Good read and explains changes made on offense last couple of weeks
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2595 ... e-seahawks
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2595 ... e-seahawks
Wilson Is Not an MVP Candidate—He's Something Much Better
- Thread starter Anthony!
- Start date
JSeahawks
New member
He's the man.
byau
Active member
Wow..REALLY good read! Thanks for posting
My few favorite points
(in between the lines: we have two of the top three YPA in rushing in Rawls and Wilson!)
Those two stats combined: high completion percentage, and high yards per attempt. Wow
Didn't realize the percentages were that high. And funny as I read those stats I too was thinking "well, they're basing their odds off of potential and past performance" and writer Mike Tanier reads my thoughts and follows it up with "Football Outsiders doesn't base these percentages on they are proven winners logic, but on strength of schedule and a deep, nitty-gritty statistical dive"
Anyway, fun article to read
My few favorite points
(in between the lines: we have two of the top three YPA in rushing in Rawls and Wilson!)
Those two stats combined: high completion percentage, and high yards per attempt. Wow
Didn't realize the percentages were that high. And funny as I read those stats I too was thinking "well, they're basing their odds off of potential and past performance" and writer Mike Tanier reads my thoughts and follows it up with "Football Outsiders doesn't base these percentages on they are proven winners logic, but on strength of schedule and a deep, nitty-gritty statistical dive"
Anyway, fun article to read
Seymour
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 7,459
- Reaction score
- 22
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
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
OK I'll bite... One of the reason Wilson has such a great QBR is because the ball is velcro'd to his hand unless someone is wide open. That article didn't even mention that. The Steelers game was probably the first true game this year where he was getting the ball out quickly, throwing guys open instead of waiting for someone to get wide open. I loved what I saw from him that game and hope that side of him comes out more consistently!
Seymour":1jsqs757 said: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.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ning-seahawks-becoming-more-of-a-celebrity-qb
Hmm whatever
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.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,611
edogg23":1b9t4g5l said:
As opposed to guys like Brady and Manning who dink and dunk safe passes and crosses that are less than 10 yards 90% of the time?
That's why the study had to have 1,500 attempts, so that opinions like yours were rendered moot.
Russell's always been a very accurate QB, not sure why it matters how he got there for the QBR stat. You'd like him to be less safe and take more risks?
Sgt. Largent":9qexol02 said:
I'm not knocking Wilson, and guys like Montana ran a west coast offense with lots of safe short passes that are easy completions. But that just proves my point, QBR is fairly meaningless stat. And yes I would like him to be more aggressive with getting the ball out quicker like he did against the Steelers, what is wrong with that?
Wilson has always struck me as a conservative qb thst is accurate, but not elite accuracy
SeaChase
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2010
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 26
Jville":2727zfpf said:
Spot on.
Seafan
New member
Likely not making the pro bowl but can talk MVP.
edogg23":365wq4sq said:
"QBR is fairly meaningless stat"...... first I hope we are all talking about "QB rating" and not QBR, gets confusing sometimes. Second, you can't just say a stat is meaningless like an automatic fact. I think comparing QB rating across eras maybe might not work, but comparing within timeframes it is not a meaningless stat at all. QB rating is near the top of the list of QB stats most correlated to winning. So if winning is what you like high QB rating is more important than quite a few stats including volume stats like yards and TD's. No stat is going to give you a full picture, but to say rating is fairly meaningless seems a bit overboard. What stats do you like to check on to measure productivity? ANY/a? Wilson does pretty well in most so I'm not sure it will reflect much differently.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,611
edogg23":1lo332ec said:
I don't know what you mean by elite accuracy........Russell is near the top in every stat that takes into account accuracy.
Would we like him to do things like throw his receivers open, get rid of the ball quicker and not hesitate sometimes? Absolutely, but like I said that might be at the expense of said accuracy and QBR.
People love the gunslinger QB's, but they throw a lot of picks and incompletions.
Tech Worlds
Active member
This really is kinda sick Anthony. Seek help.
erik2690":vq1z34rh said:
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.
RiverDog
Well-known member
Anthony!":1uvqvjpc said:
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.
jkitsune
New member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,339
- Reaction score
- 0
RiverDog":12z12osf said:
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.
