Brandt at it again, SMDH

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ers_brandt

Sorry I know some of you guys like Gil, but man, I swear the dude needs to adjust his Romoboner and get on about actually analysing some NFL football... Still hanging on to his to short, weak arm BS. Can't stand this dude.

Most reliable "playoff" QB's, and then proceeds to dismiss the playoff performances so he can get his idol at the top.

[Futureite]

I don't know what Romo has done in the past, but I sure trust him this yr. He's been great in the 4th and he proved that when he played in Seattle. There couldn't be a tougher place to engineer a 4th qtr drive to win, and he did it. I don't know where he should be on this list (I can see both points of view), but I personally have no problem with him being near the top. In my opinion, a lot of his "failures" have been embellished. For example, was the 2006 fumbled snap due to nerves or choking, or was it simply a slick ball.

As to RW I can see why you'd be frustrated. He has an excellent rating in the playoffs and he's delivered many times in the 4th. I think Brandt's rating goes back to some of my original points on this issue though; RW has not been asked to carry a team the way most of the players on that list have. With that comes a bit of unpredictability, whereas you have seen the other players on that list in that position consistently over a full season or even for stretches of their respective careers.

[Vegaseahawk]

He has an excellent rating in the playoffs and he's delivered many times in the 4th

RW has not been asked to carry a team the way most of the players on that list have.

Future
You say that RW has carried the team to victory many times in the 4th, & then post pretty much the opposite opinion a sentence later. Can you differentiate or elaborate? I'm not sure what you're saying here. It looks like you are contradicting yourself.

[Futureite]

Vegas;

Meaning at certain points during his career, in certain games, RW has been asked to win a game in the final qtr or on the final drive. But he has rarely - if ever - been asked to carry a team from start to finish in a single game, through a string of games, or for stretches in his entire career. With that leads to some unpredictability. Yes, we have seen him come through in the clutch, but we've also seen him stumble. Without an extended sample size to view it can be difficult to predict how he will react if he is forced to carry a team from QTR 1 to QTR 4.

In contrast, if you have seen Manning, Rogers etc come into games over and over again with full knowledge that they must throw 45 times and put up 300+ yds to win, you can formulate a realistic expectation of what you'll see. True, they may stumble too - but you know with reasonable certainty what to expect. When you know what to expect, it is far easier to trust a QB.

[HumanCockroach]

Interesting to me, that to become "reliable" Romo had to start playing more like Wilson, yet Wilson somehow isn't reliable, because he plays like Wilson. Whatever, when you NEED 400 yards, Wilson gives it to you, when you NEED 150 rushing yards from the QB to take over the game, Wilson gives it to you. I'm A-OK with that... ( by the way Future, you should check out who has the MOST 4th quarter comebacks in the last three seasons, pretty sure it would definitely be an eye opener).

[Anthony]

Vegas;

Meaning at certain points during his career, in certain games, RW has been asked to win a game in the final qtr or on the final drive. But he has rarely - if ever - been asked to carry a team from start to finish in a single game, through a string of games, or for stretches in his entire career. With that leads to some unpredictability. Yes, we have seen him come through in the clutch, but we've also seen him stumble. Without an extended sample size to view it can be difficult to predict how he will react if he is forced to carry a team from QTR 1 to QTR 4.

In contrast, if you have seen Manning, Rogers etc come into games over and over again with full knowledge that they must throw 45 times and put up 300+ yds to win, you can formulate a realistic expectation of what you'll see. True, they may stumble too - but you know with reasonable certainty what to expect. When you know what to expect, it is far easier to trust a QB.

More lies as usual, he has carried a team from Q1 - Q4. All QBs that bring their team back in the 4th or OT will also fail at times. All Qbs stumble So your entire BS excuse about Wilson can be attributed to every QB in the league, as their are times every QB in the league has also not had to do much for their teams to win. In other words your full of it. Not to mention most of those other QBs have no choice but to throw the ball 40 times because they are not 5 tool QBs, and of course all those QBs have way more offensive talent around them for the passing game than Wilson does. SO as usual you are wrong and full of it but whats new.

FYI Manning had 9 game sunder 300 yards passing and they won all of them, and in fact there were 2 were he did not even throw a TD so looks like you wrong again

FY Rodgers 8 game sunder 300 yards, and they won 5 of them and guess what he had several of those games were they won and he threw for 2 or less tds, so again wrong

FYI Luck had 6 game sunder 300 yards and they won 4 of them and in 5 of them he had 2 or less tds and in 1 no tds so again your wrong

I can go on and on but the point is as always your wrong.

[Futureite]

Interesting to me, that to become "reliable" Romo had to start playing more like Wilson, yet Wilson somehow isn't reliable, because he plays like Wilson. Whatever, when you NEED 400 yards, Wilson gives it to you, when you NEED 150 rushing yards from the QB to take over the game, Wilson gives it to you. I'm A-OK with that... ( by the way Future, you should check out who has the MOST 4th quarter comebacks in the last three seasons, pretty sure it would definitely be an eye opener).

