HawkShack.com

by **HumanCockroach** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:48 pm

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/25 ... hared=true

Pretty cool article about where he is historically. Really just an "eye test" discussion with some actual proof. LOL.

by **Hawktawk** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm

by **NorthHawk** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:38 pm

So much for being too short...

by **Hawktawk** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:07 pm

I think he's worth his money......

by **c_hawkbob** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:32 pm

Nice, congrats on qualifying for the all time lists Russ!

by **HumanCockroach** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:04 pm

Another pretty interesting tidbit that I stumbled across, is "highest QBR by receiver targeted". Seattle has THREE in the top ten including the top TWO receivers ( #1 Lockett, #2 Baldwin, #8 Kearse). I'm starting to get that old familiar feeling again.. It's creeping up on me...

RD put the damn flag back up man!

by **RiverDog** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:29 pm

Did any of you click the link to see who else was on that list and where they are ranked? I did, and here's some of what I found:

#13 Chad Pennington, #14 Matt Schaub, #16 Daunte Culpepper, and #18 Jeff Garcia, all ahead of #20 Dan Marino, #64 Dan Fouts, and #67 John Elway, and if that's not enough, there's #21 Trent Green, #24 David Garrard, and #29 Rich Gannon that are ranked ahead of a number of Hall of Farmers, including but not limited to #78 Johnny Unitas, #103 Norm Van Brooklin (tied with Tim Couch), and #130 Sammy Baugh.

It's a bogus list, completely worthless when used to rank the best quarterbacks in the history of the game.

The flag goes up this Sunday around 2 after we beat the Vikings. If we lose, I'll hang it upside down as we're going to need a lot of help.

by **c_hawkbob** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:40 pm

There's nothing bogus about it, it's purely the list of all time ranking in the statistical categories that Russ, having surpasses 1500 attempts, now qualifies to be on. Calling it bogus is like calling the all time scoring list in the NBA bogus because Kareem and Karl Malone are 1-2 ahead of Jordan and Magic and Kobe. It doesn't mean they were greater players, it means they scored more points. It's not a GOAT list or any such subjective evaluation, it's purely objective, which is as far from bogus as possible.

Sorry it doesn't fit your personal "he's not really all that" narrative but the numbers are what they are, and being the all time list it really does put what Russ has accomplished so soon in his young career into an historical perspective.

by **jshawaii22** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:06 am

Only had a few minutes to look at it. Pretty selective, but since Mr. Largent is probably the only Seahawk to ever had been in the top 20 of any such a list...
that's real cool.

Does it include all the playoff games? Does QBR give points for wins vs loses in a career or just actual passing stats?

by **c_hawkbob** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:02 am

It's only selective because the writer was talking about Russell Wilson so he only included the All Time lists Wilson shows up on, obviously there are All Time lists for every official NFL stat.

And no, typically such official lists do not include post season (though if they did that would likely benefit Russ, not hurt him).

edit: and there's a difference between QBR and the NFL Passer rating. QBR is a recent ESPN construct and the NFL Passer Rating is the one we've all been complaining about since we were kids (which is why ESPN made up there own on a 0-100 scale), and neither take W/L into account. That's a team stat.

by **RiverDog** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:46 am

The NBA, or for that matter MLB, hasn't changed nearly as much as professional football has. Historical stats kept in those leagues bear 10 times more relevance than those collected by the NFL. Besides, player performance those games is much easier to quantify than football is. Every position and player in those leagues can have a stat attached to them and even have them compared to other positions within their game. Points per game between a basketball center and a guard are easily comparable, as are batting averages between a catcher and an outfielder. But how many offensive linemen can have an individual stat and compare it with a quarterback or receiver?

