STAND IN THE POCKET AND THROW THE BALL

[scutterhawk]

I don't care how bad our O line play supposedly is. 1 play out of every series Mr Wilson, stand in the pocket and either throw the ball or take the sack.

You're not a running back and it's getting harder to watch you play right now.

Seven sacks, and you want him to just stand there and get all beat to hell? Genius :roll:
If it wasn't for Russell Wilson RUNNING with the ball, the Seahawks Offense wouldn't have had shit on several plays yesterday.
If you want proof, check out the score.
He's a mobile Quarterback, not a tackling dummy.
Wilson isn't now, nor has he ever been a statue.....Thank God.

 

[formido]

Well this is what it is around here. No matter how well Wilson plays, a select few will only want to talk about what he did not do. Even if most of that is made up or wrong.

So lets make it simple

7 sacks, 11 hits
12/22 77% complt%, 211 yards, 9.6 ypa 1 td qb rating 121.6, 73 yards rushing. That is a great game for any QB. You want to argue about the sacks fine argue but keep in mind the facts will show they were on the Oline and coverage per the announcers, PC, Millan, Huard, Moon. All people who get to see the complete game find that shows everything on the field. You want to argue about the pass to Norwood fine, but keep in mind those same experts that see all the game film said the same thing, the pass was put were it needed to be to give Norwood a chance and keep it away form the oncoming safety. However the reality is you few do not care what the truth or facts are only your own made up stuff so you can find a way to say Wilson played bad or made a mistake. He has mad mistakes this year, had a few games were he played bad, But yesterday was not one of the. In a game were Lynch was MIA, the oline was really bad, and our WR were not doing much without Wilsons scrambling, against the top team in the NFL and a top 5 defense, Wilson was Great.

Wilson was great?

According to a simple QBR statistic (Let's start here, I'm certainly open to more stats and resources):

He had the 12th best QBR this week. 12th. That's great? He has the 14th best QBR this season. 14th!!! MORE GREATNESS!!

In fact, it was so great that it was the 2,635th best QBR game since 2006! AMAZING!!! WOOoijdfaiosjdfoas

It was only a less great than David Carr's memorable performance in the 26-20 loss against the Titans in 2006. You don't remember that game? How could you not? Carr went 17/23 for 140 yards. AMAZING!!!

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr/_/type/player-week

Dude QBR penalizes the QB for every sack no matter what, penalizes a QB for every throw awat no matter what and then arbitrarily decideds which pays mean more than others. You are really going to take that seriously?

her you go the measuring stick that has been used for years

Qb rating 121.6 enough said great.

Yup, QBR is really dumb. The most obvious and inescapable reason it's dumb is that its chief selling point is that it's more highly correlated with wins than passer rating. It's hard to imagine a less worthwhile normative target than optimizing your player evaluation stat for win correlation. Passer rating is already too entangled with team wins...and ESPN made a rating even moreso? Why not just go all the way and judge QBs purely by wins!

QBR doesn't adjust for opponent quality, which should already be enough to toss that argument right out the window for this game in particular. It also doesn't adjust for the passing game talent surrounding the QB. Has, for example, Tom Brady ever had a set of receivers with less physical talent and an offensive line with such a quick time-to-pressure before? Last year might have been close. I seem to recall a lot of stories last year talking about how Brady should think about hanging 'em up.

 

[SeaChase]

Using simple arithmetic I've determined for you that 211 is indeed OVER 200 yds. (Just in case you'd like to revise your post for accuracy.)
Not to pick nits but at times your posts are lousy. I.e. "Wilson's best game of the year".. it was not.[/quote]

You might want to call up the announcers and tell them that as that's what was said near the end of the 4th quarter. So 11 more yards than 200 woohooo so much more lol. 211 passing yards, pretty awesome for a 3rd year Super Bowl winning franchise QB right?

By the way I took your advice and called up to the press box and they told me you were wrong and ignorant to boot.[/quote]

I think you probably called Jack N Box-

 

[scutterhawk]

QB rating of 121.6, and it's getting old? Really? :roll:

Wilson's best game of the year and he had under 200 yards throwing and 6 sacks and you want to point out his Qb rating?

best game of the year?
Washington? St Lous? and YPA > passing yards
he still has work to do though

VIRTUALLY ALL Quarterbacks are a work in progress.