Well that is not true at all. The Hawks needed a lot of passing to win in weeks 1 through 6 and Wilson wasn't always able to deliver. After 7-4 they needed next to no pass O as a result of a combination of great D and opponent's terrible O. This is why we go round in circles on this issue. The fact that Wilson has had a couple big passing days in 3 yrs in no way proves that he's reliable if called upon to do it in any given game. He's also had more than a few games totaling just over 100 yds passing in which he needed to put up big numbers to win but couldn't.

Also, I believe Romo threw something like 35 TDs this yr. So he is not playing like Wilson at all. He is still scoring more than RW has at any point in his career and especially when you contrast each player 'this' season.

I'd not argue much if Brandt rated Wilson higher, but if the game is put squarely on the shoulders of each QB (not a drive or a play, but the game) most people would probably rate a lot of these guys higher than Russell Wilson.

[HumanCockroach]

And yet, it is Romo's new found ability to NOT throw for a gazillion yards, checking out of running plays, taking care of the football at all costs, and garnering many of those TD's on "play action" plays, something you continually knock Wilson for that has created an enviroment for his team to win ( all this while afforded better protection and weapons to utilise)... Awfully Wilson -like to me. By the way, who has more yards from scrimmage this year, Wilson or Romo? Romo having a higher completion percentage, less turnovers and higher passer rating, while throwing for significantly less yardage, on significantly less attempts somehow equates MVP/bonafide pro bowl/ reliable playoff QB, however when Wilson wins a SB with the SAME formula, he isn't. Interesting take, and one I find hilarious.

Please enlighten us to the games he "had to pass for more" and couldn't muster much more than 100 yards in the last three seasons Future, I'm interested. Since there has been a total of 12 ( 13 if you include his 400 yard passing game loss in the playoffs which I doubt you will) TOTAL losses in his career, and per you, everyone fails "sometimes" I wonder if there is some sort of "high" percentage of Wilson where he didn't provide at least 200-250 total yards of offense ( you know something Manning, Romo, Rodgers and co ALL have done numerous times the last several seasons with MORE attempts, and MORE weapons at their disposal).

[mykc14]

Well that is not true at all. The Hawks needed a lot of passing to win in weeks 1 through 6 and Wilson wasn't always able to deliver. After 7-4 they needed next to no pass O as a result of a combination of great D and opponent's terrible O. This is why we go round in circles on this issue. The fact that Wilson has had a couple big passing days in 3 yrs in no way proves that he's reliable if called upon to do it in any given game. He's also had more than a few games totaling just over 100 yds passing in which he needed to put up big numbers to win but couldn't.

Also, I believe Romo threw something like 35 TDs this yr. So he is not playing like Wilson at all. He is still scoring more than RW has at any point in his career and especially when you contrast each player 'this' season.

I'd not argue much if Brandt rated Wilson higher, but if the game is put squarely on the shoulders of each QB (not a drive or a play, but the game) most people would probably rate a lot of these guys higher than Russell Wilson.

Why do you do this to yourself future. You are just wrong. In the first 6 weeks of the season RW had 1 bad game (against the Cowboys). His passer rating in the other games. GB- 111, SD- 119, Den- 100, Was- 127, and Rams 110. In those games he had a total of 13 TD (3 rushing) to 2 TO's (both int). He rushed for 350 yards in those games as well. He actually played very well. Try again.

Lets take your premise a step further and look at RW's numbers in all the Hawks loses this year. In those games his passer rating was 119 (SD), 110 (Rams), 98 (KC), and 47 (Dallas). He had only 1 bad game in those losses. His total numbers were about 1200 total yards, 8 TD's (2 rushing) to 1 TO (int). Those numbers are really good and the only game you could put on his shoulders this season was the Cowboy game, a game in which everybody on this board pretty much agrees was his worst game as a pro. It also happens to be the game that Harvin decided not to play in the 4th quarter and led to his eventual trade. Face it, when the Hawks lose it isn't because of RW, period.

[HumanCockroach]

I am really actually curious, so I started investigating....

QB's under 250 yards of total offense in loss last three years this year in ( ) :

Wilson - 4. (1)

Rodgers- 6 ( 3)

Manning- 3 ( 2)

Romo- 9 (3)

Brees - 7 (2)

I'll add more QB's at a later time, it certainly doesn't seem to be a disproportionate amount on Wilsons part, in fact it seems to be the OPPOSITE of that, in fact of the "elite" guys I have researched so far ONLY Manning has performed at a higher level than Wilson in consistently providing the 250 yards of offense in losses.

