Kyler Murray crushed the Cardinals' offseason, teammates say

[SoulfishHawk]

Meh, there are still people on THIS BOARD who still refuse to give Russ any credit. It's all because of the running game and D, the only reason he has had success. :roll:

 

[Tical21]

Meh, there are still people on THIS BOARD who still refuse to give Russ any credit. It's all because of the running game and D, the only reason he has had success. :roll:

Has one person ever said this on this board? 1? Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[Popeyejones]

Meh, there are still people on THIS BOARD who still refuse to give Russ any credit. It's all because of the running game and D, the only reason he has had success. :roll:

Has one person ever said this on this board? 1? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Yeah, "any" is a statement of fact, which I think probably doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If you replace the word "any" with the word "enough" it becomes a statement of opinion, and that "people on this boards still refuse to give Russ enough credit" is one I'm guessing Soulfish agrees with.

AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFERENCE:

(I'm not saying I think this is true, just go with it as an example):

"Up through the Super Bowl win Wilson's role was primarily as a second fiddle game manager who could also contribute chunks plays when needed."

To say that's not giving Wilson ANY credit is just factually untrue, as it is giving him credit.

To say that's not giving Wilson ENOUGH credit falls into the realm of opinion, and people can still be reasonable while disagreeing about if that opinion is true or untrue. We can hate each other or think other people are idiots as based on if we think that opinion is giving Wilson ENOUGH credit or not, but it's entirely of the world of "enough" and entirely outside of the world of "any."

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Some credit, sure. Clearly the "any" part was an exaggeration. And come on, the running game and defense has been brought up for years when it comes to Russ, especially with the media types. It makes zero sense. He's not THE reason they went to back to back Super Bowls, but he is as much a part of it as the D and Running game was. They don't make either Super Bowl w/out him. Just like they don't make it w/out the Defense and Lynch.
But, the credit he deserves, nope. Most actually seem to get it. But there has always been a select few who seem to fight big time when it comes to giving the guy credit. Big deal, it's a message board. We all have our opinions. I'll fight for him, a few others can fight against. It is what it is.
I'm tired of arguing about the same thing over and over again, so I'll bow out of this. :irishdrinkers:

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Fair.

Not trying to drag you back in AT ALL, but I do think one of the things that happens in all of this that those who take the not-enough-credit side are making a "SKILLS/ABILITY" argument, and those who take the too-much-credit side are making a "USAGE" argument.

Those can and cannot be incompatible depending on the situation, but when talking credit, a skills argument vs. a usage argument ends up being comparing apples to oranges (the conversation never really goes anywhere, because 90% of the time people are just talking past each other to begin with).

By way of example, you and I can disagree about Wilson's ABILITY (e.g. for whatever reason you think he's a top 3 QB and for whatever reasons I think he's a top 10 QB) and disagree about how much credit he deserves on those grounds, but also possible is that we AGREE about ability (both top 3 or top 10), but disagree about how much credit he deserves based on how much we value usage, or how we choose to interpret his usage.

Ability and usage REALLY aren't the same thing, and for my money, I honestly can't think of another QB in the 30 years I've been watching football who has a bigger mismatch between his ability and his usage.

 

[Ramfan128]

^^^ Fair.

Not trying to drag you back in AT ALL, but I do think one of the things that happens in all of this that those who take the not-enough-credit side are making a "SKILLS/ABILITY" argument, and those who take the too-much-credit side are making a "USAGE" argument.

Those can and cannot be incompatible depending on the situation, but when talking credit, a skills argument vs. a usage argument ends up being comparing apples to oranges (the conversation never really goes anywhere, because 90% of the time people are just talking past each other to begin with).

By way of example, you and I can disagree about Wilson's ABILITY (e.g. for whatever reason you think he's a top 3 QB and for whatever reasons I think he's a top 10 QB) and disagree about how much credit he deserves on those grounds, but also possible is that we AGREE about ability (both top 3 or top 10), but disagree about how much credit he deserves based on how much we value usage, or how we choose to interpret his usage.

Ability and usage REALLY aren't the same thing, and for my money, I honestly can't think of another QB in the 30 years I've been watching football who has a bigger mismatch between his ability and his usage.