It's pretty obvious that the list is heavily weighted towards modern day quarterbacks, unless you actually want to argue that Chad Pennington is in any way, shape, or form better than Montana, Marino, Elway, et al. You simply cannot rank modern day quarterbacks against those that played 20+ years ago using this metric. To say it's apples and oranges is a gross understatement. Hell, I wouldn't have been surprised to see Tim Tebow's name pop up in there somewhere given that names like Kyle Orton and Jake Dehomme are ranked above Marino and Elway. For crissakes, even Charlie Batch's name is on that list, way, way above Terry Bradshaw!

by **c_hawkbob** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:00 am

Again, the stats are what they are, it's simple accounting, not a determination of relative greatness. If that's what you want you're looking at the wrong list.

Of course things change as eras change and new rules are implemented and such, but that doesn't render these lists useless. If you want specific relevance, look at Terry Bradshaw's (or anyone's) placement on these lists at the date of his retirement. That way you're only comparing them to players that came before him and that played while he was playing.

Take Largent for instance, he was at the top of most of these lists relevant to his position when he retired, but he's well down the lists now. that doesn't mean he's any less than among the very best ever to play his position.

There's truth in these lists, you just have to put in a little work if you want to compare modern players to players of past eras. Wilson's numbers are relevant now in that they are so well above other current players only, not past players. You won't be able to make that kind of a comparison until he's retired and you can see how he stacked up on these lists at the time of his retirement and compare that to your boy Terry's placement on the same lists at the time if his retirement.

That doesn't mean any of this is "bogus".

by **RiverDog** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:24 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Again, the stats are what they are, it's simple accounting, not a determination of relative greatness. If that's what you want you're looking at the wrong list.

Of course things change as eras change and new rules are implemented and such, but that doesn't render these lists useless. If you want specific relevance, look at Terry Bradshaw's (or anyone's) placement on these lists at the date of his retirement. That way you're only comparing them to players that came before him and that played while he was playing.

Take Largent for instance, he was at the top of most of these lists relevant to his position when he retired, but he's well down the lists now. that doesn't mean he's any less than among the very best ever to play his position.

There's truth in these lists, you just have to put in a little work if you want to compare modern players to players of past eras. Wilson's numbers are relevant now in that they are so well above other current players only, not past players. You won't be able to make that kind of a comparison until he's retired and you can see how he stacked up on these lists at the time of his retirement and compare that to your boy Terry's placement on the same lists at the time if his retirement.

That doesn't mean any of this is "bogus".

That won't work, either. If it were to be even halfway relevant, you would have to break it out according to decades, eras, etc, rather than at date of retirement. Otherwise, you're ranking Bradshaw above players like Sammy Baugh and Bob Watterfield when clearly the game was much different. Besides, that's not what they did. They just took this mass of data and assigned a ranking to it without regard to any other factor. If they would have broke it up in some fashion I wouldn't have had nearly as big of a problem with it.

If you want to look at that list and see something truly impressive, look at Otto Graham's #19 ranking. Even though he played in the 50's, he's ranked way higher than anyone in his peer group. Norm Van Brocklin at #103 is the next highest to have played in that era. IMO that's much more impressive of a feat than any of the modern day QB's that are listed. But even that stat probably needs an asterisk as I would imagine that a good portion of Graham's stats were accumulated in the AAFL, not the NFL.

Sorry for raining on the parade, but I always bristle when people try to compare modern day athletes with those of the past, especially in football, which is so difficult to quantify player performance. Putting guys like Charlie Batch and Rodney Peete on that list is the big thing that causes my briefs to bunch up. Putting a little work in it to make it more relevant is something they should have done rather than leaving the casual reader with the impression that any of those quarterbacks deserve to be ranked ahead of another.

I'm not the one that's going to assign any degree of greatness to it, but you can bet your last nickel that there will be a whole bunch of pseudo fans from our millennial generation that already think that football began with Peyton Manning that will assign an undeserved importance to it. It's lists like this one that reinforces that impression.

by **NorthHawk** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:53 am

Ahhh, statistics.
The most irrelevant mathematical resource for determining ability or success in Football.
Other sports might be better suited, but games (or sports) like Football, where all parts have to work well together for any one player to excel in this statistic, will impact the numbers often to the point of ridicule.
In this case Jeff Garcia rated higher than Elway, Fouts, and Marino just as a few examples proves the statistics in this exercise reveal nothing of any real importance.