 

[SonicHawk]

Dude QBR penalizes the QB for every sack no matter what, penalizes a QB for every throw awat no matter what and then arbitrarily decideds which pays mean more than others. You are really going to take that seriously?

her you go the measuring stick that has been used for years

Qb rating 121.6 enough said great.

No, I don't base my entire opinion on him on QBR, it's just another measurement. I watched the game, RW was definitely more competent than what his QBR suggests, but that doesn't mean I thought he was great, because he wasn't.

My only argument is that he wasn't great. I've seen RW play great, that wasn't it.

 

[scutterhawk]

QB rating of 121.6, and it's getting old? Really? :roll:

Wilson's best game of the year and he had under 200 yards throwing and 6 sacks and you want to point out his Qb rating?

Using simple arithmetic I've determined for you that 211 is indeed OVER 200 yds. (Just in case you'd like to revise your post for accuracy.)
Not to pick nits but at times your posts are lousy. I.e. "Wilson's best game of the year".. it was not.

It was indeed one of his best games this Year, in spite of the sieve O-line allowing FIVE of those 6 sacks.
He faced one of the best Defenses the Seahawks have played so far this Season, and he triumphed.
In the end?-----------WIN.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Everyone sees something different, but by my count only one of the six sacks was for sure on the offensive line.

The other six (in particular order):

1 was a bad protection call. The Cardinals showed a six man blitz, but only rushed 4. The Oline blocked left, leaving a free rusher to Wilson on the right. That's either on the Oline or Wilson.

1 was an untouched 6th rusher. The Oline blocked their five guys. Wilson needed to change the play, protection, or get the ball out quicker to Turbin on the slant on the goaline.

1 was a perfect pocket that Wilson tried running out of early into a cardinals defender. Could have been a coverage sack. I'll need to watch the all-22 to know for sure.

1 was a planned screen pass to Lynch with routes by the receivers. The oline leaked out and Wilson was to late to get the ball to his RB. The play almost looked like Wilson forget there were defenders crashing in even tho it's designed that way. It's a huge WTF play.

1 was a play near the 10 yard line. The pocket is clean for the play call, but it's tight coverage. Wilsons best chance was a corner route by Richardson or to simply throw the ball into the stands, but he scrambles out of the pocket and can't out run the defender.

1 was a play action with Cooper Helfet making a tough block, forcing Russell to move. The pressure is coming from his left, so Wilson scrambles into that pressure to the left and finds open space, but the route design is all to the right so there's not a receiver anywhere close to Russell. He slips and takes a small sack.

If anyone sees otherwise, I'd like to hear it, but for these 6 plays, specifically, the Oline was doing its job. You could argue 5, maybe 6 of these sacks were preventable by smarter QB play. Of course wilson prevented a couple sack, as well, but if we are looking at the sack numbers and the areas to improve on these plays, this is how I saw it.

In all fairness now you have to count all the times a non mobile QB would have been sacked and how on those occasions RW made sweet Lemonade out of sour lemons. But that would weaken your argument, wouldn't it?

That wasn't the point of my posts. I want to show that there's areas Wilson can improve and areas where it's not all the Offensive lines fault. I guarantee Car Smith isn't avoiding this plays cause Russell did well on other bad protection plays.

Some people haven't watched the game, but would look at the sack and QB hit numbers and think the Oline played horrible.

The fact is, they faced a heavy, heavy blitz team in the Cardinals. QB hits were bound to happen, but how Russell played would depend on a lot of that. Was he making the right protection calls? Was he hitting his hot read? Was he avoiding big sacks? That's what I wanted to point out.

And mostly I want to defend an offensive line that is heavily scrutinized by people who aren't seeing every detail of the game on first watch, but defending the Oline means pointing out Wilson's faults occasionally and people don't like that much here. It's much easier hating on the big guys up front.

That is becsue they have not been ranke dhigher than 19th in pass blocking in over 2 years. Last year they did an ananlysis on all his Sacks adn showed only 1 was on him

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/ ... crambling/

I can guarentee you those numbers will be close the same this year as well. Some of you analysis I take issue with but will not bother to go through it. By the way besides the oline, and coverage sacks you are also assuming hot reads were available and changing the play was avaialble. The point is made, no matter how you slice it most of whathappened yesertday was on the oline or coverage. I can think of only 1 thatmight have been on Wilson, but even that is in question as he had barely planted after dropping back adn there was pressure in his face. You are also assuming Wilson did not change the blocking but the oline did not hear, or listen or do their jobs anyway. Lost of assumption. Again I will go with what Huard said this morning that being that the oline was really bad.

