----Spock, Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan
One of the most telling moments of the game, the one that gave me hope, was just after the 'Skins had scored their second touchdown. Fox panned over to Wilson on the sideline.
Mr. Stoic was Mr. Stoic. "I've got this" was his look. "What me worry? You proceed from a false premise......"
I turned to my wife after that shot and said the Seahawks defense had come out and took the Redskins' best shot. We'll see if they're just like prior Seattle teams or whether they really are different. I've posted in several forums about how it was nice to have a team that could, win or lose, smack a team in the mouth. That kind of willingness to get in the fight was refreshing. I could respect a team that does that, even if they don't win every time they do.
When I was an elementary school kid, I was the guy afraid to fight. I'd hold my own in athletic endeavors, but avoided any confrontations that might lead to, uh, something a little more. I'd back down. Other kids, of course, sensed that so I became a target for some of the local bullies. Finally, I had a coach (Dad), who said that it would never stop until I gained some respect from some of them. He then told me that the next time I faced situation like that not to back down. But he also said, "if you don't back down, make sure you make it count, because you may not win the fight". I did what he said. Got my backside kicked. But I made it count. I was willing to hit back. After that, nothing ever escalated again, and in athletic events, other guys knew I would "hit 'em back", whether I won or lost. That life lesson never left.
To me, that story kinda relates to Seattle sports. This is the first team I can remember that could get off the floor after a knockdown and their opponents know their day isn't going to be easy. They may not take this thing all the way. In fact I think the receiver issue will ultimately stop them. But they're gonna throw down with anyone.
And their on-field leader exempifies it. So does their coach.
Great stuff.
.
Trent Dilfer was en fuego Sunday night -- they were literally running in from off camera to fan out the flames. Did you catch it? Whether it was Dilfer's Dimes, whether it was post-RGIII reaction, whether it was Wilson analysis, whether it was being called in to swap punches with Boomer and Tom Jackson ... you can't stop Trent Dilfer, you can only hope to contain him.
.
=== Flinch Response ===
Dilfer marvelled at the Redskins coming out and splashing the bowling pins all over the back of the catch-basin on their first two strikes. Big crowd, bright lights in the nation's capital, only NFL game on in the country, Redskins tsunami crashes over the Seahawks and ....
ZERO FLINCH RESPONSE. Dilfer's words.
Seahawks down 14-0 in the first. Rookie QB, on the road, the dogs barking. The Seahawks come out, go back to work, and ... how shrill are they? What's the very opposite of shrill? They were like Kirk and Spock and Sulu and Uhura in 1967. Bracketed by Klingons, sir. Shields at 12%. Incoming fire. ... tea, anybody? Yes, ensign, with lemon, and patch me through on subspace line three. We have six seconds left, sir ... :: wink :: Scotty, do that theoretical plasma burst thing.
Lynch fumbled on the two, Dilfer said. Followed by --- > zero flinch response.
The Seahawks blew three straight TD opportunties, said not Dilfer, but Dr. D. You had the fumble on the two ... next drive, Wilson misses Rice deep and overthrows Baldwin ... drive after, no points there... 4th quarter clicks over and we're still down 14-13. I started to get a sick feeling. Wilson? --- > zero flinch response.
The NFL ex-players were unanimous. It is Russell Wilson's attitude that is seeping into the rest of the players.
.............
I've seen one other athlete with stillness equal to Russell Wilson's. That was Larry Bird. The Celtics were a horrible team in 1978; they had 29 wins and were really worse than that; they were a bygone relic from the 1970's cocaine era in the NBA. They drafted Bird and went 61-21 the next year. Losses seemed like flukes. One rookie cleaned up an entire city, and he did it from the first preseason game.
Seahawks fans are staring down the barrel of a dynasty,* because of one young player.
Not talking hype. Talking fact. Wilson's self-belief is not reasonable. It is not rational for him to believe that he can do the things he's doing.
Dilfer isn't caught up in Russell Wilson hype, because there isn't any. Neither is Dr. D caught up in Russell Wilson hype. We're just reporting on a strange development. Russell Wilson is either missing the portion of his brain that relates to anxiety, or else he is in total control of his own emotions. This is something very unusual.
