STAND IN THE POCKET AND THROW THE BALL

[Anthony!]

I don't blame RW for getting pressured, I blame him for continuing to mis-react to pressure.

And I use the term 'blame' lightly. It's more of a, there are better options than what he is doing, but it's not the end-of-the-world type blame.

We can win with him playing exactly like he is right now.

Yeah we can win with a QB going 77% complt no INT and a qb rating of 121.6. DUH pathetic.

 

[Cartire]

Well, panties are officially bunched I can tell. But I said nothing about RW and his amazingness. I just pointed out your use of QBR. Thats all I did.

But, while were at it. I see you are now in the overall yards factor..... ouch.....

QBR is one of a billion stats that say RWs performance was no better than an average, good-enough performance.

But, go ahead and hop on the QBR bandwagon hate, I mean, it's easier than having your own opinion.

Oh son, im sorry. Ive always hated QBR. Way before it was cool to hate it...

 

[SonicHawk]

I will say this if Russell completes 75%+ of his passes and has a passer rating of 120+ we win every game from here on out including the Super Bowl. That might not make your cut for a "great" game but I'll take it every single time.

17-22 for almost 300 total yards against a top 5 defense when you factor in the pressure AZ was getting, the talent at the skill positions and what this game meant is pretty damn good. I think he was borderline great and I think Sonic is saying he was very good. Not great, but pretty damn good. Am I right Sonic? Maybe we're not all that far off in our assessment(includes everyone here)?

Sure, I would not actively argue if someone thought he was very good on Sunday.

But great? I mean 'great'. 29 of 30 is great. 5 TDs is great. Rushing for 150 yards is great. Throwing for 450 yards is great.

Ahh so 29/30 is great to youi so 97% complt, Hmm so that settles it there are not great QBs int heNFl becasue noone does 97%

You definition of great is warped at best.

My definition of great is accurate.

Here's a dictionary definition:

of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.

That was not Russell, no matter how many times you try to say it.

I mean, just last week, Andy Dalton was 17-22 for 220 yards and 3 TDs with only 1 sack. Was that great?

 

[SonicHawk]

Oh son, im sorry. Ive always hated QBR. Way before it was cool to hate it...

Fair enough, you hate a well thought out rating system, but since the beginning.

 

[SeaChase]

Hey Anthony! I just noticed these statistics that prove you dead wrong. Check them out.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=101692

 

[Ozzy]

Sonic again you might be right. It is debatable whether or not he was great yesterday. I can see both sides although regardless he played very good. No one outside of seachase(just messing with you) would argue this I don't think. Well there are a couple others but I digress.

Here is where your argument is flawed though. You pick a random game from Andy Dalton where he had similar stats. I don't know what his passer rating was, YPA, rushing yards etc. but lets for the sake of argument say you're right and they are very close. You continue to leave the surrounding environment out of the equation. Was Dalton getting pressured because his line was struggling? I would argue AJ Green/Sanu and company are light years ahead of our WR's as well. What kind of defense was he playing against? Was it a huge game like this was for Seattle? See what I'm getting at here? And before someone jumps in and tells me Dalton checked off all the boxes in that game that isn't my point.

Great isn't just defined by stats. Whether or not Wilson was "great" I do know that someone can have an identical stat line and play a GREAT GAME. All depends on the circumstances.

I just wanted to beat this into the ground.....

 

[SonicHawk]

I didn't pick a random game, I literally looked at two weeks worth of stats and found similar [better] stats.

How do I know Wilson wasn't great? I look at two weeks worth of stats and found about 6 better performances in the most basic of QB stat categories.

Seriously though... 'great'. Great is winning the SB. The Seahawks were GREAT last year. They were a cut above the NFL.

 

[Anthony!]

I will say this if Russell completes 75%+ of his passes and has a passer rating of 120+ we win every game from here on out including the Super Bowl. That might not make your cut for a "great" game but I'll take it every single time.

17-22 for almost 300 total yards against a top 5 defense when you factor in the pressure AZ was getting, the talent at the skill positions and what this game meant is pretty damn good. I think he was borderline great and I think Sonic is saying he was very good. Not great, but pretty damn good. Am I right Sonic? Maybe we're not all that far off in our assessment(includes everyone here)?

Sure, I would not actively argue if someone thought he was very good on Sunday.

But great? I mean 'great'. 29 of 30 is great. 5 TDs is great. Rushing for 150 yards is great. Throwing for 450 yards is great.

Ahh so 29/30 is great to youi so 97% complt, Hmm so that settles it there are not great QBs int heNFl becasue noone does 97%

You definition of great is warped at best.