Let me know if there are specific "elite" QB's you would like me to look up

[Anthony]

Well that is not true at all. The Hawks needed a lot of passing to win in weeks 1 through 6 and Wilson wasn't always able to deliver. After 7-4 they needed next to no pass O as a result of a combination of great D and opponent's terrible O. This is why we go round in circles on this issue. The fact that Wilson has had a couple big passing days in 3 yrs in no way proves that he's reliable if called upon to do it in any given game. He's also had more than a few games totaling just over 100 yds passing in which he needed to put up big numbers to win but couldn't.

Also, I believe Romo threw something like 35 TDs this yr. So he is not playing like Wilson at all. He is still scoring more than RW has at any point in his career and especially when you contrast each player 'this' season.

I'd not argue much if Brandt rated Wilson higher, but if the game is put squarely on the shoulders of each QB (not a drive or a play, but the game) most people would probably rate a lot of these guys higher than Russell Wilson.

Dude you are laughable, you should really give up when your behind. Romo still has way more weapons around him than Wilson. Lets see top 10 pass blocking oline, top Wr. Put Romo on the Hawks he does not even last 3 games. Give Wilson Dallas's oline and WR and he would make Romo look stupid. By way lets talk Romo this year he had 1 300 yard passing game, Wilson had 2, so much for that. Romo also had several games under 200 or barely over they lost were he needed to throw for more but could not, and unlike Wilson if he cannot throw he is screwed, Wilson can still beat you with his legs.

The thing that is laughable about you is you say something we show you wrong so you change the criteria so you can try to be right and still are wrong.

FYI NFL network talked about this and said if all the weapons are even they would take Rodgers, Brady than Wilson. However since Wilson has the least amount of weapons they would take Rodgers, Brady, Manning, then Wilson.

As I have said over and over the problem you have is you want to argue one thing and when it doe snot work you change the criteria, You want to argue Wilson has a great D but then not recognize he has the least amount of weapons around him of any Elite QB. In other words you are full of it.

[jshawaii22]

I'd be curious to know what RW's Prime Time ratings are vs 'normal start times' -- This coming week is a prime time game. He just plays better.

The article had a composite box of the QB's over 5 years and Russell was equal to or better then any of them. I think Gil threw darts to come up with that order... except everyone agrees Cam is #8.

[c_hawkbob]

I'v always liked Gil, when he's not talking about anything Cowboy ... That's about as homer a piece as I've ever seen from him, he should be ashamed of himself.

[kalibane]

Brandt used to be worthwhile (again like Bob said, when not dealing with Cowboy stuff), now he doesn't write about what he sees, he writes about what he wants to see. He's a lot like Dr. Z was over the last 10 years of his career who was perpetually stuck in the hey day of the NFC East and refused to reevaluate the power balance in the league.

I don't pay attention to anything Brandt says anymore. He carries as much weight with me as Prisco, although for different reasons.

[RiverDog]

"Forget about Romo's playoff record entering 2014: one win, three losses, a 59.3 percent completion rate, 208 yards per game and a passer rating of 80.8. Forget about the old, "Bad Romo," who seemed to make his biggest mistakes under the brightest spotlights."

Gezus, you could justify saying that Ryan Leaf is a trustworthy quarterback if we simply forget his past as Brandt is suggesting we do for Romo. I mean, why is Rodger's past playoff record relevant yet Romo's is not?

Romo was not throwing the ball very well at all last Sunday. The announcers were attributing it to his bad back, and now he's going up to Green Bay where it's going to be cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. He'd better hope they get their running game going.

[burrrton]

That article had about as much coherent insight as a 2nd-grader's speech on particle physics.

And Future sounds drunk as usual.

[mykc14]

I am really actually curious, so I started investigating....

QB's under 250 yards of total offense in loss last three years this year in ( ) :

Wilson - 4. (1)

Rodgers- 6 ( 3)

Manning- 3 ( 2)

Romo- 9 (3)

Brees - 7 (2)

I'll add more QB's at a later time, it certainly doesn't seem to be a disproportionate amount on Wilsons part, in fact it seems to be the OPPOSITE of that, in fact of the "elite" guys I have researched so far ONLY Manning has performed at a higher level than Wilson in consistently providing the 250 yards of offense in losses.

Let me know if there are specific "elite" QB's you would like me to look up

You might want to take it a step further and look at Turnovers in those losses as well. I have a sneaky suspicion that RW will also be a lot better in that category.

[kalibane]

And yet, it is Romo's new found ability to NOT throw for a gazillion yards, checking out of running plays, taking care of the football at all costs, and garnering many of those TD's on "play action" plays, something you continually knock Wilson for that has created an enviroment for his team to win ( all this while afforded better protection and weapons to utilise)... Awfully Wilson -like to me.

This post has nothing to do with the Seahawks slight but it's the exact reason why I refuse to dignify any kind of Romo MVP talk. How can you be the most valuable player in the league when your role has been lessened?

The coaches basically said, the more responsibility we put on Romo's shoulders the less team success we have. If "more" of you is problematic it's impossible that you can be the best player in the league or the most valuable.