... perhaps the rookie Joe Montana was as self-possessed as Bird and Wilson. Could be.
.............
Dr. D wants you to take five breaths, re-set, and ... visualize a Russell Wilson season, if he had some receivers getting open for him. What a light show we'd have then.
Possibly this offseason, Carroll will get to work on adding a feature receiver to complete the puzzle.
.
.
=== RGIII ===
Dr. D gets some of them wrong. Not this one, gentlemen, not this one. ;- ) After the game, Griffin and Shanahan flatly stated that Griffin's knee did not affect his throwing. I didn't think so either. What did affect his throwing, was that the rookie Griffin isn't a very good (pocket) quarterback yet.
Richard Sherman might have affected his throwing a little bit, too, I'll grant you. The Seahawks' best three defenders, 1976-2012, seem to have been Kenny Easley, Cortez Kennedy, and Richard Sherman.
Russell Wilson went into Robert Griffin's house, trashed the place, left him duct-taped to a kitchen chair, and grabbed a brew on his way out.
As of today, anyway, Griffin is not in Russell Wilson's class as an NFL quarterback. ... If the incumbent were Tarvaris Jackson or Matt Flynn, then I'd love to have RGIII as the Seahawks' quarterback, of course. He's a super cool person and a super cool athlete.
He just ain't Russell Wilson. Those guys only come along once in a long while.
Tomorrow's news today,
Dr D
............
*No, not five Super Bowl wins, necessarily. But six or seven NFC Championship game appearances during Wilson's reign? Sure.
Comments
...is that their weak spot is now an easily addressed roster upgrade. They just need one legit playmaking WR and a good TE and boom...they're world champs.
Let's see what they acquire in the offseason. :) Of course, in the here and now, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them. Many a Superbowl has been won by the more physical football team who could play ace defense against supposedly flashy offensive clubs and grind out a couple of TDs the hard way. And...the NFC is really weak this year...ATL is way overrated and that is our toughest opponent left until we get to the Superbowl and face New England (see what I did there...I think the AFC is a foregone conclusion. :) )
Having seen Wilson up close and personal while he was at NC State, I think your put on him is 100% on the money. He has an exceptional mind to go along with incredible skill. Great put.
Sorry ... but I will disagree completely with the assessment on RG3. Having spent years whistling at the wind about what a horrid pocket QB Michael Vick was, I understand that being mobile does not mean you can pass.
But, if you are a "poor" pocket QB, it is IMPOSSIBLE to run a QB rating over 100 for 16 games ... especially as a rookie, before you start getting some benefit from experience. (Vick ran QBR of 62 in his first 111 attempts - and only hit 81 in his second season - which would be his best year, before his humbling time in the pokey).
RG3 ran a 102 QBR with 20-TDs and only 5-Ints over the season. He completed 65.6% of his passes. He was NOT simply a run-happy mobile kid getting by on his legs, (think Tebow, who in fact is a horrid QB).
You know who is NOT a good pocket QB yet? Andrew Luck ... who posted a 76.5 QBR and only completed 54% of his passes. I got to see RG3 several times this year, (the Redskins being the fallback "local" NFC teams when the Panthers were not the primary regional game). He's not Peyton Manning - and his feet definitely help him out - but I find it ... (it's hard to come up with a word that doesn't come across as insulting, which is not my intent) ... disconcerting to suggest RG3 is significantly different in effectiveness when Wilson and Griffin both threw exactly 393 times, and the sum total difference in those was RG3 completed 6 MORE passes for 82 more yards, (with 5 fewer interceptions).
In QBR, RG3 finished behind only Rogers and Peyton - (and one spot above Wilson).
I got to see RG3 before he got hurt. He was not prone to "sailing" the ball during the rest of the season. And no, I am no 'Skins fan. I grew up a Cowboy fan thanks to a father raised in Texas. So, this is not local bias.
My take would be "some" of the poor game by RG3 was related to his leg. But, I think the cause was subtle. Compared to pre-injury RG3, he looked "late" ... like his drop back was a tenth of a second slower. His timing was off, and he sailed more balls than normal.