It does make for some good discussion, though.

by **c_hawkbob** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:25 am

RiverDog wrote:
That won't work, either. If it were to be even halfway relevant, you would have to break it out according to decades, eras, etc, rather than at date of retirement. Otherwise, you're ranking Bradshaw above players like Sammy Baugh and Bob Watterfield when clearly the game was much different. Besides, that's not what they did. They just took this mass of data and assigned a ranking to it without regard to any other factor. If they would have broke it up in some fashion I wouldn't have had nearly as big of a problem with it.

If you want to look at that list and see something truly impressive, look at Otto Graham's #19 ranking. Even though he played in the 50's, he's ranked way higher than anyone in his peer group. Norm Van Brocklin at #103 is the next highest to have played in that era. IMO that's much more impressive of a feat than any of the modern day QB's that are listed. But even that stat probably needs an asterisk as I would imagine that a good portion of Graham's stats were accumulated in the AAFL, not the NFL.

Sorry for raining on the parade, but I always bristle when people try to compare modern day athletes with those of the past, especially in football, which is so difficult to quantify player performance. Putting guys like Charlie Batch and Rodney Peete on that list is the big thing that causes my briefs to bunch up. Putting a little work in it to make it more relevant is something they should have done rather than leaving the casual reader with the impression that any of those quarterbacks deserve to be ranked ahead of another.

I'm not the one that's going to assign any degree of greatness to it, but you can bet your last nickel that there will be a whole bunch of pseudo fans from our millennial generation that already think that football began with Peyton Manning that will assign an undeserved importance to it. It's lists like this one that reinforces that impression.

It certainly will work if you take the time to look at each player you want to compare at the time of there own retirement. You don't look at Otto Graham at the time of Terry Brashaw's retirement, you look at Otto Grahams placement on these lists at the time of his own retirement. Same for any player you care to mention.

by **Hawktawk** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:33 am

The liberalizing of rules regarding defensive backs has contributed to the statistical leap in QBR in general. That coupled with more relaxed rules for offensive linemen pass blocking techniques and also the rules to protect QB's in the pocket and when scrambling.
Having said all that there is a really important Wilson stat. More wins than any other man in NFL history his first 3 years. And all those glowing all time records are a big part of the reason.
Russ is definitely an elite QB well deserving of his compensation and accolades.

by **HumanCockroach** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:11 pm

Wow, didn't think this would spark a debate. Truth is, I was far more interested in the comparisons as it relates to guys still playing today. To which Wilson compares favorably, we all know what he has done comparatively to the great QBs of this era. Not sure why a list of other past greats should remove those accomplishments.

I compared him early on to Young, and damned if he isn't right there in QBR once qualified. It is going to take another 5-7 years of this level to cement him, but to date he IS on par, at QBR reading with anyone the NFL has thrown up.

by **RiverDog** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:00 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Wow, didn't think this would spark a debate. Truth is, I was far more interested in the comparisons as it relates to guys still playing today. To which Wilson compares favorably, we all know what he has done comparatively to the great QBs of this era. Not sure why a list of other past greats should remove those accomplishments.

I compared him early on to Young, and damned if he isn't right there in QBR once qualified. It is going to take another 5-7 years of this level to cement him, but to date he IS on par, at QBR reading with anyone the NFL has thrown up.

Sorry about that, Roach. I realize your intentions, that you were not necessarily arguing that anyone on that list was better or worse than any of the others and that it was more of a curious as a matter of fact sort of thing, and I recognize that I'm always the one to drop a turd in the punchbowl. I was not arguing anything pro or con about Russell Wilson.

