Brandt at it again, SMDH

Official Seahawks Forum, for the 12th man, by the 12th man.

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby Anthony » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:12 pm

Futureite wrote:
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.


Know it is not you opinion it is your obsession and its wrong. Again 66% complt form the pocket enough said you do not throw for a 66% complt while being amongst the best in the long ball without being good from the pocket so once again your wrong. You are right it is your opinion but please realize you have no facts to support it, just your own blind bias that facts show is wrong.
User avatar
Anthony
Legacy
 
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:50 am

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby Anthony » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:41 pm

Futureite wrote: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.



You know its interesting Future di you know your boy luck threw 12% screen passes, Wilson only 9.5%, hmm Screen a guarantee completion that sure helps your complt % and qb rating hmm sure does not sound like your definition of a Pocket passer

Also interesting is the link I showed earlier had Russel ranked higher passing in the pocket than Luck now how is that if WIlson is not a pocket passer.

Pocket
Luck from pocket 6.6,
Wilson from Pocket 12.2
Advantage Wilson, so much for not a pocket passer

Now here is the kicker and why Wilson is a 5 tool QB

Scrambles
Luck 2.2
Wilson 9.9

Roll out
Luck 3.6
Wilson 4.7

Hmm so basically Wilson graded out higher in all three areas to include the pocket enough said, your wrong the facts show it.
Luck
User avatar
Anthony
Legacy
 
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:50 am

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby Anthony » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:42 pm

monkey wrote: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!!!



No clue I am guessing the Mods feel sorry for him as he probably has no other forum that will put up with him.
User avatar
Anthony
Legacy
 
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:50 am

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby monkey » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:50 pm

Not sure why I am bothering to post this link...trolls never learn, because they are not interested in actually learning anything, they are here to troll.
Still on the off chance...http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/8/7507179/nfl-playoffs-seahawks-panthers-russell-wilson-cam-newton-marshawn-lynch

Why would Seahawks fans ask the team to run more?
Because running more, and thus being more balanced WORKS BETTER than just passing more does.
Because when a team runs more, it is MORE LIKELY than a team that is unbalanced towards pass, to win the Super Bowl.

I wonder, how does a 49er fan, a fan of a team whose best games ALWAYS come when Frank Gore has over 20 carries,not understand this simple concept?
It's too bad the Niners aren't smart enough to figure this out, and instead are trying to make their empty headed QB into a pocket passer.

Meanwhile, the Seahawks have the very thing the media kept hoping that guys like Michael Vick, RG3 and Colin Kaepernick would become, a legitimate dual threat QB, one who is capable of beating you through the air or with his feet, in the pocket or outside the pocket. That's why the troll is so hell-bent on attacking Wilson. He's just jealous of Wilson's success.
And really who wouldn't be? He is the most winning QB EVER after his first three seasons, and likely about to win his second Super Bowl in that short amount of time.
Russell Wilson is the most dangerous player in all of football, and it makes people like our troll jealous.
User avatar
monkey
Legacy
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby HumanCockroach » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:29 pm

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
.

No, they don't make those plays as "frequently" ( you know the "special" plays) if you are using percentage of their throws ( ie Wilson has less check down dump offs and 5 yard passes to inflate his opportunities, so he absolutely has a higher percentage of "special" plays amongst his lower amount of opportunities). You may be the only person in history attempting to discredit a player for having a HIGHER percentgage of explosive plays amongst opportunities in the history of fandom, but knock yourself the hell out. If you're asserting that Wilson couldn't complete an additional 10 to 15 check passes to a back or FB out of the backfield you are more clueless than anyone before now believed possible.

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".


True, they DO rely on him to "improvise", probably because he is already the BEST at doing so in the NFL at this point, but posting someone who obviously didn't pay much attention to what the man did BEFORE being inserted into a system, that for all intents and purposes was NOT suited to Wilsons strengths, and to see him set record after record, do things that NO QB in ANY System in the history of the game, in said system, isn't buffeting your case OR statements.

To be clear, Wilson is a WEST COAST OFFENSE , RYTHM PASSER who ran a PRO OFFENSE his ENTIRE collegiant career, and set NATIONAL records, MULTIPLE times, RUNNING said offense. You continue to dismiss those facts, but for all of your "experts" stupidity on the matter, and YOUR insistence on ignoring it, those ARE the facts. The man adjusted his game to what was NEEDED from the coaches, in the offense he runs. Something that those 9 yr veterans often cannot accomplish.
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 feedLynch?"