The "1 of 44 sacks" stat for Wilson you mentioned is misleading and you keep using it despite me correcting you on it before.

You are referring to this article, but you're failing to count coverage sacks which Football Outsiders puts most of the blame on the quarterback, which would then add 14 sacks to that number, totaling 15. Of course that is a subjective analysis, so I suppose we could use this writer's sack total which is 15, the exact number of FO's number if you add coverage sacks and is the exact same process that FO goes through (be forewarned, you won't like what you read). Point being, its all subjective.

As to the rest of your posts, I actually don't think you've re-watched any of these plays I've pointed out. You should break down the plays as I have to really get down to a football discussion. Simply saying it's all on the offensive line without ANY analysis doesn't inform anyone.

 

[scutterhawk]

QB rating of 121.6, and it's getting old? Really? :roll:

Wilson's best game of the year and he had under 200 yards throwing and 6 sacks and you want to point out his Qb rating?

Using simple arithmetic I've determined for you that 211 is indeed OVER 200 yds. (Just in case you'd like to revise your post for accuracy.)
Not to pick nits but at times your posts are lousy. I.e. "Wilson's best game of the year".. it was not.

You might want to call up the announcers and tell them that as that's what was said near the end of the 4th quarter. So 11 more yards than 200 woohooo so much more lol. 211 passing yards, pretty awesome for a 3rd year Super Bowl winning franchise QB right?

For a run first Offense?, playing against a top notch Defense?, you damned straight it was awesome.

 

[Ozzy]

Dude QBR penalizes the QB for every sack no matter what, penalizes a QB for every throw awat no matter what and then arbitrarily decideds which pays mean more than others. You are really going to take that seriously?

her you go the measuring stick that has been used for years

Qb rating 121.6 enough said great.

No, I don't base my entire opinion on him on QBR, it's just another measurement. I watched the game, RW was definitely more competent than what his QBR suggests, but that doesn't mean I thought he was great, because he wasn't.

My only argument is that he wasn't great. I've seen RW play great, that wasn't it.

While I'll concede you might even be right I hate QBR and think it should be abolished as only ESPN uses it. Dilfer played an integral part in its creation. Nuff said.

I thought Wilson played very, very good. I have seen him play better(great) so I'm okay dropping yesterday down notch. If he plays like he did yesterday I like our chances though. Man it was fun to watch the defense play like '13 again too.

Edit added: His 121.6 was third in the NFL yesterday. I'm back to saying he had a great game and I don't care who knows it! :stirthepot:

 

[scutterhawk]

@rightbench and SeaChase

Your reasoning is bad, and you should feel bad.

The Hawks have one of the worst passing offenses in the league. What type of logic is necessary? I know it's not all Wilson's fault but he certainly contributes.

That contribution thing?, that goes both ways.
This is a RUN FIRST, RUN HEAVY Offense, it's NOT designed for a heave-ho passing attack (see SB winning Season for references)

 

[Uncle Si]

Everyone sees something different, but by my count only one of the six sacks was for sure on the offensive line.

The other six (in particular order):

1 was a bad protection call. The Cardinals showed a six man blitz, but only rushed 4. The Oline blocked left, leaving a free rusher to Wilson on the right. That's either on the Oline or Wilson.

1 was an untouched 6th rusher. The Oline blocked their five guys. Wilson needed to change the play, protection, or get the ball out quicker to Turbin on the slant on the goaline.

1 was a perfect pocket that Wilson tried running out of early into a cardinals defender. Could have been a coverage sack. I'll need to watch the all-22 to know for sure.

1 was a planned screen pass to Lynch with routes by the receivers. The oline leaked out and Wilson was to late to get the ball to his RB. The play almost looked like Wilson forget there were defenders crashing in even tho it's designed that way. It's a huge WTF play.

1 was a play near the 10 yard line. The pocket is clean for the play call, but it's tight coverage. Wilsons best chance was a corner route by Richardson or to simply throw the ball into the stands, but he scrambles out of the pocket and can't out run the defender.

1 was a play action with Cooper Helfet making a tough block, forcing Russell to move. The pressure is coming from his left, so Wilson scrambles into that pressure to the left and finds open space, but the route design is all to the right so there's not a receiver anywhere close to Russell. He slips and takes a small sack.

If anyone sees otherwise, I'd like to hear it, but for these 6 plays, specifically, the Oline was doing its job. You could argue 5, maybe 6 of these sacks were preventable by smarter QB play. Of course wilson prevented a couple sack, as well, but if we are looking at the sack numbers and the areas to improve on these plays, this is how I saw it.

