Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by phinswolverinesrockets, Jun 22, 2014.
Efficiency = making plays very frequently.
An efficient quarterback IS a play maker.
I never understood how efficient has always had the connotation of being less than ideal.
except for his 8 Fourth Quarter Comebacks the past 2 years, most in the NFL.
Wilson is EASILY one of the top 5 clutch QBs in the game right now and can carry his team when it needs to be carried. What you're doing is docking him simply b/c he doesn't need to carry his team on a weekly basis, and that's entirely unfair. Wilson had about the worst pass protection in the league last year and had a mediocre group of targets to throw to with Harvin & Rice injured, yet that didn't stop him from posting another 100+ Passer Rating, the 4th best First Down Percentage, and tied for 4th best Yards Per Attempt. He and Marshawn Lynch had to manufacture their own yards b/c that line was so terrible. If it weren't for Wilson's ability to CARRY Seattle when they needed it, the Seahawks would've failed to make the playoffs in 2012, wouldn't have gained home field advantage last year, and would've failed to make it past San Fran in the playoffs. Wilson is so integral to Seattle's overall success it isn't funny.
I simply don't get your bilateral argument WADR. On one hand you make excuses for Tannehill's play by suggesting he's being hindered and held back due to poor offensive support/protection which is placing too much on his own shoulders, but then when it comes to a QB who has had a tremendous amount of success, you knock that success because he doesn't always have to do it on his own. So does that mean if Miami goes 12-4 this year behind a cohesive Oline, a stiffer defense, and an improved ground game, will you then discredit Tannehill's stellar and efficient season just b/c he no longer needed to do it all on his own on a weekly basis in similar fashion to how you're condemning Wilson?
I guess we'll see how the NFL feels about Russell Wilson when the final 20 spots of the Top 100 are revealed. He'll either be omitted b/c the league believes he doesn't have to do much..... or he'll be planted in the top 20 because he's a major difference maker and significant contributor to Seattle's success.
Oh wait, he was voted #51 on last year's list.
Can't wait to hear the players' reasoning for Wilson's spot in the Top 20.
here's what Vernon Davis had to say about Wilson after meeting him 5 times in 2 years:
I think GM was saucin it up when lookin at that 22..suprised quite honestly........your my boy blu!!!
Wilson is a knife of a playmaker., he'll cut you up real nice.
The playmaking he has is only engaged when the pressure heaps upon him, that's why he gets calm in pressure situations, he knows he has the sixth sense the most only dream about, and the beautiful specific escapability talent that is the best in the league.
No one in the league is as precise as Russell Wilson when it comes to extending a play..it's so precise he allows himself extra space when he scrambles, why do you think he never takes a lick?, because his senses and athleticism is smarter and better than the other guys.
8 4th quarter comebacks, really?
Are you counting the phantom TD vs Green Bay? The wild card game where RG3's knee fell apart and Washington could barely get a first down in the 2nd half? The Carolina game where he put up a whopping 12 points? The Houston game where Tate's fumble, Sherman's pick 6, and Seattle's D pitching a 2nd half shut out keyed the comeback? They also pitched a 2nd half shut out in the comeback vs Tampa? Tell me you're not counting the Rams game where he had like 100 yds passing and Seattle's D stopped St Louis on 7 goal to go plays in the last minute? That's 6, what were the other two? New England, a legit comeback and.....?
He was 8-19 for 142 yds 1 TD and 1 INT vs SF in week two. The beat the 49ers by 26. He was pedestrian in the Super Bowl and they won by 35. I don't have to tell you how those types of things happen. Or do I?
Wilson ain't easily top 5 in anything other than scrambling and being overrated. Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Manning, Ryan are the top 5 clutch guys. Which one of those guys are you bumping to put RW on thT list.
Rodgers, Manning, Brees and Brady are the elite QBs. Roethlisberger, Ryan, Rivers are next. Then there's Luck, Romo, Cutler, Stafford, Newton, Flacco, Wilson, Eli, all bunched together. You say I'm dissing RW I think it's more accurate to say you're dissing QBs all across the league.
You keep talking about the pressure of a collapsing pocket. What about the pressure of a collapsing defense? A defense that can't get off the field, that's giving up 20-25-30 pts a game and forcing their offense to keep pace? That's when elite QBs show their worth. Or they show their worth by putting up 20-25-30 pts of their own and forcing the other team to keep pace.
