Russell Wilson - Love or Hate

[Ad Hawk]

HoF. He's like Tony Aikman to me. He'll never have the statistics but when it's crunch time he delivers no matter the situation.

Uh... who? :lol:

 

[DavidSeven]

He's great. Of course, he's great. The wins, the numbers, the eye test...all back that up. He's certainly on an HOF trajectory.

But that doesn't mean every fault in a play is a result of the OL, a playcall, or receiver separation. Those narratives shouldn't get in the way of fair analysis.

In the end though, Russ is definitely one of the most exiting guys I've ever seen play and I am confident he will go down as such in history.

 

[hawknation2015]

WHY RUSSELL WILSON IS A TOP-10 PASSING QB
Russell Wilson is more than just a running quarterback -- as this video shows.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... arterback/

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

HoF. He's like Tony Aikman to me. He'll never have the statistics but when it's crunch time he delivers no matter the situation.

Uh... who? :lol:

Yeah, not the best choice but both are Superbowl winners on great teams that are vastly underrated by their respective fan bases.

 

[Laloosh]

HoF. He's like Tony Aikman to me. He'll never have the statistics but when it's crunch time he delivers no matter the situation.

Uh... who? :lol:

Yeah, not the best choice but both are Superbowl winners on great teams that are vastly underrated by their respective fan bases.

I think he's saying, "you mean, Troy Aikman?".

 

[Tical21]

Is it possible for me to say Good and HOF at the same time? I think he's got a definite chance to get to "great", once he changes like Steve Young did.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

HoF. He's like Tony Aikman to me. He'll never have the statistics but when it's crunch time he delivers no matter the situation.

Uh... who? :lol:

Yeah, not the best choice but both are Superbowl winners on great teams that are vastly underrated by their respective fan bases.

I think he's saying, "you mean, Troy Aikman?".

Damn phone spellchecker. :shock:

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Is it possible for me to say Good and HOF at the same time? I think he's got a definite chance to get to "great", once he changes like Steve Young did.

I'll support that because he has faults but even now I see him working on it during preseason.

 

[irocdave]

I gave RW a great -. We all know the national take, but there is truth to it. We will find out if he can be great or HOF when Lynch retires. He makes spectacular plays and some not so spectacular plays. The real test is when he has to carry the team, be the best player and more importantly, the best player and consistent and reliable the majority of the time. I say majority because even the best have bad performances, just not often and not when it matters the most.

 

[hawkfan68]

I think "Great" sounds about right to me. He has the potential to get to HOF if he keeps winning and getting to championship games. How many QBs have made it to 2 SBs and won one in their first 3 years. The Seahawks were a 7-9 team in the regular season (2 straight years) before Wilson arrived. Since he's here they won 11, 13, and 12 games each season. The most meaningful stat is "W" and he's got plenty of those thus far.

 

[AROS]

Half the people can call him all kinds of things and the other half of people can call him all kinds of other things.

But one thing everybody has to call him is a winner.

Assuming he stays on this trajectory and remains relatively injury-free, HoFer without a doubt.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

Half the people can call him all kinds of things and the other half of people can call him all kinds of other things.

But one thing everybody has to call him is a winner.

Assuming he stays on this trajectory and remains relatively injury-free, HoFer without a doubt.

:13:

 

[WilsonMVP]

Since there seems to be a never ending topic about our quarterback with lot's of stats and examples of how he's the next coming of god's son to the worst thing to take a snap I wanted to get a gauge on the overall base opinion of our group here in regards to our guy.

Thanks for participating,

Go Hawks!!

You forgot an option


WINNER

 

[Threedee]

I say great, with the expectation that he will keep it up long enough to be a HOF player. Especially as time goes by and the Seahawks become a more pass-oriented team, at which point the media will finally join his side.

 

[Anthony!]

The reason Russell is so polarizing is that the current metrics don't fit him. He breaks the scales. People try to compare him to Luck or Rogers or Manning or Brady, but its like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I personally think he's great, with a truly unique skill set. He's got some deficiencies, and if we're honest, his height is an impediment, but he's also got unique skills that more than compensate.

My great fear is that coaching hubris and Russell's own pride with force him into the mold. I think that would suck . . . big time.

all QBs have deficiencies in fact al players do. For some reason though only Wilson seem to matter

This isn't a true statement at all. Not even close, man.