Even though we're on a Seahawks board, I'll share this take with you that irks me about the perception of Russell Wilson.

After his first three years, despite having gone to two Super Bowls and won one, I felt he was just around a top 12-15 QB. I felt then, and still feel now, that a number of QBs could have won a Super Bowl for Seattle that year. Seahawk fans disagreed with that - fine. That became irrelevant the following year when Wilson broke out, and even though he had a down year the year after that, has had another two great seasons to firmly place himself in the 7 or so QBs in the NFL.

So now let's talk about Jared Goff - I believe he's around the same category Wilson was after his first three years - top 12 and approaching top 10. I was consistent with my view on Wilson and my view on Goff - even though he played really well in the NFCCG, I believe the Rams were so talented that a number of QBs could have led us to the Super Bowl this year. Again, consistent.

The irony is - most Seahawks fans don't see Goff on the same level as Wilson was, which makes no sense to me. Obviously different offenses, and I attribute that to why Goff has put up slightly better passing numbers in year 2 and 3 than Wilson did - but there are a lot of similarities, and I've always felt that Wilson having an all time great defense was underrated.

Hell, if I was a true homer, there are numbers that put Goff on Wilson's level RIGHT NOW - but I'm a big believer in supporting cast making a QB look good, so I don't actually believe he's there yet.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Goff has never been and never will be at Wilson level. And that's not just the homer in me. That's just the way it is. Dude folds like a tent when he gets rushed.

 

[DomeHawk]

^^^ Fair.

Not trying to drag you back in AT ALL, but I do think one of the things that happens in all of this that those who take the not-enough-credit side are making a "SKILLS/ABILITY" argument, and those who take the too-much-credit side are making a "USAGE" argument.

Those can and cannot be incompatible depending on the situation, but when talking credit, a skills argument vs. a usage argument ends up being comparing apples to oranges (the conversation never really goes anywhere, because 90% of the time people are just talking past each other to begin with).

By way of example, you and I can disagree about Wilson's ABILITY (e.g. for whatever reason you think he's a top 3 QB and for whatever reasons I think he's a top 10 QB) and disagree about how much credit he deserves on those grounds, but also possible is that we AGREE about ability (both top 3 or top 10), but disagree about how much credit he deserves based on how much we value usage, or how we choose to interpret his usage.

Ability and usage REALLY aren't the same thing, and for my money, I honestly can't think of another QB in the 30 years I've been watching football who has a bigger mismatch between his ability and his usage.

Even though we're on a Seahawks board, I'll share this take with you that irks me about the perception of Russell Wilson.

After his first three years, despite having gone to two Super Bowls and won one, I felt he was just around a top 12-15 QB. I felt then, and still feel now, that a number of QBs could have won a Super Bowl for Seattle that year. Seahawk fans disagreed with that - fine. That became irrelevant the following year when Wilson broke out, and even though he had a down year the year after that, has had another two great seasons to firmly place himself in the 7 or so QBs in the NFL.

So now let's talk about Jared Goff - I believe he's around the same category Wilson was after his first three years - top 12 and approaching top 10. I was consistent with my view on Wilson and my view on Goff - even though he played really well in the NFCCG, I believe the Rams were so talented that a number of QBs could have led us to the Super Bowl this year. Again, consistent.

The irony is - most Seahawks fans don't see Goff on the same level as Wilson was, which makes no sense to me. Obviously different offenses, and I attribute that to why Goff has put up slightly better passing numbers in year 2 and 3 than Wilson did - but there are a lot of similarities, and I've always felt that Wilson having an all time great defense was underrated.

Hell, if I was a true homer, there are numbers that put Goff on Wilson's level RIGHT NOW - but I'm a big believer in supporting cast making a QB look good, so I don't actually believe he's there yet.

Goff on the same level as RW in his first three years?

Nominated.

