Wilson #5 Ranking the Top 50 Quarterbacks from 2014

HawkAroundTheClock

New member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
0
Location
Over There
PackerNation":2dpr7oy8 said:
When I think "game manager", I think Trent Dilfer.
Most people do. But I have a theory it's because media folks couldn't come right out and say a QB who won a Super Bowl was below average. Or just plain sucked. While many people bicker about how great or deficient Russell Wilson is, I'd like to explore the case of a QB who was able to hold a roster spot for more than a decade by being just barely above awful. For a little perspective.

Media people and fans began using "game manager" to describe a QB who had a starting job, but did nothing special. And Dilfer qualified on that level. Aimed at an above-average, skilled player it was a bit insulting. Aimed at a Dilfer, it's a ceiling he couldn't reach if he was wearing 10-inch stiletto heels and standing on Herve Villechaize's head.

If we asked any head coach or OC how they would like a QB to manage a game, they would all say LIMIT TURNOVERS. In Dilfer's SB year he threw 11 TDs and committed 13 TOs. For his career he threw 113 TDs with 129 INTs, and he lost 25 fumbles. He also ran for 5 TDs. So, grand total:

TD = 118
TO = 154

He did a crap job managing the ball, much less the games.

Anyone wanna guess how many years Dilfer topped an 80 QB rating? He played 13 seasons. 5 different teams. His best season, rating-wise, was 2001 when he played in 6 games for the Seahawks. He had 7 TDs and 5 TOs that year.

Twice. Dilfer topped 80 twice, and only one time out of the 8 seasons that he played in 7 games or more. He logged an 82.8 in 1997 with the Bucs. He played in 16 games four consecutive seasons for them. His ratings in the other 3 years: 60.1, 64.8, and 74.0. His top rating for a season, 92.0, was in the aforementioned 6 games for Seattle.

His lifetime rating is 70.2.

For context, here's some of his contemporaries' career ratings:
Daunte Culpepper: 87.8
Jeff Garcia: 87.5
Trent Green: 86.0
Donovan McNabb: 85.6
Matt Hasselbeck: 82.3
Elvis Grbac: 79.6
Gus Frerotte: 74.2
Kerry Collins: 73.8
Tony Banks: 72.4
Kordell Stewart: 70.7

Three of those guys started in the Big Game but didn't have the defenses to win it. Without that 2000 Ravens D, Dilfer would not be called a "game manager" to this day. He would just be another lucky schlub to have had a starting job all those years.

To summarize: calling Dilfer a "game manager" is an insult to game managers. HA! Really, he was a below-average journeyman who won the Mega Millions lottery when he landed for one season on an all-time-great defensive team. That is THE example of a defense carrying a QB. Dilfer didn't manage squat.

He didn't even manage to stay on the field, as he played 11 regular-season games in that SB year. Again, 11 TDs and 13 TOs. He averaged 136.5 yards per game that season. Add his rushing and Dilfer accounted for 143.3 ypg of offense. With all of the Hawks' o-line penalties, Russell Wilson sometimes gains 143 yards per DRIVE. HAHA!

I'm starting to see why T-DIL really wants to push that ESPN QBR alternative scoring method. Because by the standard tabulation he just plain sucked.

These days, the poster child for "game manager" is Andy Dalton. He actually accomplishes the goal. After 4 seasons he has an 85.2 rating, 99 TDs to 70 TOs. He hasn't had a year below 80, nor above 89. He's a perfect example of a guy getting by without doing anything spectacular along the way. His job is to help move the chains and not put undue pressure on his defense, and that's what he does.

SO... I just wanted to tangent-ize that "game manager" nugget to provide a little context while we quibble over Russell Wilson being a 4 or a 5 or being "elite" or ranking above/below (insert QB here). I know it won't stop you arguers from arguing, but we have an awesome QB on our favorite team, Seahawks fans. He wins. He makes the players around him better. He does not make life harder for our defense. He turns broken plays into Benny Hill routines, for cryin' out loud!