This board has been critical of damned near every last player currently wearing a Hawk jersey. I'd say that ONLY Tyler Lockett has been spared any criticism, and maybe Frank Clark's play on the field.

How about the OLine deficiencies?

It's ok to be critical of Russell Wilson. I voted "great", but the passes he threw against San Diego were so erratic, I can see why people are getting nervous and/ or expressing criticism. That pass to Graham at the goal line from the 10 had a window of about 5' x 8' to be a TD and RW overthrew him so bad Graham didn't even reach for it. Over his head by at least 4' from the 10. He had several poor throws, some bad footwork in the pocket, and some poor decisions.

yes and his 3 years of great play means nothing when compared to 3 pre season games. Yup I get it NOT

 

[Hasselbeck]

Until he takes that next step as a thrower, I think he's right under the "great" designation.

I'd like to him be more decisive on throws and consistently accurate before I can label him great.

But like Tical said, you can be good and HOF material at the same time. Terry Bradshaw was like that. Fran Tarkenton. Etc.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Until he takes that next step as a thrower, I think he's right under the "great" designation.

I'd like to him be more decisive on throws and consistently accurate before I can label him great.

But like Tical said, you can be good and HOF material at the same time. Terry Bradshaw was like that. Fran Tarkenton. Etc.

I'm good with that over somebody like Peyton and soon everybody's new Peyton (Luck). I'd even be okay if he could be as good as Brady without the cheating. At least the latter is like Aikman and Montana and wins when it's the center stage.

Heck, he wins and that sir is ALL that is and WILL ever be remembered. I sure know I will and am enjoying every second of it while having a front row seat seeing greatness even if others don't seem to appreciate it.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Wheres the "All Above" option because Russell Wilson has been all of those things throughout his young career.

Like pretty much any QB, give Russell Wilson consistent O-Line play and a quality stable of play-makers, on good day, he's going to max out his abilities and talents.

Like pretty much any QB, give Russell Wilson inconsistent O-Line play and weapons, decimated by injuries and inexperience, on a bad day, he's going to look like the worst QB in the league.

Wilson has been up, down, in between, pretty much all over the place but despite the roll-coaster he's been consistent as a leader and has never concieted to losing even when he's not on game.

I still think its to early to call him an "ELITE QB" but his Championship Moxie, Superior Athleticism, and Outstanding Leadership Intangibles combined with his still improving QB Skills easily makes him one of the Most Valuable Players in the NFL as well as one of the Most Dangerous.

 

[KiwiHawk]

If this were the 70s, 80s, or 90s, would it even be a question of Wilson was considered an elite player?

Absolutely - in 1978 you could see Tarkenton, Manning (Archie), Staubach, Stabler, Jaworski, Theismann and Fouts all playing concurrently.

In 1984 it was Marino, Fouts, Theismann, Moon, Montana, Jaworski, Simms and Elway.

1993 featured Elway, Favre, Moon, Kelly, Young, Bledsoe, Simms, Aikman, and Montana.

Wilson is a good QB with flashes of true greatness, but is he elite in that company? I doubt he would be top 3 in any of those years.

 

[scutterhawk]

The reason Russell is so polarizing is that the current metrics don't fit him. He breaks the scales. People try to compare him to Luck or Rogers or Manning or Brady, but its like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I personally think he's great, with a truly unique skill set. He's got some deficiencies, and if we're honest, his height is an impediment, but he's also got unique skills that more than compensate.

My great fear is that coaching hubris and Russell's own pride with force him into the mold. I think that would suck . . . big time.

all QBs have deficiencies in fact al players do. For some reason though only Wilson seem to matter

This isn't a true statement at all. Not even close, man.

This board has been critical of damned near every last player currently wearing a Hawk jersey. I'd say that ONLY Tyler Lockett has been spared any criticism, and maybe Frank Clark's play on the field.

How about the OLine deficiencies?

It's ok to be critical of Russell Wilson. I voted "great", but the passes he threw against San Diego were so erratic, I can see why people are getting nervous and/ or expressing criticism. That pass to Graham at the goal line from the 10 had a window of about 5' x 8' to be a TD and RW overthrew him so bad Graham didn't even reach for it. Over his head by at least 4' from the 10. He had several poor throws, some bad footwork in the pocket, and some poor decisions.

Assessing Russell Wilson's strengths and weaknesses on his Pre-Season games?, LOL, talk about not being "Even Close" when evaluating Russell Wilson's overall play.