They should have just listed active players and I wouldn't have had such a problem with it. Extending it way back into the 40's is what makes it bogus. You'll have to admit that about 1 out of every 5 of those names are nothing short of laughable, and to mix them in with some of the all time greats is outrageous. Their play does not earn them the distinction of being listed alongside of some of the legends of the game without some sort of qualifying remarks or notations.

by **c_hawkbob** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:15 pm

They should have just listed active players and I wouldn't have had such a problem with it

"They" is the NFL and the lists are the official NFL All Time lists. You're acting as though some reporter put these lists together just to mislead people. If you want a list of just current players make one.

by **RiverDog** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:47 pm

I don't care who put together the lists, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be kept. What I am saying is that there should be some way to qualify those rankings, at least when they are published, because they are so obviously out of whack when you look at them from a historical perspective. Otherwise, they are subject to gross misinterpretation.

I mean just take a look at the title in the OP: "Wilson amongst leaders all time NFL stats.". Now, I don't think HC meant for us to compare Russell with Marino, Montana, and Elway, except for Steve Young as he went on to explain, but if a casual observer read that thread title, they'd take it for what it says because not enough people know how the game has changed over time. They would conclude that Russell Wilson must be the 2nd ranked quarterback in the history of the game, and move over Marino, Montana, and Elway because you guys aren't jack chit compared to Russell. It's a sort of revisionist history to rank players in what is obviously an apples vs. oranges comparison.

It's all about education, Cbob, and I wish that sporting publications, or the NFL themselves, would take it upon themselves to offer some sort of commentary along with their rankings so as to teach fans about the history of the game and how it's changed.

by **HumanCockroach** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:01 pm

Fair enough RD, but honestly, I'm not all that concerned with whether or not some random guy is ranked 18 as opposed to 20. Personally I just like that he is surrounded by players either in the hall, or will be on the first ballot. Whether or not that continues, I haven't a clue, Lord knows I haven't( and won't) given him any free passes along the way. Just think it does make a statement about how incredibly overall he's performed in his first four seasons.

by **HumanCockroach** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:08 pm

I wasn't "claiming" anything other than he's played at a level that is very impressive for "young" players. That said, the guy has done things never done before across the board, that can't simply be dismissed either. Eras are different, but even with that disclaimer, the way he's doing things, are at an insanely high level, and incredibly impressive. ( at least to me.) doesn't make him trump any off those QBs ( other than the first four years I suppose) as to me personally a career is not made so quickly.

by **RiverDog** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 11:54 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Fair enough RD, but honestly, I'm not all that concerned with whether or not some random guy is ranked 18 as opposed to 20. Personally I just like that he is surrounded by players either in the hall, or will be on the first ballot. Whether or not that continues, I haven't a clue, Lord knows I haven't( and won't) given him any free passes along the way. Just think it does make a statement about how incredibly overall he's performed in his first four seasons.

I'm glad you see my point. What they should have probably done was raise the qualifications, make it a minimum number of games started, say 50 or 75 regular season games, and weed out all the trash like Chad Pennington, but it probably would have also eliminated Russell. And believe me, I'm very well aware that you are one of the last ones in this forum to give Russell a slug of get out of jail free cards, and I agree that Russell's done some amazing things. I'm just not particularily enamored with that achievement.

IMO the biggest feather in Russell's cap is that in his first three years, he's had a regular season record of 36-12 and a playoff record of 6-2 which includes two SB appearances and one Lombardi. Name how many quarterbacks have done that in their first three years.

by **EmeraldBullet** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 2:38 am

If they had divided each individual stat by the league total for that year in their respective year before accumulating the stats and making rankings it would have crated a proper weight ratio. It would be a bit of work to do that now, but maybe someday if I get bored I will "fix" the list. I have a feeling Otto Graham who RD mentioned would have to be one or two if you did this, just an eye test so don't hold me to it.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:55 am

EmeraldBullet wrote:If they had divided each individual stat by the league total for that year in their respective year before accumulating the stats and making rankings it would have crated a proper weight ratio. It would be a bit of work to do that now, but maybe someday if I get bored I will "fix" the list. I have a feeling Otto Graham who RD mentioned would have to be one or two if you did this, just an eye test so don't hold me to it.

And anyone that would care to do that is welcome to, but in order to do that they would need raw data of the officially recorded stats would they not?