In all fairness now you have to count all the times a non mobile QB would have been sacked and how on those occasions RW made sweet Lemonade out of sour lemons. But that would weaken your argument, wouldn't it?

or even moreso, count all the times the Oline did not do their job, and Wilson has turned an obvious sack not only into a positive play, but usually a big gain

i get the feeling that some on here just dont enjoy football. we can pick away at any performance and find flaws. and it looks like a handful on here would prefer to do that instead of recognizing the positive

to each his own, but noone engrossed in the negative is changing their mind. its their narrative.

I love football. I played it from Middle School through High School. On of the reasons I point out the "negative" is because that's how a player/coach views the game which more how I relate to sports than just as a fan watching it once on Sunday. I try and find the areas of improvement because I want to see the best ball achievable.

I dont mind analysis (actually, I love it, as Im no student of the game) and to be honest just included your post as it was the most recent.

I think you can see where some posters arent necessarily looking at the details for improvement rather an indictment

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

Wilson played good football yesterday. When our defense plays GREAT football, that's all you need.

The problem right now is Wilson isn't correcting some of these mistakes. His accuracy is back. He hasn't made stupid decisions on where to throw the ball, he just continues to not throw it.

He also held onto the ball too much on the read-options. 80% of the time that ball has to go to Lynch, not 80% to RW.

We won and Wilson played well enough for us to win by 2 possessions. I'm ok with that.

If 80% of the time the DE crashes and goes after Lynch, then 80% of the time Russell should be keeping the ball.

 

[Cartire]

I don't feel like going through this whole thread but are people still claiming Wilson didn't play well yesterday? Seriously? He had a passer rating over 120, would of had another TD if not for a ticky tack call on Kearse, had zero turnovers and flat out played great football against a very good defense that was flying all over the place.

He wasn't inaccurate yesterday which was huge. He's been good the past two games but he's still struggling with owning the pocket.

Passer Rating doesn't include sacks, hits or hurries, whether they were coverage, missed assignments or RW holding onto the ball or not speeding up his progression. Not a complete picture of his game.

Did you just give a massive endorsement of QBR?

EDIT: oh....I read further down... and you did....... ouch.........

 

[Anthony!]

Dude QBR penalizes the QB for every sack no matter what, penalizes a QB for every throw awat no matter what and then arbitrarily decideds which pays mean more than others. You are really going to take that seriously?

her you go the measuring stick that has been used for years

Qb rating 121.6 enough said great.

No, I don't base my entire opinion on him on QBR, it's just another measurement. I watched the game, RW was definitely more competent than what his QBR suggests, but that doesn't mean I thought he was great, because he wasn't.

My only argument is that he wasn't great. I've seen RW play great, that wasn't it.

He only had 5 incompletions, 5. Not sure what else he coudl have done, if that is not a great game to you then you defition of great willnever be met by any QB. I will go with great the facts and stats support that statement.

 

[SonicHawk]

Wilson played good football yesterday. When our defense plays GREAT football, that's all you need.

The problem right now is Wilson isn't correcting some of these mistakes. His accuracy is back. He hasn't made stupid decisions on where to throw the ball, he just continues to not throw it.

He also held onto the ball too much on the read-options. 80% of the time that ball has to go to Lynch, not 80% to RW.

We won and Wilson played well enough for us to win by 2 possessions. I'm ok with that.

If 80% of the time the DE crashes and goes after Lynch, then 80% of the time Russell should be keeping the ball.

That wasn't the case, at all, and you can watch as much video of the game as you want to confirm.

 

[SonicHawk]

Dude QBR penalizes the QB for every sack no matter what, penalizes a QB for every throw awat no matter what and then arbitrarily decideds which pays mean more than others. You are really going to take that seriously?

her you go the measuring stick that has been used for years

Qb rating 121.6 enough said great.

No, I don't base my entire opinion on him on QBR, it's just another measurement. I watched the game, RW was definitely more competent than what his QBR suggests, but that doesn't mean I thought he was great, because he wasn't.

My only argument is that he wasn't great. I've seen RW play great, that wasn't it.

He only had 5 incompletions, 5. Not sure what else he coudl have done, if that is not a great game to you then you defition of great willnever be met by any QB. I will go with great the facts and stats support that statement.

Wow. 5 incompletions out of 22 attempts. 22... not 32, or 42, or 52 -- 22 attempts.

