Is this the year of the qb? Is Wilson a top 4 qb?

i would say he is a top 5 quarterback. i think he could play in any system and be successful.

Rogers is a 9.936
Luck is a 9.314
Brady is a 9.294
Wilson is a 9.134

Thats all there is to it.
Simple algebra.

w
v

You can shut down Wilson (and teams have) and the Seahags still win. That’s a TEAM there. I think Wilson is perfect for that team in a lot of ways. But, I don’t think he’s the same on a lot of other teams. On most teams, if you struggle to find passing yards, the team would lose. With his current situation, he can still win because of the defense and running game. And, you know that if you have a strong running game, it’s going to open the passing game.

I like Wilson. But, no, I don’t think he’s one of the top 4 QBs. Hey, maybe he will in a few years.

I think the issue with Wilson depends on one’s definition of a QB’s role.

As a tough competitor who can make plays under pressure, Wilson is definitely elite. He is in some ways a throwback QB who would fit into the ’50s era game. He drives the offense without being a spectacular passer–a Bobby Layne type guy.

A guy like this can win–especially on a good team–and make the Hall. He can be a great player.

But a guy like this is probably a bit more dependent on overall team quality. Specifically, he is dependent on a viable running game. I have a hard time seeing Wilson do well without an effective running game. And, indeed, when we have beaten him we have first shut down Lynch. Similarly, such a QB is not really the kind of guy who can pass a team back into a game after falling behind.

Is that a way of saying he is ultimately a 2nd level QB? That’s a matter of personal preference.

Most people would assume that the very best QBs shred defenses with the passing game. Of course, these QBs are also dependent on teammates, especially OL and receivers. But, most observers would probably feel that a great passing QB can overcome more team deficits than the other type. I don’t need to go through the arguments, ’cause you guys know them.

In this sense, Wilson is, IMO, 2nd tier. He is not an elite passer. I have seen the Ram Defense, which has talent but also flaws and limits, shut him down more than once. He simply does not look to me to be an elite passing QB. If you’re looking for that type, Wilson won’t satisfy you.

I suggest that, in the end, the test of a great, great QB lies in his ability to inspire in opponents a sense of inevitability. Playing against a Warner, a Montana or an Elway, or a Unitas, one just never feels confident. Get a lead and you just tremble,m expecting the comeback you can’t stop.

I don’t think Wilson inspires that kind of fear. He can be stopped. Rather readily, if you can hold up to that running game. So, to me, he remains a 2nd tier QB.

But all this is academic. ON A GOOD TEAM–such as his Hawks–Wilson can win, and win, and win. And it’s hard to argue against that.

Wilson makes that O go. You could argue Lynch, but I think Wilson is the man is Seattle – we will find out more over the next two weeks and next season when Lynch is likely gone. Dude makes plays when things break down – is the BEST running QB in the league and a great passer – reminds me of Steve Young. He is a top 5 QB. Name 5 better and its splitting hairs. Plus he already has the hardware and is looking for more.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by lyser.

zn wrote:

I don’t agree. Wilson fits a scheme. He gets to qb a team that is 32nd in passing attempts and 27th in passing yards, but 1st in defense and 4th in rushing attempts.

Subtract Lynch from that offense and make it a decent and not great defense, and Wilson is far more exposed.

I can name 7-8 better and it’s not splitting hairs, they’re better.

Brady
Luck
Rogers – give u those guys.

I feel the next tier (Brees, Rivers, Rothlisberger, Flacco, P. Manning (at his age) are all very even if not under Rusty Wilson. Debatable. Course there is always the wonder boy A. Davis…

Wilson knows when to step his game up. There are those players in sports, that can make that key play, key throw, etc. Wilson does that. Sure you can talk about luck such as the onside kick Brandon Bostick muffed up on in the NFC Title game, but those things happen, but he still makes plays, like the throw to Doug Baldwin in that game as well.

Conversation about Wilson reminds me a bit
of the conversations about Joe Montana over
the years. Montana was surrounded by an allstar
cast, and he didnt have the big arm,
but he was clutch, and tough and smart, etc.
Was he as pure a passer as Marino or Bert Jones
or the stud-athletes? Nah.

But he was Montana. And R.Wilson is R.Wilson.
…yeah, i dunno what that means either 🙂

If i were starting a team, i would take
a Luck over Wilson. And i would take a young
A.Rogers over Wilson. After that it gets murky.

w
v
===================
Laram

2 of the INT’s came off of perfect passes that receivers muffed so you can’t just look at the numbers.