 

[Tical21]

Some credit, sure. Clearly the "any" part was an exaggeration. And come on, the running game and defense has been brought up for years when it comes to Russ, especially with the media types. It makes zero sense. He's not THE reason they went to back to back Super Bowls, but he is as much a part of it as the D and Running game was. They don't make either Super Bowl w/out him. Just like they don't make it w/out the Defense and Lynch.
But, the credit he deserves, nope. Most actually seem to get it. But there has always been a select few who seem to fight big time when it comes to giving the guy credit. Big deal, it's a message board. We all have our opinions. I'll fight for him, a few others can fight against. It is what it is.
I'm tired of arguing about the same thing over and over again, so I'll bow out of this. :irishdrinkers:

My friend, we are only arguing about the same thing over and over again because you keep accusing people of the same baseless claims, over and over again. So now you're going to bow out and stop making these claims!? Thank goodness!

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Fair enough, you think I'm crazy, I think you're crazy. Cool. It's a fricken message board. You've been bagging on Russ for a very long time. MY opinion, don't like it, don't give a rip.
Meh, doesn't matter. This thread is about Kyler Murray.

Go Hawks

 

[Tical21]

Fair enough, you think I'm crazy, I think you're crazy. Cool. It's a fricken message board. You've been bagging on Russ for a very long time. MY opinion, don't like it, don't give a rip.
Meh, doesn't matter. This thread is about Kyler Murray.

Go Hawks

No. I've been asking you directly for weeks and have gotten zero in the form of answers. What have I ever said that would be considered "bagging" on Russ? Ever?

As per my recollection, anything I have ever said remotely negative about Russ would fall into these 3 areas:

1. he isn't great at reading defenses, especially zone. This is 100% fact. I doubt you could find a single proponent of film review that wouldn't wholeheartedly agree. Never once said he isn't a productive player. Never once.

2. A 35 million dollar contract is a tremendous blow to the future of the team.

3. He, moreso than any other "great" quarterback, needs a great running game. Also, a 100% fact.

Anything else?? Anything at all??? Go ahead, I'm right here. Has anybody else said anything outside of these three ideas that would be considered "bagging" on Russ? Anybody?? It's time to have this conversation right now, because I'm getting really sick of your baseless comments directed about me in every thread. This is in a Kyler Murray thread. I didn't drag myself into this thread, you did. So speak your piece. The floor is yours.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

No thx, not even worth the effort. You see if your way, I'll see it mine.
It's not important. I'm done talking about this subject with you.

 

[Tical21]

No thx, not even worth the effort. You see if your way, I'll see it mine.
It's not important. I'm done talking about this subject with you.

Until tomorrow when I stumble into another random thread and see you accuse me again of something you know full well I never did. Gets old man.

 

[Fade]

As per my recollection, anything I have ever said remotely negative about Russ would fall into these 3 areas:

1. he isn't great at reading defenses, especially zone. This is 100% fact. I doubt you could find a single proponent of film review that wouldn't wholeheartedly agree. Never once said he isn't a productive player. Never once.

Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson was named by Pro Football Focus as the most underrated quarterback in the NFL.

He is good enough.

2. A 35 million dollar contract is a tremendous blow to the future of the team.

Your confusing correlation with causation.

There are multiple reasons why this is the case.

What generally happens is offensive coaches have a great system, and their QBs put up sexy numbers. They then pay that guy, but the offensive coach has very little knowledge on how to build a defense. So they never win a superbowl, or only win 1.

Pete gives Seattle a great advantage in this area. He has Russ to take care of the offense. It is now on Pete to build the defense. Like Belichick does for the Patriots with his defensive background.

You also have highly drafted QBs that put up high volume numbers because they are always losing, but since they have that 1st rd pedigree that get paid.

So QBs that have no business being paid big money, get paid big money all of the time. Then you have your Jimmy G's of the world getting paid too. Muddying the waters.

The highest paid QBs don't stay the highest paid for very long. in 2 years Wilson won't even be in the 10 highest paid.
So it's a moving target in other words, as the highest paid QB is a quick moving game of musical chairs.

The Great QBs, and the Elite Defenses win the Superbowls in the Salary Cap era. Seattle has the QB, now it is on Pete to just do what he does and build a top 5 defense. They have the Salary Cap room, and draft picks going forward to do it. Factoring in rollover the Seahawks will have around $70-85M in cap space next offseason if no more major contract extensions are signed between now and then.

3. He, moreso than any other "great" quarterback, needs a great running game. Also, a 100% fact.

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/1/29/16945248/2017-seahawks-worst-rushing-modern-nfl-history

" There have been 1145 teams since 1978 to play 16 games.