Critics like to project that Wilson can't do certain things because he isn't asked to do them. But Romo essentially proves that he can't make the playoffs by being the focal point of the offense and somehow that makes him the MVP? Makes zero sense.

[monkey]

HC you nailed it completely!

Kalibane, you're not wrong at all, I agree 100%, however, it's tough to blame Romo for not being able to do something that no QB EVER has been able to do.
The media and stupid fans all criticize Wilson for having a run game and defense, because apparently they have this ridiculous belief that a truly great QB can "shoulder the offense" and win without a run game and defense.
Trouble is, not one QB in all of history ever has or ever will.
TEAMS win Super Bowls NOT QB's!!!

This insistence that Russell Wilson be able to "carry the team" before the media (and moronic fans like Futurite) admits that Wilson is in fact an elite QB, is ridiculous beyond words, and not expected of any other QB in the NFL.
Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl since he last had a defense and run game. Manning's last and only Super Bowl win came when he had at least an above average run game and defense, against a weak NFC team.

I'm so tired of Wilson being held to a different, and higher standard than every QB who has ever played...it's silly beyond words, so I'm not going to do the same to Romo.
Fact is, of COURSE Romo is finally having a great season now that he has legitimate balance on offense, (something he's previously lacked), that's like the world's biggest DUH!!
That doesn't mean that Romo suddenly got better, or that before this season he was so much worse; it just means that this season he has an offensive line that is doing a great job protecting him, and a run game that forces defenses to respect the run.

[kalibane]

Here's the thing Monkey. There is a difference between the Wilson and Romo situation, a couple actually.

1. People knock Wilson down to a game manager because they are GUESSING that he can't win games consistently when he has to pass the ball. They are basically saying he can't be Tom Brady or Andrew Luck or Aaron Rodgers because he's never had to throw the ball 40 times per game, pure speculation. Tony Romo has PROVEN that he can't be Tom Brady or Andrew Luck or Aaron Rodgers throwing the ball 40 times per game.

2. When people knock Wilson they say he is entirely dependent on Marshawn Lynch. Well DeMarco Murray just carried the ball 80 more times than Marshawn Lynch has ever carried the ball in one season and had more total touches than Romo had pass attempts. Marshawn Lynch has never had more touches than Wilson has had pass attempts.

I don't think Romo is terrible... I never thought he was as bad as many people here did (even if I do believe he's a choke artist). I don't believe he's a game manager. He's a pro-bowl caliber QB. What he isn't though is an MVP of the NFL.

Maybe you don't win a super bowl or even go deep into the playoffs without a balanced offense, but Romo should have at least won the crappy NFC East if he was an MVP Caliber guy. No that didn't happen until the coaching staff decided to hand the ball off 400 times. Romo isn't even the MVP of his own team.

[RiverDog]

This post has nothing to do with the Seahawks slight but it's the exact reason why I refuse to dignify any kind of Romo MVP talk. How can you be the most valuable player in the league when your role has been lessened?

The coaches basically said, the more responsibility we put on Romo's shoulders the less team success we have. If "more" of you is problematic it's impossible that you can be the best player in the league or the most valuable.

Critics like to project that Wilson can't do certain things because he isn't asked to do them. But Romo essentially proves that he can't make the playoffs by being the focal point of the offense and somehow that makes him the MVP? Makes zero sense.

My feelings exactly. Romo has been the star of the show in Dallas for almost a decade, during which they've brought in weapons for him like T.O., Roy Williams, and Dez Bryant, and the team didn't do squat. After beating their heads against the wall for 9 frigging years, they finally come to the realization that he isn't good enough to carry the team like a half dozen other QB's in the league can do, so they develop what has turned out to be a very good running game and they have a nice regular season because of it, and now they're trying to tell me that Romo is the MVP?

[monkey]

Here's the thing Monkey. There is a difference between the Wilson and Romo situation, a couple actually.

1. People knock Wilson down to a game manager because they are GUESSING that he can't win games consistently when he has to pass the ball. They are basically saying he can't be Tom Brady or Andrew Luck or Aaron Rodgers because he's never had to throw the ball 40 times per game, pure speculation. Tony Romo has PROVEN that he can't be Tom Brady or Andrew Luck or Aaron Rodgers throwing the ball 40 times per game.

2. When people knock Wilson they say he is entirely dependent on Marshawn Lynch. Well DeMarco Murray just carried the ball 80 more times than Marshawn Lynch has ever carried the ball in one season and had more total touches than Romo had pass attempts. Marshawn Lynch has never had more touches than Wilson has had pass attempts.

I don't think Romo is terrible... I never thought he was as bad as many people here did (even if I do believe he's a choke artist). I don't believe he's a game manager. He's a pro-bowl caliber QB. What he isn't though is an MVP of the NFL.

Maybe you don't win a super bowl or even go deep into the playoffs without a balanced offense, but Romo should have at least won the crappy NFC East if he was an MVP Caliber guy. No that didn't happen until the coaching staff decided to hand the ball off 400 times. Romo isn't even the MVP of his own team.

