Wilson Is Not an MVP Candidate—He's Something Much Better

[scutterhawk]

There are some problems with QB rating...many have said it really should be called "Passer Rating". That said, with Russell's QB rating combined with rushing stats that would make many (if not most) RBs a little jealous, one would think people would stop with the "average" and "game manager" labels.

Some here are inferring that he's not close to being "Elite" Accurate, but with having 5 TD's & 0 Interceptions says otherwise.
Russell Wilson has won a LOT of games, because of his ability to scramble for the needed Yards.

 

[RiverDog]

Good read and explains changes made on offense last couple of weeks

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2595 ... e-seahawks

Did anyone take a look at some of the other names on that list?

#13 Chad Pennington, #16 Daunte Culpepper, and #18 Jeff Garcia all ahead of #20 Dan Marino. And it gets worse:

There's #21 David Garrad, #29 Rich Gannon, #34 Mark Brunell, #53 Jake Delhomme, #54 Kyle Orton, #59 Jeff George, and #63 Steve Beuerlien before you get to #64 Dan Fouts. Then sprinklle in #65 Ryan Fitzpatrick and #66 Matt Cassell until you get to #67 John Elway. Johnny Unitas is at #78,

About 1 in every 5 of those quarterbacks on that list are a laughing stock, and many are ranked ahead of first ballot Hall of Famers. It is heavily weighted towards the modern quarterbacks that have played within the past 20 years. It's nothing short of outrageous to mention some of those names in the same breath as guys like Marino, Elway, Unitas, Van Brocklin, Baugh, et al.

It's a bogus list. The only thing it proves in a historical context is that the game has changed so much as to render the QBR as a worthless stat as far as rating quarterbacks from 20 years and eariler. They should just use it to rank active quarterbacks and leave it at that.

This is one of the problems with declaring current QBs to be all-time greats compared to heroes of yore. There's just so much that has changed in the game, in terms of rules which favor the offense, focus on developing quarterbacks and wideouts, etc. You cannot reasonably expect someone like Unitas to put up numbers that look at all reasonable by today's standards, be it QB rating, yards, TDs, or any other metric.

That said, it can be used more effectively to compare contemporaries. Comparing Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson (just to pick two random names out of thin air that I've never heard before) by statistics is much more reasonable.

Good post. As I said, they should have used it just with active players, or players after the year 2000 or something. It really is a disgrace to some of those legends to have their names listed next to bums like Tim Couch and Rodney Peete.

One name/ranking on a historical perspective on that list that did impress me was Otto Graham's #19. That's pretty impressive considering that he played in the '50's.

 

[scutterhawk]

It strikes me that the underlying theme and subject of "Anthony's" multiple Russell Wilson threads is about his devotion to and worship of Russell Wilson ...... rather than about Russell Wilson the quarterback, the football player or the man.

Yeah, I don't know why he feels the need to defend his fandom of the BEST QUARTERBACK THE SEAHAWKS HAVE EVER HAD.
He needs to let the belittling by know-it-alls take place, stand by and let the negative crap fly.
God forbid some around here wanting to feel good about being a Russell Wilson Fan.
ALL Quarterbacks have streaks where they play less than perfect.
Some want to piss and moan about Quarterback rating, like it has no bearing on how good a Quarterback plays, yet some of these same detractors get loud and proud about Great Quarterbacks....Just not Russell Wilson.

 

[erik2690]

Yeah comparing across eras isn't really that big of a linchpin of the article I don't think. Plenty of metrics don't compare great across eras that doesn't really mean you don't keep a list of all time leaders. Just means it's more helpful to compare within specific time frames. In fact the article literally addresses the fact that it gets a bit fluky when comparing for "all-time". I don't think this means QB rating is not a worthwhile stat though, you just need context for things like "all-time" lists.

 

[RiverDog]

Yeah comparing across eras isn't really that big of a linchpin of the article I don't think. Plenty of metrics don't compare great across eras that doesn't really mean you don't keep a list of all time leaders. Just means it's more helpful to compare within specific time frames. In fact the article literally addresses the fact that it gets a bit fluky when comparing for "all-time". I don't think this means QB rating is not a worthwhile stat though, you just need context for things like "all-time" lists.

I didn't have as much of a problem with the article as I did the list, using career passer rating as a method of ranking quarterbacks through the entire history of the game. Kids today think that the game began when Peyton Manning started playing and don't understand how the game has changed over the years like the vast majority of posters in this forum realize it has.

Football in general is a very hard sport to quantify individual performances in compared to baseball and basketball. It's much more of a team sport than the other sports. Compared to football, baseball is not much more than a collection of individals rather than a team.

 

[Zorn76]

No matter how you slice it, RW is a solid QB.
That's all that matters.

 

[RiverDog]

No matter how you slice it, RW is a solid QB.
That's all that matters.

Agreed. The fact that they had Russell ranked as high as they did wasn't what bothered me. What bothered me was the overall, historical rankings that listed all of those bums ahead of first ballot HOF quarterbacks. Even just raising the ball to require 100 starts or something would have weeded out a lot of the trash. When baseball lists career stats, they establish a minimum required at-bats, innings pitched, and so on, to prevent the inclusion of players that don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the legends of the game. I mean, does Chad Pennington deserve to be mentioned at #13 on any list?

 

[Hasselbeck]

LOL....@ Bleacher Report.

That article wasn't bad, but these idiots just wrote this fine piece of work 10 days ago.

All they want is clicks. ukeface:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ning-seahawks-becoming-more-of-a-celebrity-qb

You do realize that article is only reporting what ESPN reported right?

I get hating on Bleacher Report is the cool thing to do, but.. BR didn't report that story.. Chris Mortensen did.

 

[Jville]

It strikes me that the underlying theme and subject of "Anthony's" multiple Russell Wilson threads is about his devotion to and worship of Russell Wilson ...... rather than about Russell Wilson the quarterback, the football player or the man.

Yeah, I don't know why he feels the need to defend his fandom of the BEST QUARTERBACK THE SEAHAWKS HAVE EVER HAD.
He needs to let the belittling by know-it-alls take place, stand by and let the negative crap fly.
God forbid some around here wanting to feel good about being a Russell Wilson Fan.
ALL Quarterbacks have streaks where they play less than perfect.
Some want to piss and moan about Quarterback rating, like it has no bearing on how good a Quarterback plays, yet some of these same detractors get loud and proud about Great Quarterbacks....Just not Russell Wilson.

There is nothing wrong with hero worship. It is universally popular thru out the land of fandom. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with identifying it for what it is.

With regards to Russell Wilson the quarterback, he continues to grow. It has been and continues to be a pleasure to watch the offense evolve around Carroll's point guard.

With regards to noisy "know-it-alls", ignoring the noise is a Seahawk theme and goal. Indeed, Wilson consistently mentions ignoring the noise. Neither team nor player have need for a champion to come to their defense. That was all I intended to say in my all to abbreviated way.