Those of you who love Russell will keep doing so, those who doubt him will carry on. I know this. But as we nitpick and scrutinize all eleventy-bajillion statistical and analytical categories, as well as the endless subjective takes on what he "should" be doing, I hope we can all agree that it could be WAY worse.

I, for one, am thankful we don't have a "game manager" who manages to fall flat in the playoffs. I'm glad we don't have a below-average QB whom people sympathetically call a game manager because he was able to muster enough mustard not to screw up the championship that his historically amazing defense won.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,826
Reaction score
1,797
Hasselbeck":1l3n3jcg said:
scutterhawk":1l3n3jcg said:
Hasselbeck":1l3n3jcg said:
scutterhawk":1l3n3jcg said:
How ANYONE could watch this and not call him an "ELITE" Quarterback, and that it undeniably proves he's a 5/5.
And too, there are lots of nobody's foolishly making claims, that he could be easily replaced, if he doesn't cave to the Front Office in negotiations SMH.

Because there's more to being ELITE than running around making defenders look silly?

Of course I am the type that is really picky with that terminology. Wilson is great, but I think Rodgers is elite.

When Wilson is consistently great in the passing game (you know, the biggest thing QB's do...) then sure.. the elite thing can be considered. He's not there yet though. May never be. And that's fine, he's already proven he's capable enough in that department to win a Super Bowl and come a yard away from another one.

Too many people are obsessed with greatest ever, elite, Top 5, Top 10, bla bla bla. Russell Wilson is a very good player and thats all that really needs to be said.
I'm not obsessed with him being considered an "ELITE", because he's already proven that he is.
He's done a hell of a lot more than "Running around making defenders look silly", You're omitting the fact that he also tallied up nearly 900 Yards in all that "Running around" last Season.
Wilson has come out the other side of a lot of broken plays with more success than the other top 4 Quarterbacks have, and let's be honest, Rodgers got hurt trying to make a play that Wilson has been making look pedestrian.
It's RW's abilities to scramble, and buy time for his non #1 Receivers to get open is something that has netted him two consecutive Super Bowl appearances, in a row, with one of those being a win, therefore, Wilson's ability to get there in just his first 3 Years in the League, and you don't consider him "ELITE" ? sorry, but I just don't happen to agree with your assessment.

Running for 900 yards in a season is great, doesn't make him an elite quarterback though. Michael Vick would do that. Would you label him as elite back in the day?

Russell needs improvement in the passing game to be considered elite (or Top 2-3 in the game). Period. It's his abilities to scramble that mask a lot of things he needs to work on as a thrower too. Especially considering, running QB's do not have long shelf lives.

In 7 of Wilson's 16 games last year.. he didn't crack 200 yards passing. In those games, he only went over 100 yards rushing once (Giants) and outside of his 71 yards against the Chiefs, didn't eclipse 35 yards in any of the other games.

Then you look at Rodgers.. 4 times he didn't go over 200 yards passing, 3 of those resulted in losses.. the other he was done at half-time in a blowout over Minnesota. 8 times he went over 300 yards. 10 times over 250.

That's the difference between really good/great and elite. Not a knock on Russ at all, because 28.. 29.. 30 other teams would kill for Aaron Rodgers.. but Wilson is simply not there yet.
Remind me again, Michael Vick had how many TD's to go with his Super Bowl appearances and wins in his first three Seasons?
You're going to have to do better than that.
+ An "Elite" Quarterback like Rodgers (and he most certainly is), should be able to take a great Defense apart for the win....like an "ELITE" Wilson did on several occasions.
 

BadgerVid

New member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
251
Reaction score
0
scutterhawk":xb2xh04v said:
Remind me again, Michael Vick had how many TD's to go with his Super Bowl appearances and wins in his first three Seasons?
You're going to have to do better than that

I have already figured out that it is a waste of time to address this one special group.

If a group of things that RW does very well are listed, they will pick one and say "that doesn't make him a 'elite' QB". The idea of addressing the totality is just too foreign.