Lmao. I think the NFL draft is a much better assessment of how the NFL feels about players. What's next, are we gonna judge guys based on their fantasy rankings?
I'd like just one of you guys to point out a game or a series of games where RW showed he was an elite QB. You know I have the all 22, point me in the right direction so I can see the light
How you've conjured up the opinion that Wilson is overrated is beyond me..the dude posts record numbers, wins the Super Bowl, almost get to another, all in his first two years, keeps his mistakes down, makes plays when he needs to, yet he overrated, by whom?
The guy is playing at a high level, your attempt to discredit him because of variables behind his control or that you watch tape is incorrect in this case, jmo..
If I'm starting a franchise 2maro and age is a factor, Wilson is in the elite class with Rodgers, luck, Wilson, Kapernick..
Pretty sure you would be the only name with the initials of GM that would think not..he has nothing to prove, not sure your compartmentalizing his skillset accurately.
Seeing that your outnumbered and have the tape, how bout you show us.
I watched some kind of film about Wilson preseason to his year at Wisconsin and one thing he has tons of is charisma. Tons. His teammates love him and he makes them better.
Wow, so much for all those HOF QBs who had the support of a great defense behind their backs. Guess we should probably strip Montana, Young, Aikman, Kelly, Bradshaw, Tarkenton, Griese, Dawson, and Starr of their Canton honors, eh? Hell, how many Super Bowls has Brady won without the aid of a great defense behind him? What's that you say, zero? Look at Marino's career-- 5 times did he have a defense ranked 20th or lower; none of those years did Miami make the playoffs...... so either Marino wasn't an elite QB or your definition needs to change.
Aaron Rodgers needed the NFL's #2 defense to win his SB in 2010, meanwhile his offense ranked 10th in scoring [24.2 PPG], which ironically is worse than the guy you're hating on. Rodgers threw a whopping 2 more TDs that year. In order for Rodgers to squeak into a Wildcard spot he needed a 9-0 win over the Jets and a 10-3 win over the Bears to overcome a 3-7 loss to Detroit, a 13-16 loss to Washington, and a pair of 17-20 losses to Chicago & Atlanta. He has 6 4th Quarter Comebacks in 6 years. Wilson has 8 in 2.
Favre needed the #1 D to win his SB.
Theismann needed the #1 D as well.
Namath was only able to make the playoffs with a top 4 scoring & yardage D.
Kurt Warner won his lone SB with the NFL's #4 scoring D.
Warner scored 30 touchdowns during Zona's 2008 SB season. Wilson scored 30 TDs as a goddam rookie and but did so in 129 less attempts. Yeah, but that guy doesn't know how to score. *rolleyes*
During Peyton Manning's lone SB season, Indy's defense bailed him out allowing 8 and 6 points in their opening two playoff games while Manning farted his way through 5 INTs and just 1 TD.... and then in the Super Bowl he accounted for 7 of Indy's 29 points while his defense and special teams allowed 17.
.... and it's funny you previously mentioned Roethlisberger who won 2 Super Bowls with the #1 & #3 ranked defense and made another SB trip with the #1 defense.
I'll give you one before he truly started emerging as elite. 2012 vs New England.
Wilson overcomes a 23-10 deficit with 9 minutes to play, including a 47 yarder to win it with a minute left. Lynch ran for 41 yards that day, so it was the Russell Wilson show beating Tom Brady.
How 'bout the 34 point game vs Zona's 7th ranked scoring D this year? That was a great game. One of the two better throws of the year were in that game, by Wilson of course. It's another game where Lynch was held under a 100 and the defense allowed over 20.
none of this changes the fact that when the game is ON THE LINE in the 4th quarter and Seattle needs Wilson to win it, he did so more successfully than any QB the past 2 years. Not only are his 8 the highest in the NFL but the percentage for which he wins in the 4th quarter is also the highest in the league, meaning he's also the most efficient 4th quarter winner.
Wilson was also 3rd in the NFL last year in pass plays over 25 yards with 36..... but... but... but he only threw the ball 407 times.
He had the 6th highest Passer Rating in 4+ receiver sets.... so apparently he holds up damn well in obvious passing situations.