Seriously, the fact that you think that is 'great', I can't discuss anything with you. Your basis for great is an average game at best.

 

[Anthony!]

That is becsue they have not been ranke dhigher than 19th in pass blocking in over 2 years. Last year they did an ananlysis on all his Sacks adn showed only 1 was on him

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/ ... crambling/

I can guarentee you those numbers will be close the same this year as well. Some of you analysis I take issue with but will not bother to go through it. By the way besides the oline, and coverage sacks you are also assuming hot reads were available and changing the play was avaialble. The point is made, no matter how you slice it most of whathappened yesertday was on the oline or coverage. I can think of only 1 thatmight have been on Wilson, but even that is in question as he had barely planted after dropping back adn there was pressure in his face. You are also assuming Wilson did not change the blocking but the oline did not hear, or listen or do their jobs anyway. Lost of assumption. Again I will go with what Huard said this morning that being that the oline was really bad.

The "1 of 44 sacks" stat for Wilson you mentioned is misleading and you keep using it despite me correcting you on it before.

You are referring to this article, but you're failing to count coverage sacks which Football Outsiders puts most of the blame on the quarterback, which would then add 14 sacks to that number, totaling 15. Of course that is a subjective analysis, so I suppose we could use this writer's sack total which is 15, the exact number of FO's number if you add coverage sacks and is the exact same process that FO goes through (be forewarned, you won't like what you read). Point being, its all subjective.

As to the rest of your posts, I actually don't think you've re-watched any of these plays I've pointed out. You should break down the plays as I have to really get down to a football discussion. Simply saying it's all on the offensive line without ANY analysis doesn't inform anyone.[/quote]

A coverage sack is not on the QB it is on the Wr for not getting open. It is easy to say it is on th eoline when every expert saysy it, when I watch adn rewatch games and see the asme thing WIson gettign pressur eon him in uner 3 seconds. Sorry you can try all you want but the oline sucks and is responsible for most of the sacks, its a fact deal with it. This stat5ment in that article make smy point "And one each for it describes as other pressure and “quarterback fault.”" Notice it says QB fault. Non of the other ssay that so agian nice try.

 

[SonicHawk]

I don't feel like going through this whole thread but are people still claiming Wilson didn't play well yesterday? Seriously? He had a passer rating over 120, would of had another TD if not for a ticky tack call on Kearse, had zero turnovers and flat out played great football against a very good defense that was flying all over the place.

He wasn't inaccurate yesterday which was huge. He's been good the past two games but he's still struggling with owning the pocket.

Passer Rating doesn't include sacks, hits or hurries, whether they were coverage, missed assignments or RW holding onto the ball or not speeding up his progression. Not a complete picture of his game.

Did you just give a massive endorsement of QBR?

EDIT: oh....I read further down... and you did....... ouch.........

Please tell me how RW was so amazing at 17-22 for 200 yards. PLEASE. I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU SAYING SUCH A HO-HUM STAT LINE WAS AMAZING.

 

[SonicHawk]

Let me remind you that Arizona is the 25th in passing yards per game. YES. 25th. They give up an average of 250 PASSING YARDS A GAME.

 

[Anthony!]

Dude QBR penalizes the QB for every sack no matter what, penalizes a QB for every throw awat no matter what and then arbitrarily decideds which pays mean more than others. You are really going to take that seriously?

her you go the measuring stick that has been used for years

Qb rating 121.6 enough said great.

No, I don't base my entire opinion on him on QBR, it's just another measurement. I watched the game, RW was definitely more competent than what his QBR suggests, but that doesn't mean I thought he was great, because he wasn't.

My only argument is that he wasn't great. I've seen RW play great, that wasn't it.

He only had 5 incompletions, 5. Not sure what else he coudl have done, if that is not a great game to you then you defition of great willnever be met by any QB. I will go with great the facts and stats support that statement.

Wow. 5 incompletions out of 22 attempts. 22... not 32, or 42, or 52 -- 22 attempts.

Seriously, the fact that you think that is 'great', I can't discuss anything with you. Your basis for great is an average game at best.

wow you really are being stubborn lets see then

P. Manning had 20% incompletions
Rw was 22%
Rodgers 35% incompletions
Romo was at 31% and he had a great game
Luck 34% inco,pletions

I think I have made my point year having 22% incompletion is great. The fact that you seem to think it is not shows you know nothing about the game at all. Sorry great game deal with deal with it.