Russell Wilson - Love or Hate

[McGruff]

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.

This is an example of wanting to squeeze a mold breaking QB into a traditional mold.

I see a lot of comparisons to Fran and Young, both great QB's. One transitioned well (under the best QB coaches of all time) and the other stayed a runner. But both were great. But honestly the guy I'd compare Russ to the most is Brett Favre . . . not because of skill sets but because Brett was mold breaking and if you kept trying to measure him by traditional means (protect the ball!) you were missing the greatness of Brett. Same goes for Russ. If you measure him by traditional means (pocket passing) you are missing the greatness of Russ . . . extending plays and throwing on the move.

 

[lobohawk]

Great works for me, as I have so much fun watching him play. You get to see stuff that few can pull off.

Having fun watching football is kinda the point for a fan.

 

[Popeyejones]

I'd say great, although I don't think that's written in stone yet, and he still has a "good" floor and "HOF" ceiling.

 

[Hawkfan77]

I voted HOF because, well I can

 

[Sgt. Largent]

How could you possibly say anything other than love? Dude helped us win our first SB ever, and is going to be busting his ass to deliver a couple more before he's done.

Which I believe he will accomplish, so that puts him easily into the HOF conversation. Great QB that wins 2-3 SB's = HOF.

 

[seahawk12thman]

Love

 

[StoneCold]

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

This road has been straight for 3 miles. I don't care what comes up, I'm closing my eyes and not moving this steering wheel!

 

[canfan]

I said good, mostly because sometimes it seems like he doesn't trust what he is seeing and holds the ball too long. I also see improvement on that every year, and I think if you ask me that question again in a couple of years the answer will be great!

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

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.

Interesting comparison. I've often compared Wilson to Aikman and Young. Aikman more due to the role within a run first team. And Young by virtue of playstyle.

If you look at Wilson's closest comparison (Steve Young), it's pretty apparent that Wilson has stacked up well performance wise with him even at his peak. Not accounting for things like record and such:


Young:

1992: 66.7%, 3465y, 25td, 7int, 107 rating
1993: 68%, 4023y, 29td, 16int, 101.5 rating
1994: 70.3%, 3969y, 35td, 10int, 112.8 rating

Wilson:

2012: 64.1%. 3118y, 26td, 10int, 100 rating
2013: 63.1%, 3357y, 26td, 9int, 101.2 rating
2014: 63.1%, 3475y, 20td, 7int, 95 rating

The comparison is pretty close. And naturally, you're looking at a HOF QB in Young in his peak seasons. He was 31 years old when he started putting up these numbers. Wilson is still developing and probably has another 3 years before he even gets to that age where he's reaching his peak potential. We're comparing Young's best years of his career to what should be Wilson's worst years of his career. The comparison is pretty tight despite that.

The case can be made weakly, that Wilson is already nearly as great as Young ever was. But there is no reason to expect that he won't continue to improve and eclipse Young's best seasons. There is plenty to already love. But we're fans. So by nature, we are a bit greedy. And moreso given that this team is so stacked now, that it might be the best teams Wilson is ever a part of as he progresses in his career. That's not a given. But we all understand the ravages of this game on players. We naturally should want Wilson to take the next step. To exploit the openings we can already see that are missed.

It's not hate to recognize where he should improve. It's only hate if you presume that he won't ever get there. We can't know either way. We expect he will grow. But in the absence of actually growing -- it's merely potential. We're greedy in that we want him to realize that potential.

If he changes, like Young did, he'll acheive a stratosphere that Young never came close to. And that's tantalizing.

 

[scutterhawk]

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.

Virtually ALL great or HOF Quarterbacks had great to HOF players that helped put them over the top.
Almost no one of the HOF Quarterbacks could or did carry the team on their team on their own.
That's why the HOF is featuring a lot more than just Quarterbacks.

 

[Anthony!]

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.

Virtually ALL great or HOF Quarterbacks had great to HOF players that helped put them over the top.
Almost no one of the HOF Quarterbacks could or did carry the team on their team on their own.
That's why the HOF is featuring a lot more than just Quarterbacks.