He threw the 5th most first half TDs.
You can't fault Wilson for having a great defense behind him..... just as you can't fault Aaron Rodgers' offense for scoring 24 PPG during his 2010 SB season when his defense was lights out. BTW, that's 2 points less than Wilson's offense this year, and that was with a significantly better receiving corpse than Seattle's. Do you think Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have his attempts limited behind Eddie Lacy and if Green Bay's defense regains its 2010 form? Cmon.
Tom Brady had 1 TD, 1 INT, and 116 yards against Miami in week 8 but New England scored 27 points and won by 10. What's your point?
I'm not really sure how a 123.1 Passer Rating, 72% completions, 2 TDs to 0 INTs, and 6 of 7 converting 3rd & 12 or less is considered pedestrian.... in a Super Bowl no less. If Wilson was "pedestrian" then what does that make Manning?
Matt Ryan gets bumped for Wilson all day every day IMO. Ryan was 4-12 this year and with just 1 Fourth Quarter Comeback despite alllll those opportunities. Coincidentally he didn't have Julio for half the year, had Roddy banged up, and Gonzalez in his final season, making it a similar receiving corpse to what Wilson had all year.
I guess we'll see who's dissing who as this unfolds further. After Marino, Wilson is probably the best QB through the first two years of his career in NFL history. When praise is heaped upon him by his peers as being one of the best players in the game [during his upcoming Top 100 clip], what will your response be to it?
Todd do you have any stats on his third down conversion rate when the ball is not handed off, that includes passes and rushes.?
Matt Ryan beat Wilson the year before in the playoffs. Atlanta lost all of its receivers, had no run game and no defense. Basically nothing but Matt Ryan. They still scored 22 PTs per game. That's playoffs with a defense that allows 14 a game. Despite having to trot out all those new pieces he did not have a terrible year stats wise. 68% accuracy, 4500 yards, more TDs than INTs. I don't see how they still don't win the SB with him at the helm.
Almost any QB with that defense would have a spectacular record. Are we forgetting the Seahawks kept the highest scoring offense ever below 10 PTs?? Mark Sanchez would have won that game. The had a safety and a defensive td early. That's 9 PTs. Russell just needed to hand it off the rest of the game
Russell vs Matt Ryan. That's a tough one. You can do a lot with 68% accuracy the past two years and a good INT rate. Wilson is more mobile which helps if your line sucks.
Russell Wilson versus Matt Ryan is not a tough question.
It's because most people associate it with less prolific passers. A QB who goes 14 for 20, 200 yards, 1 or 2 TDs, no INTs is labeled "efficient." The QB who throws for 28/40 and 350 yards is prolific. Same percentage of completions. While you'll hear "efficient" used sometimes to describe QB#2, you will not hear him being given the efficient label.
QB #1 usually needs good field position and a solid running game. Hence people think it not ideal.
You're right. Matt Ryan all the way.
Time will tell. That defense can't possibly hold up over the long haul. Eventually the run game will be even more mediocre than it is now. That will be the test. Soon enough.
To each their own. I doubt there are very many football people that agree with that.
I rate Wilson over Matt Ryan easily. While I believe that Wilson benefited from the system he was in, the way the coaches protected him and that he wasn't asked to make every play, the fact is that when called upon he did make a ton of plays. I don't believe you can say the same about Matt Ryan. I see his production as an example of empty stats. He produced well enough when those around him made plays, but he rarely did anything to make those around him better. I rarely see Matt Ryan carry his team or make the play when those around him fail. I do see Wilson do that.
Hey I'm all in on Wilson. 4 more years in a dynasty league (since Eli crapped the bed the past two seasons ... I'm going to try and steal Tannehill from a buddy) with him at the helm. A few more 300 yard games 2-3 TDs please instead of 150 yards, 2TDs. Which happens too often for my tastes.
Is Wilson good enough to carry a team that averages 70 ypg rushing and gives up 30 pts? A Peyton Manning can. Drew Brees can. Tom Brady can. Can Russell? 1/3 of his season last year had him throwing for 150 yards (give or take 20) or less. Is he still as efficient if he has to make up for a worse run game and defense? I sure hope so!