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.


Lets clear this up, first of all, you YOURSELF pointed out that no matter how great the QB is they "sometimes fail" you got ONE damn game, and you KEEP going back to it, I have ALREADY provided those stats FOR you big guy, and WILSON leads RODGERS,ROMO,BREES,BRADY in that regard over the last three seasons, and here you are insisting opposite. Are you thick? Dumb? Or just slow? I'm not trying to trash you here, but only someone with some serious issues would continue to assert this latching onto a single game as "proof" and then compare him to guys that have had that issue MORE regularily than the player you are attempting to discredit. I thought you were one of those "smart, lawyerly type dudes with no access to the internet or computer", stuff like that certainly doesn't make you seem anything of the sort.

Second Wilson has MORE fourth quarter comebacks in the last three years than ANY of those on the list ( yep including I f*cked the pooch, now I'll pull my arse out of the fire, by coming back against Tenessee Luck), so obviously, unless you are an idiot, moron, or blind, the man can indeed win from the pocket ( well that and the whole 4th in the NFL over those three years QBR wise from said pocket, that WITH a horrible pocket) but here's the thing you can't seem to grasp, the thing that MAKES him special, he CAN beat you from the pocket, and WILL if you let him, just like the rest, however, unlike the rest ( with the exception of Rodgers, sort of) if you take that away from him, he'll beat you with his legs, or he'll improvise and beat you that way..... He is the ONLY QB I can think of that not only CAN beat you numerous different ways, BUT does it CONSISTENTLY in different ways.

On top of that, ANYONE that claims a QB that has thrown for over 300 and run for a 100 ( the only player to ever do so) and is the only man to have passed for over 300 and run for over 85 twice in the same season, and the ONLY man to ever have passed for over 200 and run for 100 twice in a career ( that also just happened to be in the SAME season) "can't carry a team" is absolutely moronic. Read those stats again, yep, that's the guy you are insisting, can't offensively carry his team based on a random game here or there, the same man who has NEVER lost ANY game in his LIFE by more than 8 points ( his life, I suppose that he and beast mode and this defense were born at the same time and shared blocks all the way through Seattle) you excuses are thin, played, and pointless. You want to discredit him? Fine, show your ignorance, I'm sure there were those saying the same about Rice, Montana and Lott as well, there is always the guy who can't accept, or appreciate greatness, looks like it's you this time..

Yes Wilson played poorly against the boys, doesn't change anything about running the ball ( and spare us the any other QB with only ten rushes would "shred" that D crapola, doesn't work that damn way and every QB on your list has done the SAME, MORE. Often than Wilson)

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.


And this is an undefendable OPINION based on imaginary made up criteria, nothing more, no different than me insisting Joe Montana was anything more than a hack of a QB with so much talent around him, and a system QB unable to perform at an adequate level in anything other than a gimmick offense ( exactly what the WC offense was considered at the time) a great running game and defense that "carried" him to every title and accomplishment the man ever received, which was proven by a bust that was able to walk into the same gimmick offense surrounded by the same talent, and win multiple SB's, obviously ANY QB could do the same.
Last edited by HumanCockroach on Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby Anthony » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:44 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:

And this is an undefendable OPINION based on imaginary made up criteria, nothing more, no different than me insisting Joe Montana was anything more than a hack of a QB with so much talent around him, and a system QB unable to perform at an adequate level in anything other than a gimmick offense ( exactly what the WC offense was considered at the time) a great running game and defense that "carried" him to every title and accomplishment the man ever received, which was proven by a bust that was able to walk into the same gimmick offense surrounded by the same talent, and win multiple SB's, obviously ANY QB could do the same.


Dude I already proved with facts that Wilson is a great pocket passer, Future has done nothing and has nothing but his own bias opinion and obvious hatred for the Hawks and Wilson.
User avatar
Anthony
Legacy
 
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:50 am

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby HumanCockroach » Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:56 pm

Futureite wrote: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.


Um, you just basically said that Luck, Manning, Rodgers et el are not great pocket passers ( psst... ALL of them make their living making those 5-10 yard slant passes, and letting their horses run) along with a few "playground" big shots down the field ( the things that no QB should ever need do if they were good pocket passers)

You understand that right?

