autoidiodyssey Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 The man who is probably the most complete QB in football wouldn't even test him tonight, while he was matched up against a very good WR. That's more than enough for me. I can't wait 'til a team puts their #1 on him and actually gives him a challenge. Because this whole "Limit our playbook by not even testing a side of the field" strategy isn't working. They showed a stat late in the game that said GB completed 6/9 against the other guy. Would have been 7/9 if Nelson had held on to the one that got picked. If you are completing 66% against the other guy why go to Sherman's side? They did go to his side late in the game. On the Cobb TD the 3rd WR ran Sherman off to the corner out of the play. They did the same thing on that great throw that was called back by penalty. The 3rd WR ran him off and they thew it to the empty space. He doesn't cut off a whole side of the field he takes one guy out of the play. If he only plays one side the O can dictate who that player is. If you look at the reasons GB lost I'd say it goes like this. Sack, fumble, safety GB's inability to get the running game going General noise issues / Seattle pass rush A GB defensive performance as bad as anything we did last year Sherman shutting down a WR with 54 career catches is not high on the list. It will be interesting to watch as the year goes on. If the other CB keeps allowing 66% completions teams will be able to game plan away from Sherman. Especially when they are on the road where the noise can't help their pass rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I want to time travel back to 2000 so we can pretend Trent Dilfer was an elite QB. Evaluating a QB based on W/L record is as dumb as doing the same for a pitcher in baseball. Wilson is the QB of a team with a historically elite defense. All-time great. He's effective, and a good player, and I wouldn't call him a 'game manager.' But he's not better than Luck. I don't even want to think about Seattle with Luck at QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooleyfan1993 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Why the hell were you in this thread then? The Stadium is just around the corner. To watch the first regular season game of course but we should all still hate both teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Seattle's tough but this game could've been GB's. Settled for too many FGs and I'm still scratching my head as to why Rodgers threw it away on that one scramble rather than running for the 1st. And dropped INTs. Settling for too many FG's? They attempted 1, and that was to tie the game at 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Bell Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I've always been confused by the hate thrown Russell Wilson's way, Luck too for that matter. Not that I don't see the very obvious connection to the draft and our conflict of interest, but some of the criticisms here (all threads not just this one) are just absurd when it comes down to it. Not in the "you guys are just haters" way, because the people that do that on the internet now are just uncreative and like to pretend they are "patient" or "civilized" or whatever mental tactic they are going for on a given post. I find the criticism of these 2 qbs in particular absurd because these two guys pretty much both play the EXACT way we are hoping (hoping) RG3 ends up playing like. Guys who look downfield and extend plays and have elite escapability to minimize negative plays. I think we have learned at this point RG3 doesn't have the physicality to handle running the ball and take consistent hits the way that Kaep and Newton can. So we are pretty much criticizing the two QBs games who are are hoping RG3 develops into. We were so jolly about a 20-5 season in 2012, yet here is Russell Wilson who went 26-10 and 26-9 passing the last two years, but somehow, this guy is the "game manager." Just like RG3 in 2012, this guy consistently makes THE plays you need to make as a QB to get a victory. A game manager holds your offense back, because the idea of a game manager is there are certain limitations the QB has that you have to work around in order to get consistent offense. Russell Wilson is not a game manager. He is a shorter QB who maximizes his physical and mental talents and consistently plays well both in the regular season and playoffs, play in and play out. The only thing that holds him back is that he just quite literally doesn't know as much as the older guys like peyton, brady, brees, rodgers, roeth, rivers etc. He executes gameplans in the same ELITE way that all the other QBs do. You don't watch russell wilson and ever say to yourself "damn, hes really struggling out there." Just because he doesn't (in his 3rd year) have elite level knowledge of the position yet doesn't mean that he doesn't execute on the field at an elite level. It doesn't really matter if his passing concepts are a 5 on a scale of Peyton's 10 if the defense can't stop what he's doing. And not only that, Russell Wilson seems to have the work ethic and ability to counter attack defenses catching up to him after a season is over, just like Peyton, Brady, etc. If Russell Wilson is only a "game manager" then I'm frightened at what that makes RG3. A, read option game manager? I mean, the only thing he's executed at a high level thus far is the R-O offense in 2012. I realize that he's on the seahawks, and that he was drafted the year we gave up alot for our guy, for about a 15th of the cost. But to criticize his game seems ODD when RG3 needs to play like a Russell Wilson from even 2 years ago in order for our team to not just sputter into oblivion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 What a disaster, Riddells new SpeedFlex helmets being unveiled this week, has already failed in prime time. Eddie Lacey just started using it and is concussed in game 1. Reinventing the helmet is going to fail, since the helmet itself is a part of the problem. Making players think their head is invincible, at the same time their head simply remains a very large target with which contact is inevitable. Its why boxing went away from head gear, it made your head bigger and more likely to be hit. The head snapping back and forth is a common way that concussions occur. I conclude my rant with my never ending suggestion to consider a return to the days of the leather helmet. Or not helmet at all. And ditch the hard plastic shell pads, and go back to the actual padded variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 The only real difference between Seattle 3 years ago and Seattle now is Russell Wilson, the lol "game manager" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Okay, another question. What QBs in the league COULDN'T take Seattle to the playoffs or further? Off the top of my head, Blaine Gabbert and maybe Brandon Weeden are the only ones who could probably screw that up, but even Weeden might be able to Rex Grossman his way deep into the playoffs with the Seahawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 If Russell Wilson is only a "game manager" then I'm frightened at what that makes RG3. A, read option game manager? I mean, the only thing he's executed at a high level thus far is the R-O offense in 2012. Why does it frighten you? The only way a team wins a lot of games with a game managing QB is when they have a beastly defense, very good special teams and a running game. We only had one of those three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter_R Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Okay, another question. What QBs in the league COULDN'T take Seattle to the playoffs or further?The ones they had before drafting Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I don't know why they keep sending Aaron Rodgers out there with one arm tied behind his back. He's got one WR and a suspect offensive line . . . . . again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autoidiodyssey Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 The ones they had before drafting Wilson. Tavaris Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst. That sounds about right. Jackson was 7-7 as a starter there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 What a disaster, Riddells new SpeedFlex helmets being unveiled this week, has already failed in prime time. Eddie Lacey just started using it and is concussed in game 1. Reinventing the helmet is going to fail, since the helmet itself is a part of the problem. Making players think their head is invincible, at the same time their head simply remains a very large target with which contact is inevitable. Its why boxing went away from head gear, it made your head bigger and more likely to be hit. The head snapping back and forth is a common way that concussions occur. I conclude my rant with my never ending suggestion to consider a return to the days of the leather helmet. Or not helmet at all. And ditch the hard plastic shell pads, and go back to the actual padded variety. I think these days, leather helmets (or whatever new-age material) could be made to look pretty nice, still have logos, etc and I bet they could incorporate face protection which would still protect eyes and nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 The ones they had before drafting Wilson. Carroll was still rebuilding the team before Wilson. It's not like Carroll has been in Seattle for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Bell Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Why does it frighten you? The only way a team wins a lot of games with a game managing QB is when they have a beastly defense, very good special teams and a running game. We only had one of those three. This paints RW as a game manager, so I take it you are in that boat. Which is fine. But, calling Russell Wilson a game manager (because I have a game manager definition in the same way that you might hold a game manager definition) with the stats, eye test, and hardware he's got, must make RG3 something much worse. Perhaps say, "poorly developing 3rd year heisman burnout"? Something over the top for whatever hyperbole is desired. The hyperbole found in game manager is obviously "extreme and accepted mediocrity that needs to be overcome." And if someone called RG3 that in the media or on this board, it would "frighten me" to see the reaction since people would call for whoever said that's head. Look at how Jaws gets treated for his assessments of RG3 and his mechanics, the last two years in a row. And look, these aren't my words, because I don't call Russell Wilson a game manager. But if a QB that executes his offense with an eye on constant development and longevity and wins a SB in his second year is a "game manager," a struggling QB that went 3-13 last year with an ominous preseason is something equally as absurd. Just because a team has a good defense and special teams does not make Russell Wilson learn how to make read 4 and 5 in practice, while continuing to show elite level ball security in games, being good for at least 2 TDs a game, and execute in the superbowl (and the playoffs leading up to it). If he's a game manager performing like he has through game 1 of his 3rd season, then I guess game managers are the new thing to covet, because Russell Wilson would be traded for every QB in the game other than Luck, the Big 4, and then maybe guys like Stafford and Ryan for the same reasons as Luck (just not as much of it), and then perhaps Cam Newton for being an absolute physical freak. RG3 still has equity left as a potential franchise QB with extreme athleticism, so he probably makes that cut as well. Rg3 is still our guy and I've got his jersey, but that doesn't mean I don't want him to play like one of his peers, "just because." And clearly, that's where the "game manager" moniker ties in, again, because for 2014 all I want to see is RG3 play at the 2012-13 RW "game manager" level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 This paints RW as a game manager, so I take it you are in that boat. Which