There's a lot more myth than reality with respect to whether Russell Wilson has been carried or has been the one doing the carrying.
First off he dropped back to pass 30+ times in a game 13 times in 2013, playoffs included. Sure he may end up scrambling for first downs part of that time but that shouldn't be held against him.
I'm sure you can do some sort of analysis on what his ratings were or how many points they scored when the running game wasn't working. Maybe it makes Russell Wilson look good, or maybe it makes Russell Wilson look bad. I don't know, and I don't care.
I remember doing a very keen analysis on Drew Brees 2004 and 2005 seasons that correlated very strongly his effectiveness as a passer with whether LaDainian Tomlinson and the other runners were going off on a rampage during the game, and it couldn't have possibly been more statistically clear that when the ground game was going well Brees was efficient and when it wasn't he wasn't nearly as efficient. That analysis should have been tossed directly in the garbage can for all it actually meant for Brees going forward from the moment he donned a Saints uniform.
The bottom line is Russell Wilson performs well statistically, he performs well on tape, he performs extremely well in clutch situations, and he makes plays. For those that see that, kudos. For those that don't, just a wait a little longer. You'll see it soon enough. It reminds me of all those people who kept insisting Tom Brady was a glorified game manager that couldn't carry a team with the passing game, until they stepped on the gas with the passing game and started tearing up the record books. Oops.
You had Matt Ryan as a near elite guy just a couple of years ago, pending a good post season performance. Well I think he played pretty well in 2012's playoff (105 rating but his defense failed him again and yes two crucial 2nd half TOs). If they had any run game they might have been in the Superbowl and not the Niners.
Have you now knocked him down a few pegs? I think, considering how ravaged their personnel was last year he played admirably well. Can't win games when the other team scores 28 and you have the worst run game in the league. Yet they still outscored our offense
Do people really believe in clutch? Maybe it's the fact that I read FJM for years but good players make more plays then mediocre or bad players do, hence the fact that they're considered good.
A pitcher is different when he starts the first inning up by 5 or down by 5. Is Russell the same guy without a defense pitching 15 points a game the first year, and 14.5 pts a game his second year? Remember, I love Wilson and am on his side every day in here when it inevitably comes to Tannehill vs. Wilson that every thread devolves into. But when we're talking about putting him in elite categories I'm just pumping the brakes a little. I see a lot of similarity between his start and Ben Roethlisberger. Other than Big Ben being ... well Big, he also started out with two 100'ish QBR seasons, not a lot of passes, success his first year, Super Bowl win his second (Wilson had more TDs in the 2nd year though). Same questions were raised. Can he carry a team? Can he be a 30 TD guy instead of 17? Why yes, yes he can and his 4th year he had a 105QBR season and 30 TDs.
But is he elite? I don't think so. I think that's where Russell's ceiling is, which is really good. But I could be wrong. I'm not Nostradamus and nobody else is either.
There are quite a few quarterbacks in that "near elite" category. I never had Matt Ryan up on par with Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Phil Rivers or Eli Manning. But when you're looking at that next level where you have guys go up-and-down like Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, Matt Stafford and Joe Flacco, and I would say Matt Ryan was in that group and still is in that group. If the environment has changed at all it's mostly because of some new shooters that have stuck their head right in the mix, guys like Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Colin Kaepernick, Robert Griffin and Russell Wilson. You might end up adding Nick Foles into that too. We're hoping Ryan Tannehill gets there. Some of those guys won't be ahead of Matt Ryan (yet?) and some of them most definitely will be. Russell Wilson is the latter.
Ben Roethlisberger has absolutely been elite. He's a multiple championship caliber quarterback.
I don't really believe in "clutch" when it comes to professional athletes. By that point athletes have put in so much practice and have so much experience that they're rarely doing anything more than playing at what ever level they're at. Most every player ends up playing the same in "clutch" situations as they do in "non-clutch" situations. The differences are usually just related to sample size. Given enough opportunities most professional athletes will match their averages regardless of the situations.
But I don't think that "clutch" or "not-clutch" is the issue with Matt Ryan. I just see him as a non-elite QB. I think he's a very good QB, but I don't see him as a guy who elevates or carries his team. I don't see him making that great play when things around him break down. I don't mean just running around, although that's one way to do it. It could be making that great pass or creating just enough space to buy a little more time (Marino did that by stepping up in the pocket and Brady did it by fading back as he threw). That ability to carry the team is how I define "elite" and I just don't see that In Matt Ryan.