I couldn't agree more.
The only quibble I might have, comes from my personal opinion that the Cowboys as a team are so consistently overrated by the media and fans alike, that we assume Romo ought to win with the talent he had to work with, when in reality, the team is usually just complete garbage and essentially impossible to win with.

What has changed from the norm, is that Jerruh finally did something right the last few years, he's used multiple high round draft picks to build a dominant offensive line, one that is legit and not just media hype.
That line is making Romo look like more than the above average QB he actually is, (Making Murray look better than he is too, though I believe he's legitimately good regardless, so long as he stays healthy).

[kalibane]

Murray is very talented just couldn't stay healthy. But at the end of the day I'm going to write one sentence that says all you need to know (overrated by the media or not).

Andy Dalton has been to the playoffs for 4 straight years.

[Zorn76]

None of this matters.

The bottom line is this: Russell Wilson is AS CLUTCH as any QB in the NFL.

Period.

[RiverDog]

Murray is very talented just couldn't stay healthy. But at the end of the day I'm going to write one sentence that says all you need to know (overrated by the media or not).

Andy Dalton has been to the playoffs for 4 straight years.

The big rap on Murray is that he's a fumbler.

[kalibane]

He does put the ball on the ground but the only reason he wasn't in the line up was his health.

[Anthony]

When it comes right down to it media and fans will always hold Rw to a higher standard because they have to. Remember most said he would not make it, he was to short. Most people are not man enough to admit when they are wrong and there for by holding him to a higher standard or ignoring the facts by changing their rational like Future does, first its one thing we prove he is wrong he changes the criteria. That is what all fans and media do, point in case Luck he carries the team all by himself supposedly really a top 10 pass blocking oline, a top 10 wr corps a top 10 defense(yards), easy schedule, and he carries the team. They talk about his yards and TDs but forget to mention his TOs which are a lot. Now that is changing with some Ed reed has brought it up many times and while the others agree they have excuses for it, and of course Reed blows those excuses out and the conversation quickly changes.


When it comes right down to it the media and fans do not want to be wrong, they do not want to believe there is a true dual threat, 5 tool QB who is actually proving it can be done. Fans and the MEdia think only pocket passers can succeed and he is proving you can be more than just a pocket passer and be elite, especially when you are a great pocket passer as well.

[HumanCockroach]

Lot back and forth by the media for sure. The same "analyst" that raves on and on about Rothlisberger, Rodgers or Romo's ability to move around, extend plays, and make "big plays" ( ones that Future calls "playground" plays when referencing Wilson) are the same guys professing Wilson "has" to do the same thing they fall all over themselves annointing the next "great" QB because of plays that Wilson can make look routine.

In fact the two BIGGEST TD throws in the first round ( one by Luck and one by Romo) were EXACTLY those types of plays, and yet Wilson gets "knocked" for those plays, while Romo "reaffirms" his MVP viability ( a QB that had 230 more yards than Wilson in the air folks and 800 yards less from scrimmage) Wilson is "being carried" by his back ( um, hello Murray more carries, yards, and receptions than Lynch). Unbfingbelievable.

[Futureite]

Lot back and forth by the media for sure. The same "analyst" that raves on and on about Rothlisberger, Rodgers or Romo's ability to move around, extend plays, and make "big plays" ( ones that Future calls "playground" plays when referencing Wilson) are the same guys professing Wilson "has" to do the same thing they fall all over themselves annointing the next "great" QB because of plays that Wilson can make look routine.

In fact the two BIGGEST TD throws in the first round ( one by Luck and one by Romo) were EXACTLY those types of plays, and yet Wilson gets "knocked" for those plays, while Romo "reaffirms" his MVP viability ( a QB that had 230 more yards than Wilson in the air folks and 800 yards less from scrimmage) Wilson is "being carried" by his back ( um, hello Murray more carries, yards, and receptions than Lynch). Unbfingbelievable.

You are unfingbelievable. Yes those guys do make great plays off of improvisation, but they don't attempt do so with even remotely with the same frequency that Russell Wilson does and they've also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are far better pocket passers. It's common sense to believe that Vets who have learned and honed this ability over 9+ yrs would be better than a guy just finishing his 3rd yr, yet you don't get it. You pontificate this asenine logic where Russell Wilson "could do these other QBs do if he has to, and does when needed". LOL right. He arrived in the NFL as a fully developed MVP QB and could toss the ball around the yard for 300+ a game and carry your team like every other great QB.

Do I really have to go back to some old threads here and post what you guys were saying at 3-3 when Hawks were trying to have this guy carry your team?

Remember when I posted what Greg Cosell said about Russell Wilson?

"He runs a rudimentary O up in Seattle. They rely on him to improvise".