Agreed which is why what Wilson is doing is so amazing he has only had 1 great to HOF quality player to date and that is Lynch. Not counting Graham since he has not played a real game with Wilson yet. FYI I said great.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

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.

Virtually ALL great or HOF Quarterbacks had great to HOF players that helped put them over the top.
Almost no one of the HOF Quarterbacks could or did carry the team on their team on their own.
That's why the HOF is featuring a lot more than just Quarterbacks.

FYI I said great.

This might be actually be those most surprising statement in this thread.

 

[Throwdown]

Greatest of all time

 

[Anthony!]

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.

Virtually ALL great or HOF Quarterbacks had great to HOF players that helped put them over the top.
Almost no one of the HOF Quarterbacks could or did carry the team on their team on their own.
That's why the HOF is featuring a lot more than just Quarterbacks.

FYI I said great.

This might be actually be those most surprising statement in this thread.

why the only thing higher was HOF and it is way to early to say that. 5 more years maybe but not after 3.

 

[chris98251]

Typically all the greats have the three system, Tark had White/ Rashad and Foreman

Aikman, Smith and Irvin

Montana Rice and Watters as well as Craig

Elway had a plethora of receivers but needed Terrell Davis

The list goes on for QB's that were elite, the ones that never won a Super Bowl but had great stats like Marino were missing one of the three, a RB or a top WR that was a go to guy. Sure they needed a defense as well to keep the scoring down. But they had at least the three, sometimes more like the Steelers with Harris and Stallworth and Swann and Bradshaw.

 

[StoneCold]

Typically all the greats have the three system, Tark had White/ Rashad and Foreman

Aikman, Smith and Irvin

Montana Rice and Watters as well as Craig

Elway had a plethora of receivers but needed Terrell Davis

The list goes on for QB's that were elite, the ones that never won a Super Bowl but had great stats like Marino were missing one of the three, a RB or a top WR that was a go to guy. Sure they needed a defense as well to keep the scoring down. But they had at least the three, sometimes more like the Steelers with Harris and Stallworth and Swann and Bradshaw.

Of those that were missing one of the key three, did they have a great defense? That can help with the point differential.

 

[SeaChase]

I voted Good. Even with the best offensive line I don't think he'd put up monster stats.

 

[chris98251]

Typically all the greats have the three system, Tark had White/ Rashad and Foreman

Aikman, Smith and Irvin

Montana Rice and Watters as well as Craig

Elway had a plethora of receivers but needed Terrell Davis

The list goes on for QB's that were elite, the ones that never won a Super Bowl but had great stats like Marino were missing one of the three, a RB or a top WR that was a go to guy. Sure they needed a defense as well to keep the scoring down. But they had at least the three, sometimes more like the Steelers with Harris and Stallworth and Swann and Bradshaw.

Of those that were missing one of the key three, did they have a great defense? That can help with the point differential.

Most that didn't win a Super Bowl put up ungodly numbers like Fouts and Marino, when they were playing the defense was the failure and the offense tried to outscore opponents. If Marino would have been playing during the Morris, Czonka, Kiick, Warfield era and had the no name defense he would have had a hand full of rings. Or if Fouts had a defense like during the Seau years at their peak and all his weapons in Jefferson and Winslow.

 

[Hawkpower]

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.

Virtually ALL great or HOF Quarterbacks had great to HOF players that helped put them over the top.
Almost no one of the HOF Quarterbacks could or did carry the team on their team on their own.
That's why the HOF is featuring a lot more than just Quarterbacks.

Agreed which is why what Wilson is doing is so amazing he has only had 1 great to HOF quality player to date and that is Lynch. Not counting Graham since he has not played a real game with Wilson yet. FYI I said great.

What is it that he is doing that is so amazing?

If its winning, then yes, I agree, it is amazing. But a big part of our success/winning is also our defense.

Quite a few guys over there that would be classified as "great to HOF "

 

[McGruff]

What is it that he is doing that is so amazing?

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/4/8/8370 ... fl-history