To me, elite is, nobody better. Take your pick. Can't decide.
Big Ben's never been in that group for me. You don't need elite to win Super Bowls. The Steelers crushing defenses always accompanied his Super Bowl appearances. Their defense has slackened lately. So have the Steelers. Age is now a factor, so go back 3-4 years ago, you have your choice: Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Manning, Big Ben. Do you take Big Ben over any of the other 4? If I'm playing the NFL lottery and starting a new team, and I get any of those 4 I'm ecstatic. If I get Ben I'm happy but then I'm wishing I got one of the other 4 instead.
But he's in the group right below it. Hell Brees was in that group too (and if someone says he's a notch below, I wouldn't argue) because of his penchant for throwing a few more INTs (upper 2s low 3s percentage wise). The elite guys were throwing 1s and low 2s %.
I have Big Ben, Drew Brees for a few years, Philip Rivers a notch below the elites. I may add Wilson to that list after another stellar year. I have him and Matt Ryan a notch below the Big Ben/Philip Rivers group. I like Matt's game, probably more than most. Even as bad as he was last year he didn't throw a lot of INTs which to me, are killer. You win multiple championships with Matt Ryan and that Seattle D, in my opinion. Not unlike Ben and the Steelers. Foles will be interesting. If he can sustain those numbers (unlikely) he's going to be something to behold.
If Ryan Tannehill gets into the Rivers/Big Ben group I'm ecstatic. That's championship level. Hell a Joe Flacco wins it and he's definitely not in that group.
I agree, the Arizona game was probably his best of the season. The TD to Miller was indeed a great throw. The one to Rice was OK but I'd put that more on Yeremiah Bell for sucking. I doubt Arizona would have scored 20 if Wilson doesn't fumble inside his own 10 yard line.
Please share are your thoughts on the St Louis game that came next...
I have Big Ben in that elite group as well. IMO he clearly has shown the ability to carry the team and to make plays when things broke down around him.
I don't agree that Seattle wins multiple championships with Matt Ryan. I don't think he fits well there and I don't think he makes plays behind that crappy OL last year. When things broke down (protection crapped out, receivers ran wrong patterns, etc.) I don't see Matt Ryan making a play. I don't see him being successful protecting that OL by running some read-option or being as good at throwing on the run or running in those run/pass option plays that Seattle ran. I saw Tannehill make more plays when things broke down last year than I've seen Matt Ryan make his whole career. I just see Matt Ryan as that game manager that doesn't elevate the team. He's a very good game manager, but he doesn't make the team better.
By that definition the only elite player in basketball is LeBron James.
Therefore, I don't like that definition.
Here we go w the hyperbole. If Wilson has a strong arm then what do Flacco, Stafford, Rodgers, Newton, Cutler have? Bionic arms? If he's "accurate" then what are Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers, surgical? It's ridiculous, but it supports your point so go ahead and put it out there lol.
Wilson has a "good enough" arm, like 95% of NFL QBs. But he's too short to make a lot of throws, especially the intermediate and outside stuff, particularly from inside the pocket, and he struggles to drive the ball when he doesn't have space to step into his throws. His staff does a great job of playing to his strengths, lots of play action, moving pockets, etc and RW is very much aware of his limitations as a passer so you don't see him trying the higher degree of difficulty stuff.
No, by that definition Lebron doesn't play all 5 positions. Do you take him over all the other Centers in the league??? He can play all 5 positions, is he the best at all 5? Serious question, I don't watch a ton of BB.
There's Lebron and then everyone else. There's Rodgers and then everyone else. But for sake of arguement I'd say the top 3-4 guys should be called elite, 5 at the most. Any more than that and you're watering down the definition of the term.
To me, elite is top. No other classification left. if there is significant separation within members of that group, then what do you call that difference? Higher elite and lower elite? That's just silly.
If you want to separate elite into the upper echelon, and then the Best, that's fine too. My elite = your "best." Same concept different terms.
Damn close. Probably 1 thru 4 easily.
Either way I think that's a bogus definition. By your definition every person should only have one quarterback they deem elite.