I've been telling you this for damn near 3 years now, and the funniest part of it was reading your own fans post how sick they were of all the screens that Bevel was calling (remember how we argued over that?), that the Hawks needed to return to the run. Pretty much everything I've posted here which was met with vitriol was then posted by people here in an almost apologetic tone; "He can't do this without weapons. The play calling is terrible. How do you not feed Lynch?"

There you go - you said the exact same thing yourself yourself. When the Hawks did put the ball in Wilson's hands and didn't run Lynch V a crap Cowboy D, you got 127 YDs passing and an L. Please do not tell me that Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo or any number of QBs would not have eaten up the opportunity to have their RB only touch it 10 times V a weak D. They'd relish it. And 9 out of 10 times they'd be on Sportscenter with a 300+ YD day and multiple TDs. If they had given it to Lynch and Hawks had won that game with Wilson posting paltry numbers, you'd be the first to offer the same claim that he "could have done more if he had to". No, obviously he couldn't have.

Russell Wilson is not a great pocket passer. Period. And that is job one for a QB. So if you ask me who I trust the most, he is close to the bottom of that list.

[burrrton]

*facepalm"

Future, serious question: are you retarded? ADHD, maybe?

You've been given the numbers repeatedly. You invariably ignore them, then pipe up a month or so later and repeat the same bullsht.

Here:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... ll-wilson/

"Third-highest grade when pressured (+4.5) and also graded well from a clean pocket (+19.2)."

Go do some reading and STFU. You're welcome.

Russell Wilson is not a great pocket passer. Period.

LOL. I'm just quoting this to have it here in case you edit it out.

[Futureite]

When it comes right down to it media and fans will always hold Rw to a higher standard because they have to. Remember most said he would not make it, he was to short. Most people are not man enough to admit when they are wrong and there for by holding him to a higher standard or ignoring the facts by changing their rational like Future does, first its one thing we prove he is wrong he changes the criteria. That is what all fans and media do, point in case Luck he carries the team all by himself supposedly really a top 10 pass blocking oline, a top 10 wr corps a top 10 defense(yards), easy schedule, and he carries the team. They talk about his yards and TDs but forget to mention his TOs which are a lot. Now that is changing with some Ed reed has brought it up many times and while the others agree they have excuses for it, and of course Reed blows those excuses out and the conversation quickly changes.


When it comes right down to it the media and fans do not want to be wrong, they do not want to believe there is a true dual threat, 5 tool QB who is actually proving it can be done. Fans and the MEdia think only pocket passers can succeed and he is proving you can be more than just a pocket passer and be elite, especially when you are a great pocket passer as well.

LOL I am about to put you on blast my friend and dig back a couple of your quotes from earlier this season when Russell Wilson was not cutting it. In fact, you were the one that pulled the biggest 180 from all your big talk preseason predictions. All you guys posting he's "next level" and going to blow up the stat book, at least 4,000 yds 30 TDs etc, and now you're backtracking to your standby "stats are for losers and he wins" argument. You're only doing this now because he couldn't cut it being the QB you want him to be, and I'm not about to let you skate on that.

I remember you all (and you in particular) begging for Carroll to run the ball more. Please tell me the last time a Colts fan, a Packers fan, a Broncos fan or Pats fan have called out the OC for their team to run the ball more to save a season. Doesn't happen my friend because those guys are too busy throwing for all of these "meaningless" yards and TDs and leading their teams to 11, 12 or 13 wins and deep into the postseason. Those teams are absolutely nothing without their QBs, and meanwhile Russell Wilson can throw for just over 100 YDs V good teams in the Fail Mary game, the Div playoff, V the 49ers, on the road V the Texans etc and still win. Not only win, but win by 10+ pts.

Truth hurts. But it only hurts because you have unrealistic expectations and you don't know how to analyze anything objectively. This is why you get so mad when other people's view of your QB (such as Brandt's) doesn't match your own. Or when your QB isn't voted to the pro bowl. If you would accept reality, you'd see he (and it) is still pretty damn good.

[burrrton]

But it only hurts because you have unrealistic expectations and you don't know how to analyze anything objectively.

Tell us all again how bad RW is from the pocket, Mr. Objective Analysis.

[jshawaii22]

Future,

Russell could be a 'great pocket passer' if he had a fricking pocket to throw from once or twice a game. You can't tell me he leaves early or has happy feet either as multiple times he escaped like Houdini from an inch away from a sack. That's one of the best qualities about Russell. Go ahead, Swap him with Dallas... Russell takes the Cowboys to the SB. Put Romo on Seattle and we would be lucky to be a .500 club.

js

[Futureite]

Burrton;

You're next.

First off, if you remember at about the 7-4 mark it was roundly discussed how Russell Wilson's YDS/Attempt were way down, completion % past 20 YDs was way down, completion % as a whole was down.

Why was that?

Because Hawks were not running the ball. Run has been the foundation of your entire team for the past 3 years and it is the foundation of the pass game. It allows Russell Wilson to face man coverage for deep balls or to use his improvisation skills to find guys open downfield.