And IF you want to go that route, you might want to brush up on what Wilson actually DOES, which is seldom if ever, 5-10 yard slants, in fact, he is top three in YPA the last three seasons ( you know BETTER than all on the list except Rodgers in that regard) and STILL has a better QBR than just about everyone in the NFL over that span, and drastically better your own self proclaimed "elite" QB Luck, how the hell does that work ( Luck throws far more 5-10 yard slants and dump offs, and yet somehow f's it it up far more often, and that makes him a "better" pocket passer, cause he's worse at it)?

Seriously dude, you flip flop more than a fish out of water.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:02 am

Futureite wrote: 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.


I don't know anyone in here that predicted that Russell Wilson was going to "blow up the stat book" and put up "at least 4,000 yds and 30 TD's." I know it wasn't me as had I made such a prediction, I would have drafted Russell on my fantasy team. I passed on him twice.

What Seahawk fans were urging our OC to change was from this horizontal passing/running game, ie the bubble screens and fly sweeps, once Harvin was traded. That did not indicate any disappointment of ours of a failure on Wilson's part, rather a failure to exploit Percy Harvin's talents. To be fair, Russell wasn't playing his best football back then and there were some of us that pointed out that fact, but to say that the fans were clamoring to change our offensive philosophy to run the ball more was because of Russell's passing failures is grossly inaccurate.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby HumanCockroach » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:48 am

http://www.nfl.com/player/russellwilson ... areerstats

I wasn't one who predicted 4,000 and 30 but who ever did has a job waiting in NFL scouting... 4304 and 26 is pretty damn close, not sure you made remotely a point there Future other than you haven't a foggiest idea what Wilson actually provided, of course. As he surpassed the yardage by a bit, and came in slightly under the TD total, all why playing with a patchwork O-line ( again) against the most difficult schedule in the NFL, while losing his top weapon ( who turned out not to be able to be used even while he was here) and once again has Seattle in excellent position to win a championship, in fact, you continue to prove why Wilson IS special and elite, as opposed to the other way around each and everytime you choose to change gears to discredit him....

Eventually, as in law, when EVERYTHING points to something being true, no matter what amount of misdirection, backtracking, and lies you throw at it, it is indeed 99.9% of the time, true.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby Anthony » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:04 am

HumanCockroach wrote:http://www.nfl.com/player/russellwilson/2532975/careerstats

I wasn't one who predicted 4,000 and 30 but who ever did has a job waiting in NFL scouting... 4304 and 26 is pretty damn close, not sure you made remotely a point there Future other than you haven't a foggiest idea what Wilson actually provided, of course. As he surpassed the yardage by a bit, and came in slightly under the TD total, all why playing with a patchwork O-line ( again) against the most difficult schedule in the NFL, while losing his top weapon ( who turned out not to be able to be used even while he was here) and once again has Seattle in excellent position to win a championship, in fact, you continue to prove why Wilson IS special and elite, as opposed to the other way around each and everytime you choose to change gears to discredit him....

Eventually, as in law, when EVERYTHING points to something being true, no matter what amount of misdirection, backtracking, and lies you throw at it, it is indeed 99.9% of the time, true.



LOL :lol:
User avatar
Anthony
Legacy
 
Posts: 2973
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:50 am

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby kalibane » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:41 am

I guess you can give credit to Future for finally moving on from his asinine "Russell Wilson gets all his yards from screens" argument. Maybe he got tired of being smacked around with the facts. Of course he follows that up with the equally asinine "being a pocket passer isn't throwing 4-5 quick slants" which actually exposes him even worse as a know nothing troll for so many reasons:

1. The Quick Slant is not a big part of the Seattle offense. As the Seattle passing game is based around chunk plays not short 7 yard gains. So like the "screen argument" he once again illustrates he doesn't know jack s*** about what kind of offense the Seahawks run.

2. Quick slants are timing throws from the pocket, three step drop, plant your foot and throw the ball. It may be a short throw but is exactly what Future has spent the better part of 2 years arguing Russell Wilson can't do. Make Rhythm passes. If this were true about Russell Wilson it would prove your argument incorrect. You can't make up the right nonsense to support your position. Moreover, we don't have WRs built for that kind of short passing game because they are not big enough to reliably box out DBs.

3. The Quick slant was the absolute bread and butter of the WCO so in making this argument he's basically invalidating Montana and Young.

Future, do you not understand how stupid your are making yourself look each day you continue to press this argument? And it's not because you want to argue that Russell Wilson isn't a good pocket passer. It's that the content of your argument shows you absolutely know NOTHING about which you are talking.