That's what these lists are, raw data, nothing more.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:01 am

c_hawkbob wrote:And anyone that would care to do that is welcome to, but in order to do that they would need raw data of the officially recorded stats would they not?

That's what these lists are, raw data, nothing more.

I agree 100%, except that's not what was said in the thread title, which reads "Wilson amongst leaders all time NFL stats". And to make matters worse, it was used in the plural, as if there are multiple stats with similar rankings that Russell is amongst the all time greats in. If it were presented just as raw data, I probably wouldn't have had as much of an issue with it. It was the historical comparison aspect that got me going... although to his credit, HC did later explain his motivation that he wanted only to compare Russell to one player: Steve Young, who shares a lot of characteristics with Russell.

I agree with ObS about the differences in running backs back in the old days, that they're more athletic. Remember Marion Motley and Cookie Gilchrist? You don't see those body types around much as running backs anymore, at least not as primary ball carriers. Hell, even Larry Czonka probably wouldn't have been used much in today's game except in short yardage.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:28 am

Well I just disagree with how you read the OP then, because Wilson is absolutely among the all time leaders in every single list upon which his name appears. If he weren't his name would not appear on the lists.

Those are just the facts, the mitigating factors and disclaimers and cautions about how you interpret the stats are what you're talking about and that's just not what these are. These lists are the black and white and you're looking for the gray.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:31 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:Well I just disagree with how you read the OP then, because Wilson is absolutely among the all time leaders in every single list upon which his name appears. If he weren't his name would not appear on the lists.

Those are just the facts, the mitigating factors and disclaimers and cautions about how you interpret the stats are what you're talking about and that's just not what these are. These lists are the black and white and you're looking for the gray.

So now they are more than raw data, they are now "facts"? It sounds like you are lending them more credence than in your previous remarks, and maybe they should be used to rank quarterbacks?

Look, all you have to do is what HC did, and that is acknowledge my point, and I'll drop the subject and quit being so antagonistic. You don't have to agree with me.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:46 pm

Raw data are facts, yes. (pretty basic stuff there)

And if you're waiting for me to acknowledge you point in this thread you're in for a long wait because, at least as it pertains to this discussion, you've been assuming everyone is saying "X" when in fact they are saying "Y". Everything you've said belongs in a discussion about some subjective evaluation of Russ, not in this one.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:29 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:Raw data are facts, yes. (pretty basic stuff there)

And if you're waiting for me to acknowledge you point in this thread you're in for a long wait because, at least as it pertains to this discussion, you've been assuming everyone is saying "X" when in fact they are saying "Y". Everything you've said belongs in a discussion about some subjective evaluation of Russ, not in this one.

Raw data is simple observations that has not been organized or manipulated. Unlike raw data, facts are often times organized and manipulated and are used as evidence in an argument. They are two different terms with two different meanings. Facts are much more significant and compelling than simple data. The information presented in the OP was facts more than it was raw data because it had been organized into rankings. The fact that they were organized into rankings was the primary reason for my angst as it was pitting contemporary quarterbacks against quarterbacks from 20+ years prior.

I'll try one more time to explain my point then I'll leave the subject. I took a bunch of statistics classes in college, and in the introduction in my very first class our professor made a statement: "There are liars, damn, liars, and then there are statisticians". He went on to make an argument, said that the highways in the United States were getting more and more deadly. He then produced a statistic that showed that total annual highway traffic deaths had increased each year for the past 20 years. Pretty convincing evidence that the highways were getting more deadly.

Then he turn around and made a polar opposite argument, said that the highways were getting less and less dangerous, and produced a stat that showed a steady decline of highway deaths per mile driven. Two arguments about the exact same subject both supported by undeniable facts that came to completely opposite conclusions. Politicians have learned this lesson well: Make an argument, any argument, and somewhere you can find a fact to support it, make it sound compelling. It's all in how you present your facts.