2nd, what does a passer rating built off of 5 and 10 yard slants prove?? Let me offer you one Alex Smith and a 102.5 QB rating in 2012. Explain it. Not giving you a free pass on that. Explain it. It is very relevant to this discussion, and I am tired of watching you guys hide behind misleading stats like this. Let me define great pocket passing:

Great pocket passing is sitting in a pocket going through 3 or even 4 reads, sliding in the pocket, hitting difficult route combinations like deep digs and outs, wheel routes 20+ yds to the opposite side of the field. It is great footwork. It is diagnosing complicated defenses.

Here is what great pocket passing is not;

Hitting 4 of 5 quick slants and then saying look at me, my QB rating is 105 from the pocket. .

Give it a rest with this complete BS. Russell Wilson is not doing any of the things I posted under the widely held definition of great pocket passing. Great, I'm a "retard" because I don't acknowledge some stat you threw out which is not ratably much better than Alex Smith, and I don't get it. OK. I use "eye" tests and somehow I and everyone else doesn't incredible Russell Wilson is at all facets of playing the position of QB.

He's not. He's never going to be in that O. Ever. Cannot be a great doctor without years of practice performing complex surgeries. Cannot be a great lawyer without years of practice of complex law and cases. Cannot be a great QB when your coach tells you to run for 900 yds, run read options, throw screens and chuck the ball only 50% of the time and your teacher is Darrel Bevel.

Don't blame me. Blame life.

[Futureite]

Future,

Russell could be a 'great pocket passer' if he had a fricking pocket to throw from once or twice a game. You can't tell me he leaves early or has happy feet either as multiple times he escaped like Houdini from an inch away from a sack. That's one of the best qualities about Russell. Go ahead, Swap him with Dallas... Russell takes the Cowboys to the SB. Put Romo on Seattle and we would be lucky to be a .500 club.

js

I agree 100%. He could be Joe Montana if Bill Walsh and Mike Shanahan coached the crap out of him and gave him the opportunity to learn by throwing a lot more than the team ran. I have never once said he is incapable of being a great pocket passer. I have no idea if he would or not, but given his work ethic, accuracy and poise, I certainly would not doubt him.

What I have debated here and been called out for is offering my opinion of what he is today. I think he's great at what he does and about #10 on my QB rating list. But I do not believe though that you can be great at anything without scrutinizing it, practicing it, and most of all, failing at it. Over and over again. Every time Wilson fails, they bolt the plan and go back to heavy run or read option or a simplified pass game. That's a great approach to winning. But it's not a great approach to developing a QB.

Just my opinion.

[monkey]

*facepalm"

Future, serious question: are you retarded? ADHD, maybe?

You've been given the numbers repeatedly. You invariably ignore them, then pipe up a month or so later and repeat the same bullsht.

Here:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... ll-wilson/

"Third-highest grade when pressured (+4.5) and also graded well from a clean pocket (+19.2)."

Go do some reading and STFU. You're welcome.

Just wanted to repost this, and add that Russell Wilson is a great EVERYTHING passer PERIOD!

[monkey]

Serious question: why is the troll still posting here?
He said that if he were asked to leave, he would. I asked, he didn't leave (he lied, big surprise) so then I have to wonder, why is he still allowed here?
He brings nothing, since he will not actually engage in real debate. We've PROVEN that he's wrong so many times, I've stopped responding to him, because he's not interested in debate. He's TROLLING US!!!

[Anthony]

You are unfingbelievable. Yes those guys do make great plays off of improvisation, but they don't attempt do so with even remotely with the same frequency that Russell Wilson does and they've also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are far better pocket passers. It's common sense to believe that Vets who have learned and honed this ability over 9+ yrs would be better than a guy just finishing his 3rd yr, yet you don't get it. You pontificate this asenine logic where Russell Wilson "could do these other QBs do if he has to, and does when needed". LOL right. He arrived in the NFL as a fully developed MVP QB and could toss the ball around the yard for 300+ a game and carry your team like every other great QB.

Do I really have to go back to some old threads here and post what you guys were saying at 3-3 when Hawks were trying to have this guy carry your team?

Remember when I posted what Greg Cosell said about Russell Wilson?

"He runs a rudimentary O up in Seattle. They rely on him to improvise".

I've been telling you this for damn near 3 years now, and the funniest part of it was reading your own fans post how sick they were of all the screens that Bevel was calling (remember how we argued over that?), that the Hawks needed to return to the run. Pretty much everything I've posted here which was met with vitriol was then posted by people here in an almost apologetic tone; "He can't do this without weapons. The play calling is terrible. How do you not feed Lynch?"

There you go - you said the exact same thing yourself yourself. When the Hawks did put the ball in Wilson's hands and didn't run Lynch V a crap Cowboy D, you got 127 YDs passing and an L. Please do not tell me that Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo or any number of QBs would not have eaten up the opportunity to have their RB only touch it 10 times V a weak D. They'd relish it. And 9 out of 10 times they'd be on Sportscenter with a 300+ YD day and multiple TDs. If they had given it to Lynch and Hawks had won that game with Wilson posting paltry numbers, you'd be the first to offer the same claim that he "could have done more if he had to". No, obviously he couldn't have.