My definition of great is accurate.

Here's a dictionary definition:

of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.

That was not Russell, no matter how many times you try to say it.

I mean, just last week, Andy Dalton was 17-22 for 220 yards and 3 TDs with only 1 sack. Was that great?

actually that is incorrect his QB rating of 121.6 was top 3 this past week, that would be above avg. His compt% of 77% again top 3 so again above avg. his YP aof 9.6 again way above avg so sorry you are wrong he played great.

 

[Anthony!]

Hey Anthony! I just noticed these statistics that prove you dead wrong. Check them out.
http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=101692

LOl yeah shows nothing like your post

 

[Anthony!]

I didn't pick a random game, I literally looked at two weeks worth of stats and found similar [better] stats.

How do I know Wilson wasn't great? I look at two weeks worth of stats and found about 6 better performances in the most basic of QB stat categories.

Seriously though... 'great'. Great is winning the SB. The Seahawks were GREAT last year. They were a cut above the NFL.

ukeface:

 

[SonicHawk]

17th in yards, tied for 11th in TDs, tied for first in INTs, first in sacks, 25th in attempts, 22nd in completions...

He didn't even have the best Passer Rating for the week.

He didn't even have the best completion percentage... for the week.

How in God's green Earth was he great?

 

[Recon_Hawk]

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.

First off - If people are going to respond to your posts with limited spelling errors and correct punctuation, do them the courtesy of attempting the same.

As to the statistics you are using from FootballOutsiders, their criteria used to assign fault is hugely misleading. Here is what they have as the QB's fault:

"Any time a quarterback "sacks himself" by tripping on his own feet, his lineman's feet, or just dropping the ball without being hit."

I guess if that is the criteria YOU want to use then OF COURSE the sack numbers will be low. Using only this category as a measurement is, as I said, misleading. Try thinking for yourself and quit saying the word "fact" for subjective analysis.

Of course it is misleading other wqise it would not help you. Those are the stats used through out theleague so I think I will go with them. No matter how you slice it the oline sucks.

From the same article and evaluator that came up with these stats you swear on:

"Mobility is actually one of the most overrated attributes for a quarterback when it comes to avoiding sacks. The signal callers with excellent footwork in the pocket, capable of quickly identifying a target and releasing are the best at avoiding sacks. It doesn't matter that they couldn't break five seconds in a 40-yard dash. History has shown most of the highly sacked quarterbacks were mobile guys unwilling to give up on the play."

 

[Ozzy]

Sonic I don't know if you're just missing it or refusing to acknowledge it. But stats only tell half the story. Surroundings, supporting cast, opponent etc all have to factor in.

I think I'm with just about every analyst I've heard this week. Wilson played a great game when you factor in everything. And I like disagreeing with you so its a win win.

Russell Wilson was glorious this week. You guys should just accept it and move on. :stirthepot:

 

[Anthony!]

17th in yards, tied for 11th in TDs, tied for first in INTs, first in sacks, 25th in attempts, 22nd in completions...

He didn't even have the best Passer Rating for the week.

He didn't even have the best completion percentage... for the week.

How in God's green Earth was he great?

you really are hard headed arn't you.

Qb rating 3rd that woudl be above avg and meet your definition
Complt% 3rd and again above avg and meets your criteria
ints first
YPA top 3

You see almost evey stats you pick is not within his control, the ones I listed are on him adn hye was top 3 in all of them.

Allso as you decided to ignroe it. You said his game agasint the BIlls was great

again lets compare

VS bills
14/23, 61% complt%, 205 yards, 8.91 ypa 1 td, qb rating 104

VS Zona
17/22, 77% complt%, 211 yards, 9.59 ypa, 1 td, qb rating 121.6

So basically Wilson beat every passing stat he had in the BIlls game, a game you said he was great in, but even though he beat all his passing numbers you say he was not great in the Zona game. Yeah thanks for proving my point you said it, you said he was great in the billsgame and since he was better in every passing stats in the Zona game thatmeans he was great there too. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Anthony!]

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.

First off - If people are going to respond to your posts with limited spelling errors and correct punctuation, do them the courtesy of attempting the same.

As to the statistics you are using from FootballOutsiders, their criteria used to assign fault is hugely misleading. Here is what they have as the QB's fault:

"Any time a quarterback "sacks himself" by tripping on his own feet, his lineman's feet, or just dropping the ball without being hit."

I guess if that is the criteria YOU want to use then OF COURSE the sack numbers will be low. Using only this category as a measurement is, as I said, misleading. Try thinking for yourself and quit saying the word "fact" for subjective analysis.