Obviously, his ability to finish a season with more rushing yards than half of the starting RBs in the league does not make him a great QB. Nor does his ability to turn a busted play into a solid gain do it. None of the individual things that he does well as far as playing, leadership, dedication or just plain finding a way to win are the thing that would make him elite.

That's OK with me...I'll live with the results of the "total package" and hope that JS and PC feel the same.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,826
Reaction score
1,797
KiwiHawk":3j8f4xge said:
Bombastic Sports":3j8f4xge said:
I'll take Wilson at five. When ranking quarterbacks, however, I think you only need to look at three stats: regular season wins, playoff wins, and Super Bowl wins.
All of those are team achievements, not individual achievements. The QB has nothing at all to do with defense or special teams, yet a game could be won or lost by either of them - as any Packers fan can attest.

Fact is, football is a team sport, so you have to take all individual stats with a grain of salt. It's even worse, however, to place one player as THE cause of wins and losses. Sure the QB is an important position, but it's not everything.

Some pundits rate Wilson #5. Stats say we have the #10 scoring offense. But on the other side of the ball we have one of the top 3 defences in NFL history. The simplest answer is usually the right one, and the simplest answer is that our defence contributes to our wins.
So, hmm, What you're saying, is that it's a TEAM SPORT thing that wins, and that whatever the Quarterback does or doesn't do is irrelevant?
So, coming from behind by some outstanding plays by the Quarterback and the rest of the Offensive attack is to be dismissed, because?
:roll: OKAY, if you say so :roll:
And it's defenSe, and offenSe .
 

PackerNation

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
816
Reaction score
0
Location
Austin, Texas
HawkAroundTheClock":1vtq53ho said:
Most people do. But I have a theory it's because media folks couldn't come right out and say a QB who won a Super Bowl was below average. Or just plain sucked. While many people bicker about how great or deficient Russell Wilson is, I'd like to explore the case of a QB who was able to hold a roster spot for more than a decade by being just barely above awful. For a little perspective.

Now that is an excellent post! I had to laugh but also agree with you. Trent was awful and stating he was a "game manager" is just a nice way to say they didn't have a real QB so they brought in Dilfer in hopes he wouldn't lose it for them.

Well, he was a better alternative to Tony Banks that year.

I also don't care for the comparison of Vick to Wilson. To be honest, Vick is a guy who could run really good and had a sub par arm. Wilson is an actual QB with good mechanics that is also impressive and elusive at scrambling. He is a leader not by default, but because he grabbed that mantel and took charge.
 

MizzouHawkGal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
13,477
Reaction score
846
Location
Kansas City, MO
PackerNation":7xgfrqx6 said:
HawkAroundTheClock":7xgfrqx6 said:
Most people do. But I have a theory it's because media folks couldn't come right out and say a QB who won a Super Bowl was below average. Or just plain sucked. While many people bicker about how great or deficient Russell Wilson is, I'd like to explore the case of a QB who was able to hold a roster spot for more than a decade by being just barely above awful. For a little perspective.

Now that is an excellent post! I had to laugh but also agree with you. Trent was awful and stating he was a "game manager" is just a nice way to say they didn't have a real QB so they brought in Dilfer in hopes he wouldn't lose it for them.

Well, he was a better alternative to Tony Banks that year.

I also don't care for the comparison of Vick to Wilson. To be honest, Vick is a guy who could run really good and had a sub par arm. Wilson is an actual QB with good mechanics that is also impressive and elusive at scrambling. He is a leader not by default, but because he grabbed that mantel and took charge.
True story. Whether that makes him elite or not by some mythical white room standard is irrelevant. He just wins baby like the late great Al Davis always said. Heck, if it were the 1970's you better believe Al Davis would have drafted him in the FIRST round and never batted an eye.
 

HawkAroundTheClock

New member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
0
Location
Over There
PackerNation":riuluvno said:
HawkAroundTheClock":riuluvno said:
Most people do. But I have a theory it's because media folks couldn't come right out and say a QB who won a Super Bowl was below average. Or just plain sucked. While many people bicker about how great or deficient Russell Wilson is, I'd like to explore the case of a QB who was able to hold a roster spot for more than a decade by being just barely above awful. For a little perspective.