Russell Wilson is not a great pocket passer. Period. And that is job one for a QB. So if you ask me who I trust the most, he is close to the bottom of that list.

Ahh so his story changes again now that is is proven other QBs make these off plays, he is now saying yeah but not as frequent, like he is god to decide what is or is not to frequent. Let me help you Future the first job of a QB is to win period. IF that means you have to do more off plays you do them. Only a moron like you would try so hard to discredit the winningest QB in the First 3 years in NFL history.

FYI Wilson is a great pocket pass moron the facts show it let me help you once again 66.1% complt in the pocket that is great

https://www.fantasysp.com/player/nfl/Co ... ide-pocket
https://pff-pffanalysisltd12.netdna-ssl ... ramble.png

Guess what IF Wilson is bad in the pocket then so is Luck, and every other QB but 6. Sorry once again you are wrong and the FACTS Prove It.

FYI one more time the job of the QB is to WIN.

[Anthony]

LOL I am about to put you on blast my friend and dig back a couple of your quotes from earlier this season when Russell Wilson was not cutting it. In fact, you were the one that pulled the biggest 180 from all your big talk preseason predictions. All you guys posting he's "next level" and going to blow up the stat book, at least 4,000 yds 30 TDs etc, and now you're backtracking to your standby "stats are for losers and he wins" argument. You're only doing this now because he couldn't cut it being the QB you want him to be, and I'm not about to let you skate on that.

I remember you all (and you in particular) begging for Carroll to run the ball more. Please tell me the last time a Colts fan, a Packers fan, a Broncos fan or Pats fan have called out the OC for their team to run the ball more to save a season. Doesn't happen my friend because those guys are too busy throwing for all of these "meaningless" yards and TDs and leading their teams to 11, 12 or 13 wins and deep into the postseason. Those teams are absolutely nothing without their QBs, and meanwhile Russell Wilson can throw for just over 100 YDs V good teams in the Fail Mary game, the Div playoff, V the 49ers, on the road V the Texans etc and still win. Not only win, but win by 10+ pts.

Truth hurts. But it only hurts because you have unrealistic expectations and you don't know how to analyze anything objectively. This is why you get so mad when other people's view of your QB (such as Brandt's) doesn't match your own. Or when your QB isn't voted to the pro bowl. If you would accept reality, you'd see he (and it) is still pretty damn good.

One not your friend all my friends are intelligent your not. as to the rest you once again have said nothing, you have used arbitrary things no facts to say nothing. You are a waste. when you have facts let me know until the you should shut up.

[Anthony]

Burrton;

You're next.

First off, if you remember at about the 7-4 mark it was roundly discussed how Russell Wilson's YDS/Attempt were way down, completion % past 20 YDs was way down, completion % as a whole was down.

Why was that?

Because Hawks were not running the ball. Run has been the foundation of your entire team for the past 3 years and it is the foundation of the pass game. It allows Russell Wilson to face man coverage for deep balls or to use his improvisation skills to find guys open downfield.

2nd, what does a passer rating built off of 5 and 10 yard slants prove?? Let me offer you one Alex Smith and a 102.5 QB rating in 2012. Explain it. Not giving you a free pass on that. Explain it. It is very relevant to this discussion, and I am tired of watching you guys hide behind misleading stats like this. Let me define great pocket passing:

Great pocket passing is sitting in a pocket going through 3 or even 4 reads, sliding in the pocket, hitting difficult route combinations like deep digs and outs, wheel routes 20+ yds to the opposite side of the field. It is great footwork. It is diagnosing complicated defenses.

Here is what great pocket passing is not;

Hitting 4 of 5 quick slants and then saying look at me, my QB rating is 105 from the pocket. .

Give it a rest with this complete BS. Russell Wilson is not doing any of the things I posted under the widely held definition of great pocket passing. Great, I'm a "retard" because I don't acknowledge some stat you threw out which is not ratably much better than Alex Smith, and I don't get it. OK. I use "eye" tests and somehow I and everyone else doesn't incredible Russell Wilson is at all facets of playing the position of QB.

He's not. He's never going to be in that O. Ever. Cannot be a great doctor without years of practice performing complex surgeries. Cannot be a great lawyer without years of practice of complex law and cases. Cannot be a great QB when your coach tells you to run for 900 yds, run read options, throw screens and chuck the ball only 50% of the time and your teacher is Darrel Bevel.

Don't blame me. Blame life.

Dude now all you have to do is fine the definition of a packet passer recognizes by every NFL team and expert, until the you definition means nothing, except the lengths you will go to be right even though your wrong. I can blame you because you definition is garbage, he completes 66% of his passes form the pocket enough said your wrong.