matched with 11 INT. His highest TD season his whole career was 21. 21..... 21 was his best season.

The guy wasnt even a manager. He was the beneficiary of an extraordinary defense and a lot of good luck. Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, (insert any paltry QB), would have a ring if they were on the 2000 team.

 

[kobebryant]

No way the Rams would be as good as the Hawks are now if you gave them Wilson.

None of their DBs are close to anything like the Hawks, they don't have a runner like Lynch, they don't have the homefield advantage, they don't have guys at WR that will make plays like we've seen Baldwin and Kearse make, Austin doesn't change things the way Harvin does, their TEs don't block like Miller.

Fisher is an overrated coach who hovers around.500 for the most part but is thought of highly because of how long it took the Titans to fire him; he doesn't offer what Pete does. The Rams also don't have the same caliber of 2's, 3's and guys to make up their special teams that are the same quality as the Hawks (guys the Hawks cut early in camp - Veltung and Armstrong feature on their special team units)

Would they beat the Hawks? sure, because the Hawks wouldn't have their QB anymore and Russell is good enough to sway the difference between the teams considering that Bradford or someone else is their QB; but they wouldn't be as good.

The Hawks are the most dominant Super Bowl champ in recent memory due to the insane strength of their team 1-53, though the QB certainly played a role, the team can still win and dominate without leaning too heavily on him as the Broncos or Saints do (we saw both teams look awful if their passing game gets shut down).

And I don't get the negative connotation with 'game manager' , I think it is an apt description for Russ. Put up efficient yet not big passing numbers, don't turn it over, keep the chains moving, get in and out of the huddle, don't screw it up, make plays when they are there to be made. He is better than perfect for what the QB is asked to do on this team.

 

[DavidSeven]

Rams would be at least a 12-win team with Russell Wilson. Would they win the Super Bowl? Maybe not, but they would have all the ingredients to be extremely successful. Elite QB, bruising RB (Stacy), A+ pass rush, and blue-chippers on their O-Line.

If you don't think that team would be scary with a QB like Wilson, you're kidding yourself. However, I disagree that they would be the "same" as the Seahawks. Their strengths are actually different than Seattle's.

 

[hawkfan68]

Russell Wilson does what he is asked to do. If he is asked to be a game manager, then he does it and does it perfectly. If he's asked to be a game changer, he does that and does it well. If one labels RW as game manager, they can also do the same for many of the other QBs as well. He doesn't put up gaudy stats and that's why he's looked at as a game manager. If one watches his play on a regular basis, it's far from the "game manager" definition. He does his job within the parameters he's given. That's why he has most wins in 2 years and a world championship under his belt.

 

[HawkFan72]

The Rams would be scary good if they had Russell Wilson as their QB.

Their D is already ridiculously tough. Add in Russell on Offense and their team would be in the same class as ours, IMO.

 

[Blitzer88]

I don't even want to imagine this scenario.

 

[pmedic920]

For all of those who think RW is just game manager you should Re-calibrate your thinking. He is a game changer. He's able to limit mistakes and make huge plays when you need him to. Those two factors have brought us a Lombardi.

Does anyone think he is a game manager here?

I do.
That and much more.
Managing the game is one of the things an elite QB must be able to do well.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I blame Trent Dilfer.

Trent should certainly know the term, considering he invented it with his mediocre game managing style of QB play.

Considering the Rams are very close to what the Hawks were before Russell arrived, they would be right up there with the elite NFC teams if Wilson was their QB.

 

[Tech Worlds]

Meh. Even if they had Russell they would still have the same shitty coach.

 

[ZagHawk]

Winning the turnover battle often wins the game.
Source: http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... ord/26247/
72-17 = 80.899% win rate.


If you have a QB and team that doesn't make mistakes and never turnover the ball and can get the other team to turnover the ball at least once a game (which tends to happen) you already won the turnover battle. Take the above win rate in a regular season that's 12.94 games a year. Usually enough to win at least a #2 seed in the playoffs.

Why is being a game manager for a QB a bad thing if it wins games?

No one likes the Spurs right now because they play very boring/safe basketball, but they certainly are putting a whooping on the Thunder.