Now that is an excellent post! I had to laugh but also agree with you. Trent was awful and stating he was a "game manager" is just a nice way to say they didn't have a real QB so they brought in Dilfer in hopes he wouldn't lose it for them.

Well, he was a better alternative to Tony Banks that year.

I also don't care for the comparison of Vick to Wilson. To be honest, Vick is a guy who could run really good and had a sub par arm. Wilson is an actual QB with good mechanics that is also impressive and elusive at scrambling. He is a leader not by default, but because he grabbed that mantel and took charge.
:229031_cheers:
Well said.

It's nice to chat sensible football stuff with sensible football fans, whichever team they root for. And I know they don't let uncool people into Austin, but to let in a Packers fan you must be sump'n extry special. ;)
 

WilsonMVP

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
2,771
Reaction score
0
Anthony!":140jv0h1 said:
McGruff":140jv0h1 said:
EntiatHawk":140jv0h1 said:
Wilson is not without flaws but so does everyone else.

I will take the wins, the flaws and the incredible competitiveness . The bottom line is winning that that what we have been doing and even though Wilson is not the traditional pocket passer he is actually pretty damn good there also.

Wilson is a game changer, that's all I want is someone who puts incredible pressure on a defense all game long. The combination of him, Lynch and now hopefully Jimmy Graham will be a nightmare for opposing teams.

Wilson's critics tend to focus too much on the flaws and not on the contributions. Like many curmudgeons, they like the old school pocket passer who nickles and dimes his way downfield. And that's fine, but its not Russell Wilson and its not really what Pete and Darrell have said they want to do.

In 2005, the peak of Holmgren's traditional offensive success, the Seahawks scored 28 points a game and racked up 5900 yards of total offense. Matt Hasselbeck accounted for 3600 yards of that.

In 2014, the Seahawks scored 24 points a game with over 6000 yards of total offense. Russell Wilson accounted for 4300 yards of that offense.

I think we need to recognize that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and Wilson has been skinning a lot of cats these last three years.


Agreed one misissue is the whole pocket passer thing. I and others, as well as experts have shown facts and stats showing he is a very very good pocket passer. However because he does scramble so much, and they are attention grabbing people forget about his pocket passing. Then there are a select few who will always find fault even when it doe snot exist.

Here is a section from in the pocket from this article http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-r ... s-mobility

If you acknowledge Wilson as a wise scrambler, then you probably won't be surprised to learn that the correlation coefficient between his pressure rate and scramble rate is 0.71. Here is a graph that plots his pressure rate versus scramble rate for all 55 games of his career. Again, scramble rate includes plays where Wilson scrambled, but still threw the ball ("extended the play," as we like to say).
RWgraph
Ideally, you want a quarterback with mobility to use it when necessary, like in the case of a pass rusher beating your left tackle and coming in for a sack. Wilson for the most part has done a great job of moving when he needed to, but not falling victim to phantom pressures.
RWNO
When Wilson steps up in the pocket, defenses have to respect his quickness and overall rushing ability. That often leads to secondary players dropping their assignments in coverage to target the quarterback, even though Wilson is also a threat to throw. On this play, cornerback Keenan Lewis left his man, creating a wide-open receiver for an easy 25-yard gain.



Anyway..its a fantastic article, I dont want to copy and paste the whole thing.
 

WilsonMVP

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
2,771
Reaction score
0
Hasselbeck":339ev3s4 said:
Fade":339ev3s4 said:
With Jimmy Graham Wilson's numbers are going to spike, and we're going to hear that NOW he is elite. When in reallty he is just doing what he does. The talent just got better around him.

People forget this but Tom Brady used to be called a game manager, and it was his team. Peyton Manning was clearly the better QB they would say, and then NE acquired Randy Moss.

Some people have trouble reading between the lines, they need it spelled out for them so to speak.

in4dF4IAoFonQ.gif

Going left who else can make this play?

I just can't see this offense putting up the attempts in the passing game that will get Russell into that discussion. Jimmy Graham will absolutely help the passing game, but the identity of this team is still defense and #24 pounding you for four quarters.

