Re: Passing League? Russel Wilson proves otherwise
posted at 3/2/2014 8:59 AM EST
In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
For almost a decade...it's been turning into, and became a "passing league".
Teams HAVE to pass to win in this league! That's what I keep hearing.
I've contended it is NOT a passing league...it's a league that has gotten ADDICTED to passing, but throwing the ball all over the world leads to no more wins than Kelly's K-Gun, the 98 Vikes, 07 Pats, or 13 Broncos.
Russel Wilson was the ULTIMATE 'game manager'.
3357 yards. That number, alone, is pathetic in 'today's NFL'. If anyone said "What if Brady?manning ended up with that total...fans would this the season went horribly wrong. It was the 16th highest total among NFL QBs, and 3rd lowest of QBs who played all 16, ahead of only Kaepernick and Geno Smith. But it's not about throwing all the time, it's about throwing at the RIGHT times, and limiting mistakes.
Rating: 101.2. 7th in the NFL
TD:INT: 26:9. TDs tie him for 9th most, 21 OTHER QBS threw MORE INTs! Many of those with fewer than 16 games.
Compl %: 63.1, which ties him for 12th! I will say this, the rules have certainly made it easier to complete passes. 3 QBs had %s above 68.
This HAS been the way to win in the NFL, and I see no real reason why it would ever change. You need an opportunistic QB, solid D, solid running game. SF, who everyone sees as the 2nd best team in football, did it the exact same way. Car, another top 5 team in football, did it the same way. Den and NE did not.
It is easy to look at the numbers and say a managing QB is all you need see.... I watched every Seattle game because I live here in WA. Now Wilson didn't make a lot of mistakes, but his offense was not that great.
If the defense and ST did not set that offense up to get great field position again and again, it wasn't a even a good offense most games. Team that have a "game managing" QB better have a defense that can give the O plenty of chances to score. I'm not saying Wilson is bad, but the team on offense had issues throughout the year. That D and ST often rescued the O by the scoring or getting the ball back with great field position.
Although the O had some key injuries on the offensive line, the D stay mostly healthy and intact on the field. Seattle had great depth in the key positions on the D so even with minor injuries and legal troubles they never skipped a beat. I think this had more to do with Seattle staying strong through out the year and by the end of the season the Offense got healthier and started to click were it was more of a threat to drive the ball.
This whole addicted to scoring by throwing the ball vs not on winning is more dependent on having all the pieces on defense than how effective the passing and running game was....
There are plenty of examples of this throughout football history were teams with the best D and ok performing offenses can win it all. The thing is how hard it is the assemble a great d vs. if you have a great QB and a few good weapons on O to have they same chances of winning.
These coaches are mot morons, most teams would take an average QB and have the number one ranked D with depth any day. Seattle hit on almost every draft and free agent on that side of the ball. It really is amazing how they did it but how many teams can repeat that process, hell can the Seattle gm stay that lucky?