So, presenting information in such a manner as was done in the OP, left naked and alone, tend to lead the casual, uninformed observer to the wrong conclusion. All I was doing was trying to put this information into the proper perspective.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:47 pm

You're making up stuff now man. Raw data are facts whether they be stats or marriage licences issued or bank account balances. If they're not factual they are useless as data.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:59 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:You're making up stuff now man. Raw data are facts whether they be stats or marriage licences issued or bank account balances. If they're not factual they are useless as data.

There's a difference between the two terms. Look it up if you don't believe me. Raw data is factual, but on a much simpler level.

Look at it this way: "It's warm outside, it's 60 degrees". If in the previous 5 days the temperature was 40 degrees, then the statement is probably accurate. But if the previous 5 days it was 100 degrees, then it may not be accurate to describe 60 degrees as warm. One piece of unorganized data.

It depends on your perspective.

by **savvyman** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:31 pm

I don't know what the stats says but here is what my observation says.

Russell Wilson had the best first 3 years as any QB did in history.

Russell seriously regressed in year four though the first 9 games - however, he has mostly returned to form over the past two games- "but" the last game was against a very suspect pass defending team.

by **mykc14** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:02 pm

savvyman wrote:I don't know what the stats says but here is what my observation says.

Russell Wilson had the best first 3 years as any QB did in history.

Russell seriously regressed in year four though the first 9 games - however, he has mostly returned to form over the past two games- "but" the last game was against a very suspect pass defending team.

Really? 'Serious regression?' Over those first 9 games of 'serious regression' he had a quarterback rating over 90! Had a career high completion %, yards per game, average per attempt. He was having his second best season in a number of other categories. His TD's were down and INT's up (slight in both areas). He/the offense were slow to adjust to how defenses had adjusted to our O. If you want to see serious regression see kaepernick. If you want to see regression see Andrew luck. Both of them are having career bad years on almost every category. That is not RW through the first 9 games this season.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:15 pm

savvyman wrote:I don't know what the stats says but here is what my observation says.

Russell Wilson had the best first 3 years as any QB did in history.

Russell seriously regressed in year four though the first 9 games - however, he has mostly returned to form over the past two games- "but" the last game was against a very suspect pass defending team.

Yea, seriously regressed is a bit over the top. I'd phrase a little differently, like not taking the next step or failing to adjust. I don't see a serious regression like we've seen in Kaepernick or Luck.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:29 pm

Not sure if not taking that next step really is serious regression. I agree with RD and Myck on this one. I certainly haven't given him any slack, but the term serious regression seems like a reach to me.

I have been one of the few that refused to whitewash his play with scapegoats, that said, despite adjusting slowly to how the defenders decided to play him ( or at least slower than in my opinion it should have taken) and a lack of those usual clutch plays in "winning" time we have all become accustomed to, not sure I can identify much regression..

All QBs struggle with some new twists, adjustments, or change of play, I certainly didn't expect a 9 game adjustment, but honestly I DO feel that had something to do with Wilson's stubbornness to make shorter quicker throws to offset the change. As well as the philosophy in place. See it more as he didn't improve as opposed to regression.

by **savvyman** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:53 am

Entering Year 4, Russell Wilson demanded to be paid as the #1 Qb in the NFL - By a 3-4 Million a Year more than the current Number 1 Aaron Rodgers.

He ended up being paid the #2 position for all QB's in the NFL (btw - this was the offer that was on the table the entire time during his greedapoolza tour)

I (and most people) agreed this was a fair deal that Recognized Russell as what he was - a Top 5 NFL QB and maybe the most suitable QB for our offense with its inherent weakness in the offensive line - Russell's elusiveness and play making abilities consistently compensated for this bad pass blocking Offensive Line during the prior 3 years.

Now how many people really want to make the argument through the First 9 Games that Russell was the #1 QB in the NFL? Or #2? Or #4? Quite frankly he was not even a top 8.

However last year? There is only one QB I would have considered trading Russell Wilson for - that QB is Rodgers - so last year Russell Wilson was performing at the number 2 position for all QB's in the NFL.

This year is another story. I think at one time this year the Seahawks were dead last in red zone TD conversion rate and near the bottom in 3rd down conversion rate. A primary component of these two statistics is not the play of the QB?