Brady also had Wes Welker in his prime on that offense and an OC that wanted to throw it relentlessly. But I do agree immensely in the comparison of Brady early on with Wilson. They are very similar QB's in that regard.


They also never won a superbowl with that high powered offense..
 

WilsonMVP

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
2,771
Reaction score
0
Fade":15oxqrut said:
At ^Above^

In Brady's early career critics referred to him as a game manager that was clutch in critical moments, but he was incapable of carrying an offense like Peyton Manning. Until Moss happened.

Yep. Rodgers, and Wilson are the best scrambling while keeping their eyes down field.

You got a play of Rodgers shaking an unblocked running full speed blitzing safety out of his cleats, and delivering a strike?

This play is Rodgers sliding and moving to his left against a 4 man rush and delivering a strike.

Ya before Moss Bradys two best seasons were 28TD/14INT in his 3rd and 4th year. The year before Moss he went 26-14 and then with Moss went 50TD/8INT :lol: He didnt break over 100 QB rating until that year with Moss. Wilson has done it twice in his first 3 years. Heck his 2 best QB ratings were 92.6 and 92.3 The year with Moss was his 8th!!!!!!!!!! year in the NFL
 

WilsonMVP

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
2,771
Reaction score
0
Spin Doctor":35h2xoo3 said:
McGruff":35h2xoo3 said:
I think Spin Doctor is right on two things and wrong on the rest.

First, Russell does hold the ball longer than average, even without pressure. This is a function of two things. The first is scheme and the second is trust. We simply don't run a lot of outlet routes, quick hitches or slants. We run longer downfield and crossing route that take longer to develop. That's not his fault. But I do think his cautiousness sometimes causes him to doubt his own ability to hit tight windows and his receivers ability to go after the ball. He's got to develop this trust and learn to take the risk.

Second, his scrambling does make it difficult for his line to keep track of him. Just look at some of those scrambles posted above and watvch what the linemen have to go through, sometimes for 10-15 seconds. And they have to think about the LOS and not get too far beyond and get the penalty. Its pretty insane and the linemen themselves have admitted as much. They've had to adjust their mentality from blocking a spot and a count to staying with a man.

But I notice that people tend to use this word, "Symbiotic," and make it mean what it does not. We tend to use it about a partnership, but then use it to make a case why it is one side's fault and not the other's. Lynch and Wilson have a symbiotic effect on each other, therefore Wilson's success is all because of Lynch (or vice versa). The OL and QB have a symbiotic effect, therefore the stuggles in pass pro are all Wilson's fault and not the OL (or vice versa). That is not what symbiosis means. It means they effect each other, benefit each other, and are tied so closely to each other that sometimes its hard to tell how the effect works. Does Wilson get pressured more because he holds the ball too long, or is he holding the ball longer because he's scrambling from immediate pressure while looking downfield?

I will say this, so far the case Spin Doctor has made makes me wonder how Wilson has even survived in this league at all, much less broken every record possible for a 3rd year QB while leading us to three NFC championship games, 2 Superbowls and one World Championship. To hear him describe Wilson you'd think he was more like Curtis Painter than Joe Montana. So far we have the following criticisms:

1. He's inconsistent
2. He can't throw on the run
3. He's hesitant
4. He's inaccurate
5. He can't throw short passes
6. He doesn't see the field
7. He can't manage a pocket
8. He can't make pre-snap reads
9. He holds the ball too long
10. He plays reckless
11. He only throws one route

Seriously, if that was scouting report, this player wouldn't be employable on any level of football, and yet these are the things being said about Wilson in this thread alone. Some are valid. Some are distortions. Some are outright false. Many, however, can be attributed to the truly symbiotic relationship between coach, QB, line and receivers, and any reasonable fan would admit that our coaching is at least occasionally suspect, our line sucks at pass protection (they are built that way somewhat intentionally), and our receivers range from #3 types to fringe roster players. Sure, Wilson sometimes plays like a young QB, but let's not put any of this in a vacuum. Aside from Lynch, Wilson is playing with a short deck here.
First, Russell does hold the ball longer than average, even without pressure. This is a function of two things. The first is scheme and the second is trust. We simply don't run a lot of outlet routes, quick hitches or slants. We run longer downfield and crossing route that take longer to develop. That's not his fault. But I do think his cautiousness sometimes causes him to doubt his own ability to hit tight windows and his receivers ability to go after the ball. He's got to develop this trust and learn to take the risk.