Of course it is misleading other wqise it would not help you. Those are the stats used through out theleague so I think I will go with them. No matter how you slice it the oline sucks.

From the same article and evaluator that came up with these stats you swear on:

"Mobility is actually one of the most overrated attributes for a quarterback when it comes to avoiding sacks. The signal callers with excellent footwork in the pocket, capable of quickly identifying a target and releasing are the best at avoiding sacks. It doesn't matter that they couldn't break five seconds in a 40-yard dash. History has shown most of the highly sacked quarterbacks were mobile guys unwilling to give up on the play."

Great does not change the fact the olien sucks though.

 

[SonicHawk]

Sonic I don't know if you're just missing it or refusing to acknowledge it. But stats only tell half the story. Surroundings, supporting cast, opponent etc all have to factor in.

I think I'm with just about every analyst I've heard this week. Wilson played a great game when you factor in everything. And I like disagreeing with you so its a win win.

Russell Wilson was glorious this week. You guys should just accept it and move on. :stirthepot:

I forgot we were playing the 2013 Seahawks, not the 25th ranked passing D in the 2014 NFL.

 

[SonicHawk]

17th in yards, tied for 11th in TDs, tied for first in INTs, first in sacks, 25th in attempts, 22nd in completions...

He didn't even have the best Passer Rating for the week.

He didn't even have the best completion percentage... for the week.

How in God's green Earth was he great?

you really are hard headed arn't you.

Qb rating 3rd that woudl be above avg and meet your definition
Complt% 3rd and again above avg and meets your criteria
ints first
YPA top 3

You see almost evey stats you pick is not within his control, the ones I listed are on him adn hye was top 3 in all of them.

Allso as you decided to ignroe it. You said his game agasint the BIlls was great

again lets compare

VS bills
14/23, 61% complt%, 205 yards, 8.91 ypa 1 td, qb rating 104

VS Zona
17/22, 77% complt%, 211 yards, 9.59 ypa, 1 td, qb rating 121.6

So basically Wilson beat every passing stat he had in the BIlls game, a game you said he was great in, but even though he beat all his passing numbers you say he was not great in the Zona game. Yeah thanks for proving my point you said it, you said he was great in the billsgame and since he was better in every passing stats in the Zona game thatmeans he was great there too. Thanks for proving my point.

Will you remember RW's performance yesterday in 5 years?

 

[Anthony!]

17th in yards, tied for 11th in TDs, tied for first in INTs, first in sacks, 25th in attempts, 22nd in completions...

He didn't even have the best Passer Rating for the week.

He didn't even have the best completion percentage... for the week.

How in God's green Earth was he great?

you really are hard headed arn't you.

Qb rating 3rd that woudl be above avg and meet your definition
Complt% 3rd and again above avg and meets your criteria
ints first
YPA top 3

You see almost evey stats you pick is not within his control, the ones I listed are on him adn hye was top 3 in all of them.

Allso as you decided to ignroe it. You said his game agasint the BIlls was great

again lets compare

VS bills
14/23, 61% complt%, 205 yards, 8.91 ypa 1 td, qb rating 104

VS Zona
17/22, 77% complt%, 211 yards, 9.59 ypa, 1 td, qb rating 121.6

So basically Wilson beat every passing stat he had in the BIlls game, a game you said he was great in, but even though he beat all his passing numbers you say he was not great in the Zona game. Yeah thanks for proving my point you said it, you said he was great in the billsgame and since he was better in every passing stats in the Zona game thatmeans he was great there too. Thanks for proving my point.

Will you remember RW's performance yesterday in 5 years?

Irrelevant, if I remmeber it or not does not change the fact he played great. Guys in the NFL play great every week but I do not remember them all. FYI you can be remembvered for playing bad too, so what. Also yes Actually I would, remember because when we needed the win, and needed it most he carried the offense, with a porus oline, wr not getting open, no RB run game, he carried this team on offense and played great. You said the BIlls game he was great in, and I showed how he out performed the bills game, there for by your own words he played great. enough said.

 

[ivotuk]

Let's see Peyton Manning or Tom Brady get hammered for 7 sacks, play against an elite defense, all while having to throw to our receivers and play nearly as good as Russell did.

 

[Ozzy]

[/quote]Will you remember RW's performance yesterday in 5 years?[/quote]

I've been telling all the neighbor kids already so yeah probably.

So if Wilson goes 77%, 121 rating in every game for the rest of his career would he be considered great? He would go down as the greatest QB of all time. Check mate.