2017 Seahawks rank in non-QB rush yards: 1137 of 1145"
— Sam HawkBadger (@hwkbgr) January 24, 2018

Wilson played pretty damn well an nearly won the MVP in 2017 with the most anemic running game, and most horrible O-Lines of all time. No other QB in the league could've done what he did that year, in that stinker of an offense.

I have no doubt in my mind you plug Wilson into Sean Payton, or Andy Reed's system, Wilson would ascend to another level. And he is already future HoF level. Scary.

On to Kyler Murray:

He looked so damn bad, I couldn't believe what I was watching. Air-Mailing throws, horrible pocket presence, with no feel for the rush. He took some hits too. I think he is a better athlete than Wilson, but he is not as sneaky-elusive as Wilson. Wilson is a slippery bastard.

Murray has to have a better feel for the pass rush, and understand his escape lanes or he is toast. All of the smaller QBs that have had success in the NFL were/are great in this category. All great QBs really, but it is especially important for the diminutive types.

 

[Popeyejones]

Even though we're on a Seahawks board, I'll share this take with you that irks me about the perception of Russell Wilson.

After his first three years, despite having gone to two Super Bowls and won one, I felt he was just around a top 12-15 QB. I felt then, and still feel now, that a number of QBs could have won a Super Bowl for Seattle that year. Seahawk fans disagreed with that - fine. That became irrelevant the following year when Wilson broke out, and even though he had a down year the year after that, has had another two great seasons to firmly place himself in the 7 or so QBs in the NFL.

So now let's talk about Jared Goff - I believe he's around the same category Wilson was after his first three years - top 12 and approaching top 10. I was consistent with my view on Wilson and my view on Goff - even though he played really well in the NFCCG, I believe the Rams were so talented that a number of QBs could have led us to the Super Bowl this year. Again, consistent.

The irony is - most Seahawks fans don't see Goff on the same level as Wilson was, which makes no sense to me. Obviously different offenses, and I attribute that to why Goff has put up slightly better passing numbers in year 2 and 3 than Wilson did - but there are a lot of similarities, and I've always felt that Wilson having an all time great defense was underrated.

Hell, if I was a true homer, there are numbers that put Goff on Wilson's level RIGHT NOW - but I'm a big believer in supporting cast making a QB look good, so I don't actually believe he's there yet.

This is a good example IMO of a totally reasonable post that someone can also totally reasonably disagree.

I would like to self-elect into that position. :lol:

While agree with your basic assessment of the early career stages of both Goff and Wilson, I don't think they're similar at all, nor do a I think their comparative situations make for good comparison.

I'm open to being wrong, but I'm not predicting an ascendancy of Goff because I don't think there's any one area in which he's particularly exceptional. To me he is a good QB with relatively few exceptional strengths and relatively few exceptional weaknesses.

Wilson early in his career was kind of the opposite: a QB with exceptionally high clear strengths and very identifiable weaknesses. Those weaknesses also, for my money, mostly happened to be ones that sometimes develop into non-weaknesses or strengths across QB's careers. Where I DISAGREE with some Hawks fans is in how much he has developed out of those weaknesses, but early in his career, even for me, the path to him becoming the best QB in the NFL was one I could chart out.

That's just not the same for Goff, and I still think has ABSOLUTE floor in the worst situation possible is Andy Dalton and has ABSOLUTE ceiling in the best situation possible is Matt Ryan. I can't really chart the path of any of that changing.

The other difference for me -- and I suspect for a lot of people -- is that it's easier to envision a world in which Wilson is more dominate by imagining him on a team that doesn't run a stone-age offense that minimizes QB involvement. Maybe that doesn't pan out (his per-play stats DID decline as the Seahawks experimented with a Wilson-first offense for awhile, and his per-pay stats have gone back up as he was de-centered again last year), but you can still picture it.

Goff is different from this because it is literally impossible for me to imagine a more advantageous situation for him to be in. Beyond his own raw improvement there's literaly nothing else in the world that would improve his stats. Which offense are you going to put him in which he's going to have more opportunity to shine? I honestly can't think of one.

 

[xray]

I watched the AZ game vs the Vikings When Murray gets things figured out which won't be long...he will be dangerous .