NFL coaches on Wilson, according to Cossell

[themunn]

You want to know the truth, here is a bunch of it.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... ignite.com

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/co ... out/28480/

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/173 ... rback-ever

There is a lot more. Also believe we will be throwing more this year, than last and there will be less conservative play calling.

The stat about consecutive games where we held a 4th Quarter lead/tie is incredible

•The best streaks: Seattle Seahawks 29, San Francisco 49ers 16, Detroit Lions 9

I knew we were good at it... I just didn't realise HOW much better we were than the rest of the league. Had we scored teh go-ahead TD two plays earlier in the NFCCG we'd have broken the Niners' streak too.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

The colts averaged 8.7 wins per season the three years before acquiring Luck, and have averaged 11 wins per year since.
The seahawks averaged 6.3 wins per season the three years before acquiring Luck, and have averaged 12 wins per year since.

Russell Wilson has had 2 seasons with a passer rating over 100
Tom Brady has had 3 seasons with a passer rating over 100
Andrew Luck has yet to have a season passer rating over 90.

In the playoffs, Andrew luck has thrown interceptions at a rate 13 times greater per game than Russell Wilson.

Andrew Luck has yet to throw more touchdowns than Russell Wilson in a regular season. Yup, Andrew is really carrying that team on his back while Russell is just tagging along!

Russell Wilson has thrown for 8.1 yards per attempt
Andrew Luck has thrown for 6.8 yards per attempt

This year the Colts averaged 4.3 yards per rush attempt
This year the Seahawks averaged 4.3 yards per rush attempt

But wait.... the colts and the seahawks rushed for the same yardage per attempt? I thought Russell was being propped up by his amazing running game while Andrew is forced to carry his team? Or is it the fact that Russell's far superior passing efficiency props up the Seahawks running game?

I also find it amazing that the Seahawks had 4 straight seasons with a losing record before drafting Russell, and yet people say that he has the benefit of playing on a stacked team. What a coincidence! They went from a bunch of players who couldn't manage to pull out a winning season to world beaters... and it just so happened to coincide with the drafting of a quarterback who has put up all time great efficiency numbers for his first two seasons in the league. Wow, how lucky for a slightly above average qb like Russell.

Here is the bottom line, people don't like to admit when they are wrong. They all pegged Luck as an all time great and Russell as no better than a backup before either one of them stepped foot on an NFL field. There are some huge egos in the nfl and the networks that cover it, and they will hold on to that narrative for as long as they can. But it is undeniable that Russell has been the far superior quarterback his first two years on the league, and shame on any seahawks fan who is still to blind to recognize that.

Now this is a great post! sums it all up. If these guys admit they are wrong to often, they can't get paid for a job where talking out of your ass pays the bills.

Yes, GREAT post Pocket!!

 

[EntiatHawk]

Everyone goes back to attempts and that you have to throw a lot, bad bad bad, you throw a lot if you have no running game or if defenses suck badly in pass defense, you throw a lot if you play from behind, you don't throw if you have a lead, you convert 3rd downs to keep ball control at times with a pass and make surgical strikes to keep the feild long and wide.

What people are saying is that Luck is better because he can go 160 miles an hour, they don't say he has to stop every 100 miles to get gas as he watches Wilson drive past the station at 70 getting 300 miles to the gallon.

More usage means more statistical significance on the numbers we do have. It really is as simple as that without any analogies needed. The fact is that with only 16 regular season games per year and a max of 20 total non-preseason games per year, statistical significance is not attained in two seasons, which is all either QB in question here has.

I don't want to get sidetracked by an argument of running vs. passing, but I'll just say that it's plain as day statistically that passing is a more efficient means of moving the ball than running is, and that the greatest utility of running SHOULD be (1) as a change of pace and (2) as a way of killing the clock when you have a late lead. Adjusted net yards per pass attempt is a stat that makes this super obvious. The fact that our coaches run a sub-optimal offense works out fine when given a historically elite defense to operate with but hardly makes a statement as to how offenses should be run.

Again, that last part isn't Wilson's fault; he can only do what he can with the attempts he's given. But it's what suppresses data on him so far and makes this question of Wilson vs. Luck an uncertain one.

The problem is that we do have enough stats to make a comparison. If you lump the two season Wilson has and compare them to one season in a pass heavy offense you get close to the same amount of yards and attempts to be relevant statistically.

Also since RW yards per attempt are higher than many shows he is actually throwing a lower percentage pass play yet is still completing them at a higher frequency.

I think Luck is going to be a great QB and is very good now. But the notion that RW is not seen in the same light because of a prejudice of the talent on his team is not correct.

If this hypothesis was true why was Trent Dilfer's numbers that much better when he had that type of advantage.

Dilfer's Super Bowl Stats: SB XXXV: 12-25, 153 YDS, 1 TD, 0 INT