Second, his scrambling does make it difficult for his line to keep track of him. Just look at some of those scrambles posted above and watvch what the linemen have to go through, sometimes for 10-15 seconds. And they have to think about the LOS and not get too far beyond and get the penalty. Its pretty insane and the linemen themselves have admitted as much. They've had to adjust their mentality from blocking a spot and a count to staying with a man.

But I notice that people tend to use this word, "Symbiotic," and make it mean what it does not. We tend to use it about a partnership, but then use it to make a case why it is one side's fault and not the other's. Lynch and Wilson have a symbiotic effect on each other, therefore Wilson's success is all because of Lynch (or vice versa). The OL and QB have a symbiotic effect, therefore the stuggles in pass pro are all Wilson's fault and not the OL (or vice versa). That is not what symbiosis means. It means they effect each other, benefit each other, and are tied so closely to each other that sometimes its hard to tell how the effect works. Does Wilson get pressured more because he holds the ball too long, or is he holding the ball longer because he's scrambling from immediate pressure while looking downfield?

I will say this, so far the case Spin Doctor has made makes me wonder how Wilson has even survived in this league at all, much less broken every record possible for a 3rd year QB while leading us to three NFC championship games, 2 Superbowls and one World Championship. To hear him describe Wilson you'd think he was more like Curtis Painter than Joe Montana. So far we have the following criticisms:

1. He's inconsistent
2. He can't throw on the run
3. He's hesitant
4. He's inaccurate
5. He can't throw short passes
6. He doesn't see the field
7. He can't manage a pocket
8. He can't make pre-snap reads
9. He holds the ball too long
10. He plays reckless
11. He only throws one route

Seriously, if that was scouting report, this player wouldn't be employable on any level of football, and yet these are the things being said about Wilson in this thread alone. Some are valid. Some are distortions. Some are outright false. Many, however, can be attributed to the truly symbiotic relationship between coach, QB, line and receivers, and any reasonable fan would admit that our coaching is at least occasionally suspect, our line sucks at pass protection (they are built that way somewhat intentionally), and our receivers range from #3 types to fringe roster players. Sure, Wilson sometimes plays like a young QB, but let's not put any of this in a vacuum. Aside from Lynch, Wilson is playing with a short deck here.
First off, I would like to mention that winning a superbowl is a team effort. Wilson is not the only reason why we are there, when people talk about his merits this inevitably comes up. Did he help? Absolutely, but he let us not forget that he was also on a great team.

Secondly I'm looking at the future. Usually when Quarterbacks get paid there is an equilibrium that occurs. Teams usually put more assets into protecting their investment, it's just the smart thing to do. This means more draft, and monetary capital is allocated to the offense. Will that destroy our defense? No, but we will no longer be able to field defenses of the same caliber. This means that more weight will naturally be shifted on Wilson's shoulders. My question is: How would Wilson respond to an increased workload? This is an important question to ask when you're paying your QB.

I ask this question because of David Garrard. Obviously Wilson is a better player, he's more dynamic, and he has better fundamentals, but I still see major holes in his game which will limit his ability as a volume passer if he needs to become one. I should also mention that Wilson is more clutch than Mr. Almost interception Garrard and did not contribute as much to the run game.

I'm specifically going to mention one season Garrard had, which was 2007. In that season he had a similar role to Russell Wilson. He played in a run dominated, play action offense. He was among the bottom of the league in attempts as well, but he put together a solid stat line, and the Jaguars coincidentally made it to the divisional round. They were beat by the 2007, 16-0 Patriots. David Garrard was praised by the Jaguar fans, and was given a large contract extension. When his team asked him to carry a larger burden on offense he regressed to a middle of the road Quarterback. He went from throwing 18 touchdowns and 3 interceptions, and almost an 8 yards average, to having almost as many interceptions as he did touchdowns. He did not take well to an increased workload, and part of me thinks Wilson will be the same way.