It's the same as your ridiculous Sherman debates where you were never able to actually hit on the area where Sherman was weak. You just throw a bunch of bullshit out there that you hope will sound good, without any regard to what actually happens on the field.

Not only have you shown yourself to be an ass over the last 3 years, you have exposed your complete dearth of actual football knowledge in the process. Where before you were an annoyance, now you have become a pitiable figure on this forum. But go ahead, tell us again how one guy, Greg Cosell, a television producer who got a job with NFL Films on the back of his daddy's name, who has never played football and never coached football is the one guy who gets how "rudimentary" the Seahawks' offense is.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:45 am

kalibane wrote:I guess you can give credit to Future for finally moving on from his asinine "Russell Wilson gets all his yards from screens" argument. Maybe he got tired of being smacked around with the facts. Of course he follows that up with the equally asinine "being a pocket passer isn't throwing 4-5 quick slants" which actually exposes him even worse as a know nothing troll for so many reasons:

1. The Quick Slant is not a big part of the Seattle offense. As the Seattle passing game is based around chunk plays not short 7 yard gains. So like the "screen argument" he once again illustrates he doesn't know jack s*** about what kind of offense the Seahawks run.

2. Quick slants are timing throws from the pocket, three step drop, plant your foot and throw the ball. It may be a short throw but is exactly what Future has spent the better part of 2 years arguing Russell Wilson can't do. Make Rhythm passes. If this were true about Russell Wilson it would prove your argument incorrect. You can't make up the right nonsense to support your position. Moreover, we don't have WRs built for that kind of short passing game because they are not big enough to reliably box out DBs.

3. The Quick slant was the absolute bread and butter of the WCO so in making this argument he's basically invalidating Montana and Young.

Future, do you not understand how stupid your are making yourself look each day you continue to press this argument? And it's not because you want to argue that Russell Wilson isn't a good pocket passer. It's that the content of your argument shows you absolutely know NOTHING about which you are talking.

It's the same as your ridiculous Sherman debates where you were never able to actually hit on the area where Sherman was weak. You just throw a bunch of bullshit out there that you hope will sound good, without any regard to what actually happens on the field.

Not only have you shown yourself to be an ass over the last 3 years, you have exposed your complete dearth of actual football knowledge in the process. Where before you were an annoyance, now you have become a pitiable figure on this forum. But go ahead, tell us again how one guy, Greg Cosell, a television producer who got a job with NFL Films on the back of his daddy's name, who has never played football and never coached football is the one guy who gets how "rudimentary" the Seahawks' offense is.


Image
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 7440
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby burrrton » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:37 am

Burrton;

You're next.


Oh goody.

Why was that?


Again, we've talked about this *ad nauseum*- it's called a slump.

You're taking the slump and trying to dismiss the rest of his 3 seasons based on either it or some bullsht you pulled out of your @ss about "throwing a lot of slants" that makes you sound like a fool.

Get lost. You've shown you have nothing more than an agenda, easy to tolerate when you're a good-natured oppo fan, not so much when you talk like an insufferable dick.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby burrrton » Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:06 am

This is where Future, if he holds to form, disappears for a week or two (maybe less since it's playoff time), then comes back in and tells everyone how RW simply can NOT throw a good deep ball or something because he read it in a Prisco column one time.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Brandt at it again, SMDH

Postby HumanCockroach » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:02 pm

http://sea.247sports.com/Bolt/Agent-fin ... nitescroll

Sorry Future, but your argument doesn't hold an ounce of credibility, and this article explains it perfectly, DESPITE throwing the ball LESS and DESPITE the "simplicity" of the offense ( which is categorically as wrong as the "he isn't asked to do much" FYI statement made in the first half of his ROOKIE year) Seattle, not Indy, not NE, not Denver not NO or any other top tier offense in the NFL LEADS the way, in "explosive" plays on offense. Wilson happens to be sixth in the NFL, PASSING THE BALL, and 6th RUNNING THE BALL, you got that? Not only is he a top ten QB where it counts, but he is a top ten RB to boot, something NEVER seen before....

Claiming Seattles explosiveness on offense, is merely Wilson STRENGTHENS the argument FOR eliteness, not diminishes it... Same thing as saying, because Seattles defense doesn't get intricate, and deceptive, the players aren't any good, or they aren't a great defense, because like Wilson, they don't need to trick you, they simply beat you with their talent... It's stupid on both counts.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Previous

Return to Seahawks Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron