Bret Bielema Says Talks To Coach Phins Broke Down In 2012 Because Of Russell Wilson

Nice backpedal.

I don't need to watch 216 games to know that your premise and the numbers you produce to back them up are nonsensical. Watch the Super Bowl. NE was willing to leave their CBs one on one all game long, Seattle could have thrown deep to a WR in one on one coverage on virtually every snap. If you don't understand how unusual that is or why NE chose to do it then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Of course it's useful, most stats are useful. Unfortunately people tend to misinterpret them. I know you watch a lot of film, what tells the story more accurately, the numbers or the tape?

 

So then the answer is "no." You can't verify objectively or systematically that the Seahawks face eight in the box coverages any more than the average team in the league.

So, as usual, you've retreated to a position that is based on the unknown and the unknowable, which again is a relatively weak one.

 

Even if the tape did show that the Seahawks face eight in the box significantly more than the average team -- which again can't be known with any certainty -- there is still no evidence that it accounts for any significant portion of Russell Wilson's individual play, and that is supported by the objective data that shows he plays even better when the team is trailing by two scores or more, when teams are very unlikely to be facing calls by opposing defensive coordinators that focus on stopping the run.

So, even in choosing an explanation for Wilson's individual performance that relies on the unverifiable, you've still failed to consider that it's controverted by the objective data that can be verified.

 

Well either way, in his career Russell Wilson has a 115.3 passer rating when he's behind by between 9 and 16 points. He averages 8.5 yards per play, and a touchdown every 12 plays (8.2%).

 

When he would presumably be facing far less eight in the box coverages than usual, and feeling more pressure than usual to make plays in the passing game, of which he is the prime mover.

Essentially there is no data that exist that suggest Wilson's individual performance is a function of what's going on around him, and rather all of the available data suggest exactly the opposite -- that his individual play has nothing to do with it.

 

They trailed GB 16-0 w 9 mins left in the 2nd, they allowed 6 points the rest of the game. Trailed STL 21-3 with 7 mins left in the 2nd, allowed 7 points the rest of the game. They never trailed by more than 10 any other time in 19 games.

In 2013 they trailed Tampa 21-0 late in the 2nd, they allowed 3 points the rest of the game. That's the only time they ever trailed by 10+, in 19 games.

In 2012 they trailed ATL 20-0 with 4 mins left in the 2nd, allows 10 additional points. That's it, no double digit deficits the rest of the season, 18 games.

134 is a great number with a tiny sample size. 4 instances in 56 games. The Dolphins trailed by 10+ 7 times in 2014 alone.

 

Yeah I mean whether it's his 115.3 passer rating when trailing between 9 and 16 points, his 91.5 passer rating when trailing between 1 and 8 points, his 93.2 passer rating while tied, his 104.4 passer rating when ahead by 1 to 8 points or his 106.7 passer rating when ahead by 9 to 16 points...

...his career splits situationally are almost full proof.

 

So, there's no data to show that what happens around the QB has any effect on his individual play? I think we can agree to disagree and move on.

 

If you aren't presenting any data to show that what happens around Russell Wilson affects his individual play, then yes, we can certainly move on, because the data that do exist say it does not.

 

Hahaha!

This is hilarious! I don't even know what all the hubbub is about because I haven't read the thread, but this made me spew water. Good stuff! One of the funnier posts I have seen in a while....

**EDIT**

Perused through and you make a damn fine argument supporting your claim (not surprised since you typically back up your side with solid evidence). Still do not see what all the hubbub is about....

 

For those who just joined us, it's a discussion between people who think Wilson is good vs people who think he's elite. The folks who think he's elite are arguing that the people who think he's good are willy wonka for thinking he's not good at all. Confusing? Yes it is.

 

It's about people being upset that a QB taken two rounds after ours is better than him, and refusing to admit the obvious....

 

Personally, I don't need a bunch of stats nor need to take into account Marshawn Lynch & Seattle's defense to know what Russell Wilson is all about. I only need to watch Wilson's own individual play to recognize he's special.

Any advantage Wilson receives from Seattle's defense and Marshawn Lynch is given right back via shoddy pass protection and a poor group of pass catchers. Why does Wilson have better numbers through his first 3 years than future HOF'er Tom Brady who played with the NFL's #1 and #2 scoring Defense in 2003-04 when he won back to back Super Bowls?

Cam Newton year 1 --- 84.5 Rating --- 27th ranked scoring D
Cam Newton year 2 --- 86.2 Rating --- 17th ranked scoring D
Cam Newton year 3 --- 88.8 Rating ---- 2nd ranked scoring D, 2nd ranked yardage D, 6th ranked turnover D​

So why did Cam's passer rating not leap to 100 in 2013 when Carolina's defense played outstanding ball?
Cam's 2 point increase in rating can be explained by his additional year of experience and development, so what does that leave for Carolina's great defense to take credit for? Nothing. Yet Russell Wilson apparently averages an inflated 98.6 rating, 3923 yards, 28 TD, 9 INT, and a lofty 7.9 avg through his first 3 years b/c Seattle's D and Marshawn Lynch do all the throwing, reading, anticipating, escaping of pressure, etc for him.

 

I suppose we can now start disagreeing about what the thread is actually about, and then you'll have the substance you need for yet again another position that's based on something completely subjective.

 

And Cam Newton isn't the only one. I encourage people to take a look through the league and see if you can find any significant correlation between individual quarterback play and other components of teams (defense, running game, etc.). You won't find one. Quarterbacks have individual ability, that individual ability varies across quarterbacks (some have less, some have more), and it isn't a function of anything going on around them.

In fact, what you'll find much more, if you care to explore it, is that teams vary in their performances based on their quarterback play, much more than quarterbacks vary in their performances based on anything going on around them on their teams. In other words, quarterbacks' individual ability is driving the bus on winning in the league, and that doesn't have anything to do with the rest of anyone's team.

And that shouldn't be a startling finding, given the clamoring teams do in the draft to acquire what's thought to be the next great one, though it seems we have to remind ourselves of this when these hypotheses come about that X or Y quarterback's performance has little to do with his individual ability, and everything to do with what's going on around him.

And X and Y would be Ryan Tannehill and Russell Wilson in this instance, if you haven't noticed.

 

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 850"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Record[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Rating[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TD[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]INT[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TD/INT [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Completion%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]y/a[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4QC[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Mark Sanchez '09
NY- #1 Scoring D
#1 yardage D
#1 Rush Offense[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
8-7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
63.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
-5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
2550[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
53.8%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
6.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Russell Wilson
career avg[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]12-4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]98.6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]28[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+19.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3923[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]63.4%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]differential[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+4 wins[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+35.6 [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+13 TDs [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]-11.3 INT [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+24.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+1373 [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+9.6%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+1.2 [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]+2.2 [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Yup, sheer happenstance that Wilson and Sanchez's stats are polar opposites despite being in virtually identical situations. If the defense & ground game make the QB and are responsible for all of the winning, then why was Sanchez so pathetic and NY just 8-7 with him?

 

Additionally, here are some passing stats that are much less influenced by the QB's own defense, ground game, or both.
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 870"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Passer Rating
Stats[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
Season[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Pass attempts
21-30[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Pass attempts
31-40[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
4+WR
[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
1st Down[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
2nd & 8-10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
2nd & 11+[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Trailing
9-16 pts[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Wilson '14
w/ crap at WR,TE[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]95.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]102.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]108.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]95.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]101.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]109.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]123.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]131.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Sanchez '09
w/ Keller, Edwards,
Cotchery[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]63.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]58.4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]27.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]67.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]64.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]64.4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]26.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]71.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Aaron Rodgers
*w/ Nelson, Cobb, & Co
[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]112.2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]93.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]116.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]114.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]113.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]91.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]84.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]P Manning
w/ D Thomas,
Julius, Sanders [/TD]
[TD="align: center"]101.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]92.6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]97.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]102.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]95.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]108.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]80.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]86.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Brady
w/ Gronk, Edelman[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]97.4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]118.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]83.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]101.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]104.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]85.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]77.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]73.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Roethlisberger
w/ Antonio & Co.[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]103.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]92.6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]117.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]98.2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]104.2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]90.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]106.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Brees
w/ Graham & Co.[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]97.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]106.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]104.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]97.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]83.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Luck
w/ Hilton & Co.[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]93.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]106.6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]80.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]87.4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]90.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Matt Ryan
w/ Julio & Roddy[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]93.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]81.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]98.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]90.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]106.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]81.2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]92.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Tannehill[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]92.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]92.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]80.6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]89.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]95.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]112.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]81.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]87.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Wait what?... so Wilson gets BETTER the more he's asked to throw??
...gets BETTER on 2nd & long [IE: after Lynch wasn't able to impact on 1st down]??
...gets BETTER on 1st Down [IE: when he faces the same 10 yards as everyone else]??
... and gets BETTER when his team is down by 2 scores and the game is placed on his back??

 

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 850"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]NFL RANK[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Scoring
offense
[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]yards
per play
[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Punts
per play[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3 & Out
Percentage[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Points
per drive[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3rd Down
Percentage[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Turnovers
per Game[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Seattle '14 Offense
#1 Scoring D [16.3 ppg]
#1 yardage D [274 ypg]
#5 run Offense [120 ypg][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]10th[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6th[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8th best[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7th best[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3rd[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8th[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3rd[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Jets '09 Offense
#1 Scoring D [15.5 ppg]
#1 yardage D [269 ypg]
#1 run Offense [166 ypg][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]17[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]21[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]22[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]22[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Denver[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]12[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Green Bay[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]New England[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]23[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Philly[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Indy[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]17[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]30[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Dallas[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]18[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]New Orleans[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]21[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]28[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Pitt[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Wait whut? With such a great defense, why wasn't Seattle content to play conservatively on offense, settle for more punts, more 3 & Outs, less big plays, and less points if Wilson allegedly isn't an outstanding QB?

***I omitted QB yards from rushing YPG ranking/stat so that Marshawn Lynch wouldn't get credit for Wilson's 849 yards.

 

come on combine!

 

pretty much 90% of threads on here since the end of the season can basically broken down as such:

 

And THIS ladies and gentleman, should be the end of this thread. Maybe we can start a 45 page thread on why Andrew Luck wouldn't have taken this Dolphins team to the playoffs or something.

 

The main people you've argued with, resnor, piston & me, have all said Wilson is a really good QB. That's provable by simply going back and quoting it being said.

Yet, you and others act as if that's not the case. All that does, is further prove our point about perception and how it can be skewed.

 

Refusing to admit the obvious being a key phrase here. I think that's what tends to irk me and some others. And that's a general thing, not a Russell Wilson thing.

Essentially you still have people out there saying that if Russell Wilson had been drafted to Miami then he'd be doing no more than Tannehill has done and if Tannehill had gone to Seattle we'd be talking about him as the elite quarterback. And this is such a silly thing to believe as to have some of us completely nonplussed.

 

The perception that's skewed is the one that believes his individual performance is caused by some other component of his team, and that one has been thoroughly debunked here.

It's one thing to say Wilson is "really good," and it's another to say he's "really good, but it's because of his defense and running game." The latter of those is wrong.

 

Have I been arguing that Wilson's stats are a result of his team? I didn't think so. I was attempting to show that the wins/losses are a result of the team. Again, I agree that Wilson is good. I've questioned whether or not he would keep stellar stats with a defense that didn't average 15.8 points a game (he very well might), but my main point was that Wilson's individual performance wasn't necessarily the driving force behind the wins. Looking at season stats, Tannehill averaged less than 3 points lower in his rating than Wilson. He threw for more yards. He threw for more tds. He rushed for a bunch of yards, also, but not as much as Wilson, and didn't look as flashy doing it. Winning and making the playoffs definitely colors how people view Wilson. Not saying that it's right or wrong, just that if the Dolphins had made the playoffs the last two years, we'd see almost zero posts about replacing Tannehill.

Yes, Tannehill with a defense that averaged 15.8 points a game would have been in the playoffs. That in no way is taking anything away from Wilson. You can only perceive that as such if you're coming at the conversation from a viewpoint that Wilson is elite, and Tannehill is average and at his ceiling.

 

Then you truly don't understand the argument.

 

But his YPA was almost a yard less than Wilson's, and that is a problem in terms of contributing to his team's ability to win. Wilson's YPA is much, much more strongly associated with winning as a team than Tannehill's.

And that doesn't even touch what Wilson does on the ground, where he rushed for almost 900 yards and over 7 yards a carry. When you combine that sort of passing efficiency with Wilson's rushing numbers, it's very hard to say he isn't a major, driving force in his team's success. Do the defense and running game contribute as well? Sure, but so does Wilson, and in a major way.

Hell, even if you are of the mind that he benefits from eight in the box coverages, and that it was evident in the Super Bowl, take a look at his YPA in that game. It was nearly 12! That gives his team a tremendous chance of winning, and it's far and away above what would be expected on the basis of facing eight in the box coverages alone.

I'm not so sure about that. In 2011 the 49ers went 13-3 and were an overtime field goal short of the Super Bowl. The following year they replaced Alex Smith, who was playing largely like Tannehill at the time, with Colin Kaepernick. Now, you could argue that Smith was at his ceiling at the time, whereas Tannehill's ceiling is still uncertain, but there is no reason to believe that Tannehill's current level of play wouldn't warrant closer scrutiny just because the team were to make the playoffs.

 

Where does holding teams to an average of 15.8 points a game associate with winning?

 

Since 2004, including playoff games -- which encompasses 1,776 total games -- teams that have held their opponents to 16 points or fewer have won 85.8% of their games. It's an incredibly good defensive performance.

When you specify the range as the surrendering of between 13 and 20 points, the win percentage drops to 41%, over 4,885 games during that period.

 

Wow...

We seriously need to consider just creating a whole subsection devoted to Russel Wilson.

 

Does he? Thats pretty elite. He's the anti-Peyton (yeah I don't like Peyton).

 

Well...why isnt that potentially the case? Saying it would or couldnt happen is completely ignoring the coaching part of the equation. How do we know Seattle's coaching staff, Carl Smith QB coach who really worked with Russel Wilson and check this out....talk about two extremely different dynamics;


One of Smith’s first decisions was to let Wilson play. Smith prepared to coach him by watching tapes of the youngster at Wisconsin, and he saw a quarterback who was “terrific outside the pocket,” rolling out with poise, eyes always downfield.

Instead of forcing Wilson to stay in the pocket and work through his progressions, to learn to play like Peyton Manning, Smith encouraged the improv act. In practices, three or four plays a session, Wilson ditches the play and his receivers “react to it,” Smith says.

“My personal impetus was ‘Let’s let him go,’ ” says Smith. “Just let him play and see what happens before we start changing him into something else. We pretty much let him go from Day 1, because when he gets out, he makes great decisions.”


Now, we know in Miami they went in the complete opposite direction as this. In Miami, Russel Wilson would not have had a coach who just let him go.

We all saw the tapes of Tannehill in college, so, imagine if our coaching staff had just done the same thing...let him go, because Tannehill is great outside the pocket.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/seahawks-qb-wilson-man-run-article-1.1598867

 

Why did you use 13? Why not use the lowest points allowed by them, which was 3, and use 30, the highest they scored? If you're not going to go by the average, I don't understand the range you specified. And why go back to 2004?

 

I still think its pretty damned obvious now that they would most likely be two very different QBs if they had swapped. Clearly, their were two very distinct differences of opinion on how to develop what are both very mobile athletic QBs. If one staff coaches him to be a pocket QB first, and the other develops to that QBs strengths...they will develop differently.

 

I haven't read through this entire thread, but are there people actually saying Tannehill is as good as Wilson, it just doesn't look that way because of which team each plays for?

 

This is something in particular that I think gets completely glossed over. But it really needs to be considered, especially what Wilson does in SCRAMBLING.

Ryan Tannehill actually made a difference with his legs this year as the coaches finally got their heads out of their arses and called some option and keeper plays for him. He ran a total of 56 times for 309 yards and 1 TD. That's great. But 30 of those runs for 287 yards and the TD were keeper calls. He only scrambled for positive yardage on a pass call 8 times for 41 yards.

Compare that to Wilson. He too rushed for 371 yards and 6 TDs on keeper calls, so he made a difference with his legs particularly near the goal line where 6 TDs is better than a couple of top 10 rushers at the tailback position this year. But Wilson had 52 scrambles for 505 yards. Think about that. That's 52 times he probably created a 1st down by virtue of his pocket presence and athletic ability.

So let's consider something. Tannehill was sacked 46 times and lost 337 yards on those sacks. Wilson was sacked 42 times and lost 242 yards on those sacks.

So what this means is that Wilson had 546 pass calls (452 attempts + 52 scrambles + 42 sacks) and produced 3,738 yards on them (3,452 passing yards + 505 scrambling yards - 242 sack yards).

Tannehill had 644 pass calls (590 attempts + 8 scrambles + 46 sacks) and produced 3,749 yards on them (4,045 passing yards + 41 scrambling yards - 337 sack yards).

That's 6.85 net yards per pass versus 5.82 net yards per pass. That's a huge disparity.

Something I often do when trying to account for a quarterback's TOTAL contribution to an offense, is plug in a new passer rating by equating sacks to an incomplete pass with negative yardage, and scrambles to a complete pass with positive yardage. Do that and Wilson's passer rating advantage widens to about 5 points on the year.

That 5 points represents about the difference from a career rating standpoint between a Joe Montana and a Jeff Garcia.

 

Yes. Just a few posts above you someone is saying that.

 

This is as useless as someone stating Mike Wallace would be as good as Calvin Johnson if he played in Detroit. Then threw out a ton of useless stats to support that.