is fine. But, calling Russell Wilson a game manager (because I have a game manager definition in the same way that you might hold a game manager definition) with the stats, eye test, and hardware he's got, must make RG3 something much worse. No, it doesn't make RG3 worse. RG3 showed elite play in 2012. Why? Because what makes a QB elite is their ability to carry a team on their shoulders. An elite QB can win games with a very flawed team. An elite QB can mask problems on the team. Wilson doesn't do that. He just drives a loaded bus. I'm not saying Wilson sucks. He's good, but he isn't close to being elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 If he's a game manager performing like he has through game 1 of his 3rd season, then I guess game managers are the new thing to covet, because Russell Wilson would be traded for every QB in the game other than Luck, the Big 4, and then maybe guys like Stafford and Ryan for the same reasons as Luck (just not as much of it), and then perhaps Cam Newton for being an absolute physical freak. RG3 still has equity left as a potential franchise QB with extreme athleticism, so he probably makes that cut as well. Who is even left in this trade scenario after you eliminate 9 QBs? Rivers/Roethlisberger/Cutler/Romo/E Manning, who are old. That leaves... Foles, Dalton, and Tannehill, I guess. I don't think SF would trade Kaepernick for Wilson. So basically, out of all QBs with actual trade value...their team probably wouldn't trade that QB for Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I don't know why they keep sending Aaron Rodgers out there with one arm tied behind his back. He's got one WR and a suspect offensive line . . . . . again.Kinda like Russell Wilson last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I'm not going home tonight unless someone explains to me whether Joe Flacco is "elite." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Carroll was still rebuilding the team before Wilson. It's not like Carroll has been in Seattle for years. Carrol and Beast mode were in Seattle before Russell, Pete got there in 2010. Russell got there in 2013. What you are saying doesn't make sense Russell Wilson has been one of the top QBs in the NFL since he came into the league. And the Seahawks OFFENSE was 8th in scoring last year (9th 2 years ago). Look at any QB metric you want Russell is near the top QBR, QB rating, Football Outsiders, Pro Football Focus. You can't explain away Russell's production with rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I'm not going home tonight unless someone explains to me whether Joe Flacco is "elite." One of @PFTCommenter's finest moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Bell Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Who is even left in this trade scenario after you eliminate 9 QBs? Rivers/Roethlisberger/Cutler/romoSUCKS/E Manning, who are old. That leaves... Foles, Dalton, and Tannehill, I guess. I don't think SF would trade Kaepernick for Wilson. So basically, out of all QBs with actual trade value...their team probably wouldn't trade that QB for Wilson. Ok, there are a few things here I need to wrap my head around. Foles, dalton, tannehill, Rivers, Roeth, Cutler, Romo, and every other QB not named in my previous list is much more impressive than your wording leads it to sound. Trading the other 22 QBs for RW sounds much better than "so after these 9, count it, all 9 of these players." Half full instead of half empty. Also, I forgot that being in the top 10 of anything in the world is now apparently nothing special, at least in Russell Wilson's case lol. And, yes, trade value is different from just a straight up ranking, which actually puts RW at a higher number, perhaps something more suitable for your unimpressed conclusion that RW would not be traded for 9 higher QBs. Maybe he shoots up to 6 or 7 depending on if you put Rivers and Luck ahead of him. Maybe 7/32 is more impressive. I can't control the overall quality of QB play in the NFL in a given year, and I can't control that the Big 4 are probably going to remain in the NFL forever since they won't leave. The one thing I can control is the usage of the term "game manager." If I ever use it I will hope to use the word properly, and that will never happen with Russell Wilson unless his season splits regress down to around 18/10/3400 for multiple seasons in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Carrol and Beast mode were in Seattle before Russell, Pete got there in 2010. Russell got there in 2013. What you are saying doesn't make sense Russell Wilson has been one of the top QBs in the NFL since he came into the league. And the Seahawks OFFENSE was 8th in scoring last year (9th 2 years ago). Look at any QB metric you want Russell is near the top QBR, QB rating, Football Outsiders, Pro Football Focus. You can't explain away Russell's production with rhetoric. Russell didn't get there in 2013. He got there in 2012, the same year Robert came here. The first two years Carroll was rebuilding the team. In 2012, Russell never had a 300 yard passing game, with exception of the Atlanta game in postseason. Out of his 16 starts in 2012, he averaged 194.87 yards per game. In 2013, he averaged 209 yards per game. He finally threw over 300 yards, which happened in two games in the regular season. Kirk Cousins threw for 329 yard his first game. In the post season last year, Wilson averaged 174 yards per game passing. Wilson has only thrown for 300+ yards THREE times. That my friend are bus driver stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Seriously, are you guys reallly having a "Is X elite?" conversation? Really? Did your parents do THAT poor a job raising you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Seriously, are you guys reallly having a "Is X elite?" conversation? Really? Did your parents do THAT poor a job raising you WTF? It's a football discussion on a football message board. So yeah, really.....we are having the conversation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.