If I were starting a team today, it would begin with Russell Wilson.

Aaron Rodgers is the best most gifted passer in the NFL, but Wilson is the best clutch player in the game.

He’s a winner. You can always count on him to make the play(s) to win the game.

People that want to claim that he’s a product of his defense haven’t paid attention.

Go back to the NFC Championship game against the Whiners. Hags don’t make it w/o his clutch throws in the 4th qtr.

The dude is money, and has been throughout his brief career..

I don’t care if you win it with Showtime or you win it with the triangle.

To coin a phrase…just win baby. And Russell Wilson wins!!

• This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by wv.

That Green Bay game was a great showcase of what Wilson offers on the field. First of all, without that clutch Seattle defense, Green Bay wins running away, and you would have been talking about how Wilson’s INTs sunk the Seahawks. And, how Wilson would often run around and take sacks instead of getting rid of the ball and playing field position. Instead of putting the game away, Green Bay farts away great field position time and again. So, Seattle sticks around. Eventually, Lynch starts hitting some big runs and pops a TD. Seattle never gave up on the running game, even behind. That’s to the coaching staff’s credit. They knew that you can’t just put the game on Wilson’s shoulders. You need the credible threat of a running attack.

In the process, Wilson hits on some key passes, and then he makes the clutch throw that wins the game.

Wilson can make some big plays, with his feet and his arm, and oftentimes it’s in crunch time. I’ll give him that. He has that intangible where he always believes in his ability and he never shrinks from the moment.

But, if he has a decent game and protects the ball, let’s be honest, Seattle wins that one handily. Without good field position most of the game, Green Bay would have had a tough time eking out points.

if Lynch and Seattle doesn’t rush for 194 yards….

if the FG holder doesn’t throw the Seahawks’ first TD pass of the game

if Bostek blocks on the on-side kick instead of pulling a bill buckner

if the hail mary duck is not completed on the 2 point conversion

if Seattle’s defense doesn’t hold Green Bay to 16 points after 4 turnovers in the first half.

we’d be talking about Wilson’s actual passer rating of 44, with a 50% completion rate, with 4 INTS (and that’s including the last 4 minutes of the game.)

If Dieter Brock had this support in 1985, he’d be a Super Bowl QB and there’d be no 85 Bears.

All these steps above needed to happen to dig Seattle out of the hole that Russell Wilson put them in to have this consideration.

wv wrote:

Well, I am not persuaded.
For one thing, I think that view minimizes the “Bill Walsh is an Offensive Genius” factor.
A lot of what Montana did was because Walsh designed such a magnificent offense.
I suspect if you put Russell Wilson on that 49er team, nothing much changes.
Who knows though.
w
v

Montana went to the Championship game in Kansas City and was a concussion away from the Super Bowl that year, and that was without Bill Walsh.
it took Steve Young, (who I think is better than Russell Wilson) some salary cap magic, border line cheating from Carmen Policy to get Steve Young to the Super Bowl.

Montana was a great QB………

I like Wilson, but he was drafted on pretty complete Seahawks teams. You have to consider that even Charlie Whitehurst won playoff games with Seattle.

joemad wrote:

Montana went to the Championship game in Kansas City and was a concussion away from the Super Bowl that year, and that was without Bill Walsh.
it took Steve Young, (who I think is better than Russell Wilson) some salary cap magic, border line cheating from Carmen Policy to get Steve Young to the Super Bowl.

Montana was a great QB………

I like Wilson, but he was drafted on pretty complete Seahawks teams. You have to consider that even Charlie Whitehurst won playoff games with Seattle.

I agree, Montana was great. But the question is what does ‘great’ mean. Its contested ground as to what “great” means
when we are talking about a player who is one eleventh of a Team. Its hard to isolate their attributes and its
hard to compare ‘greatness’ for all the obvious reasons. This kind of thing is never ‘settled’ — its just
a continuous conversation, with people wondering about all sorts of things over time. Fun stuff, in other words.

For me, the Chief experience supports ‘my’ position — I remember thinking at the time, Montana looks good as a Chief
but not nearly as good as when he was with Bill Walsh. The Montana vs Elway game was fun as i recall. Now we have Wilson vs Brady 🙂

w
v