Even after Russell's last 2 games (which just happened to come after he began to finally receive public and coaching staff criticism for his play and maybe even commitment to the team) he still barely cracks the top 10.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/12/02/pro-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks-entering-week-13/

So yes - Russell did seriously regress this year - and if not for his performance over the past two games there would be no argument about this.

by **Hawktown** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:10 am

I don't really like the "serious regression" either but I'm not far off that. RW running into a d-line to get a sack is by no means progression, overcompensating and failing, yeah sure. TD's are what wins games so TD and the INT categories are Pretty important to consider in the did he regress or not debate. I am glad that the team and RW has looked better the last 2 weeks, but.... it has only been 2 weeks after 9 lousy weeks. I will reserve the right to not label him back just yet, lol. Go Hawks!!! GO RW, make that money you were paid!!!

by **Hawktawk** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:41 am

He ended up being paid the #2 position for all QB's in the NFL (btw - this was the offer that was on the table the entire time during his greedapoolza tour)

I (and most people) agreed this was a fair deal that Recognized Russell as what he was - a Top 5 NFL QB and maybe the most suitable QB for our offense with its inherent weakness in the offensive line - Russell's elusiveness and play making abilities consistently compensated for this bad pass blocking Offensive Line during the prior 3 years.

However last year? There is only one QB I would have considered trading Russell Wilson for - that QB is Rodgers - so last year Russell Wilson was performing at the number 2 position for all QB's in the NFL.

This year is another story. I think at one time this year the Seahawks were dead last in red zone TD conversion rate and near the bottom in 3rd down conversion rate. A primary component of these two statistics is not the play of the QB?

Even after Russell's last 2 games (which just happened to come after he began to finally receive public and coaching staff criticism for his play and maybe even commitment to the team) he still barely cracks the top 10.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/12/02/pro-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks-entering-week-13/

When you say he was #2 in 2014 and Rodgers is the only guy you would trade him for your current position really looks dumb. How then were you able to look into your Chrystal ball and determine he wasn't worth the money he was asking?

He earned the money before he got paid. It was as much a reward for the unparalleled success and exposure he ALREADY brought to the franchise for peanuts as any anticipated future production. Wilson has been better than Rodgers much of the year, especially the last month.I wouldn't trade him for that sourpuss or any other QB. Luck? Don't make me laugh. Not to mention Wilson played behind the worst O line in the game and also played one of the toughest front half schedules with a team that was under performing at every level, Lynch was averaging 3.8 ypc. The center coudn't snap much less block.I think we all agree the season hasnt gone well. Russ has had some struggles but look at the other 4 year guys.Way too much protesting.

The greedapalooza stuff shows how out to lunch you are.You are spoiled rotten and delusional in your expectation level relative to getting a fair salary for being one of the absolute best in the game.
It seems to be something beyond football, sort of personal..
Who would you rather have there behind center savvy?

by **RiverDog** » Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:09 pm

Hawktown wrote:I don't really like the "serious regression" either but I'm not far off that. RW running into a d-line to get a sack is by no means progression, overcompensating and failing, yeah sure. TD's are what wins games so TD and the INT categories are Pretty important to consider in the did he regress or not debate. I am glad that the team and RW has looked better the last 2 weeks, but.... it has only been 2 weeks after 9 lousy weeks. I will reserve the right to not label him back just yet, lol. Go Hawks!!! GO RW, make that money you were paid!!!

I consider most of what Russell was lacking as a failure to adjust, not a regression. Defenses were taking some things away from Russell. DE's were taking wider angles, and Russell didn't adjust by stepping up into the pocket. Until lately, he was holding onto the ball too long when he had receivers open (I saw this in person at Cincy), looking for either a much more wide open look or one further downfield. I think Roach said essentially the same thing in a game he went to in person. That's something that doesn't show up on TV. Also, he didn't learn how to throw to a 6'8" receiver, trying to drop the ball over his shoulder like he would it were Kearse or Baldwin.

All that looks to be in the past now, though.

HawkShack.com

Who is online