The truth is, Wilson plays quarterback in an unconventional way. He is a unique case that we cannot peg to very many examples in the NFL. This is, and should be a cause for concern with the FO before they give him a big contract. That is why I would like to see most of his contract incentive laden -- especially since he has not been asked to do very much from a passing standpoint on the Seahawks. He does very many things extremely well, but at the same time he lacks in very many fundamental areas. This is what makes evaluating the guy hard.

As for your list, I did not say half of those things, either that or you are misunderstanding what I said:

1. He's inconsistent. Yes he is inconsistent throughout the game. In the first half he is almost non-existent. It seems like he is only productive for about 1-2 quarters a game.

2. He can't throw on the run: I never said that, Wilson can throw on the run and he is among the best in the league at doing so, statistics even back that up.

3. He's hesitant: Yes, he is hesitant. He doesn't usually pull the trigger unless his receiver has a good two steps on the defender. This is one of my biggest concerns in the passing game. Receivers, most of the time only have a small window of time that they are open. He misses a lot of opportunities because he doesn't pull the trigger.

4. He's innacurate: I never said he's inaccurate, it's just that he lacks consistency here. I liken it to Donavon McNabb, he could either make a throw that 99% of the QB's in the NFL couldn't, or his throws would be WAY off. Wilson does tend to overthrow his receivers, especially during the beginning of the game, or after he does a lot of scramble drills. He has one of the most accurate deep balls in the league, but he does struggle on shorter passes, especially with ball placement.

5. He can't throw short passes: He can throw them, he just isn't that good at it. His repertoire is limited here. He knows how to work very few routes here. I especially noticed that he struggles with slant routes.

6. He doesn't see the field: It's hard to say, this could be related to his hesitation. I do feel that if you knock him out of his comfort zone, that his field vision really seems to suffer. He also refuses to utilize the middle of the field, or he just has a hard time seeing it, I don't know which it is.

7. He can't manage the pocket: Yes, I agree with this statement. He doesn't know how to manage the pocket. Throughout the season many people, not just myself have lamented this fact. He bails out far too soon, and when you bail out of the pocket, you're effectively cutting the field in half. This also greatly affects his field vision. He needs to learn how to step up in the pocket

8. He can't make presnap reads: Yes, this seems to be an ability where he is lacking.

9. He holds the ball for too long: Yep, he holds the ball longer than any QB in the NFL

10. He plays reckless: Yes, I believe his scrambling will get him injured one day if he doesn't alter his play style. Even though he is smart about sliding, he still takes more hits than almost anybody in the NFL. Passing wise on the other hand he is very conservative on which throws he makes, and doesn't make.

11. He only throws one route: Never said this. If this was the case he wouldn't be a good QB in the NFL. He does struggle on certain routes though, especially if they involve fine tuned-timing. He's very good at hook routes, Fades, Go routes, and post routes. Though many of the guys who watch film say our route trees are simplistic compared to most NFL teams in the league.[/quote]

Wilson is actually better in the 1st half than 2nd stat wise IMO

Wilson 1st and 2nd Half for Career
1st Half
425/656 65% 5549 yards 35TD/10Int 102.8 Rating
880 rushing yards, 5TD

2nd Half
359/582 62% 4292 36TD/16INT 93.4 rating
930 rushing yards, 6TD
 

PackerNation

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
816
Reaction score
0
Location
Austin, Texas
HawkAroundTheClock":1apmiwdu said:
:229031_cheers:
Well said.

It's nice to chat sensible football stuff with sensible football fans, whichever team they root for. And I know they don't let uncool people into Austin, but to let in a Packers fan you must be sump'n extry special. ;)

Yea, beats the smack talk! :thirishdrinkers:
 
Top