Honestly, I saw a different player after he tweaked his leg near the end zone just before the 2nd TD. Some of that was probably Seattle adjustments. But, 6/9 for 68 yards and 2 TDs in this first quarter - followed by 4/10 for 16 yards and an interception for the rest of the game is a HUGE skew.
I actually said at the time - when he tweaked his leg near the end zone before that 2nd touchdown that sticking with him was dubious. With a two touchdown lead and a decent backup, and Morris doing very well, I thought Washington did Seattle a favor to keep him in there. Yes, Seattle's defense is good. But holding a 100 QBR guy to 16 yards passing for 3 quarters isn't just about good defense.
RGIII is a good pocket QB. His throws are normally deadly accurate. I agree with Doc that he's not getting to his 3rd and 4th progressions, but a lot of times there AREN'T any - by play design. Option 3 is for RGIII to run for a first down.
He has a very accurate arm, and he throws perfectly well from the pocket. Shanahan and RGIII both said it didn't hurt his throws, but I think it did. If it didn't, then slamming his hand on his OL's helmet did, because his accuracy was lacking.
What really hurt him was that his timer went off to go for Option 3 (take off running for 20 easy yards) but he would visibly flinch at the idea of doing that and cycle back to option 1. The last sack before the muffed snap/fumble was like that. He could have run for 30 yards on that play if he was healthy, and he knew it.
It would be like taking all the tight ends and slot receivers off the field and then wondering why your QB is struggling to throw downfield consistently. Not to say he didn't hit guys in the hands still - he did - but they were harder passes and the receivers didn't make the plays.
Doc, next season mark it in your appointment book to watch RGIII play a healthy game. It's a treat. Watching the One-Legged Tebow version of RGIII isn't the same thing, any more than watching Secretariat limp around on a split hoof would be satisfying.
That said, I agreed that Seattle would win this game and that RGIII wouldn't be able to do his thing against this defense, and that proved out. Looking forward to the Atlanta game. The Falcons can be punched in the mouth (see: Green Bay a couple years ago) and they won a lot of games this year by one score (seven).
The Seahawks haven't gone down in a while. Developing quite the iron jaw...
The Falcons had better hit hard and prepare for another one score game if they win.
~G
1. That's exactly what I was wondering - where did the 102.0 rating come from. Without a doubt, he had to do a lot of things right to get there.
2. Gordon you think it's an issue of the 3rd and 4th progressions; I'm wondering whether it's the 2nd :- ) but still. Obviously he threw a lot of accurate passes and a lot of 'magical' passes as the Hog Haven guys put it.
3. Looking at that O-line and AlMo yesterday, I can easily see how Trent Dilfer or Tarvaris Jackson for that matter could run a 102 rating earlier this year.
...............
Sandy and G you guys know more football than me, so if you're telling me that he can pass the ball down the field from the pocket, against a tough defense, I believe you. Must have been two really off games for him - maybe based on his feeling gimpy and out of sorts.
But have real issues imagining you being willing. :- ) Hard to imagine the apostle Paul in a fistfight either. I wouldn't want to get you mad, though... still waters run deep, I have found from experience...
...........
Applying your anecdote to Russell Wilson -- you wonder idly whether he ever got picked on, or whether he didn't. When the school superjock is smallish, sometimes he gets stepped up on and sometimes he doesn't. Wonder what Wilson's scenario is.
nm
...but I quick-scanned their statistical profile and I see a team with a marginal SOS playing in a ton of close games and squeaking them out...they're a bit like the 2012 Baltimore Orioles IMHO...not as talented as their record, lots of luck in close games etc. Neither their offense nor their defense lights you up with huge bodies and/or great playmaker types up and down. Whereas Seattle has a defining trait (they play smashmouth football and beat a lot of teams on size and positioning and time of possession...and have a pretty darned good quarterback for pressure situations), Atlanta seems to be a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none kind of team to me..
I'm not an expert though...Sandy might be able to tell us more.
I was making the exact same arguments for Griffin last week on here, while also stating that I am actually a Cowboys fan who just appreciates how good Griffin has been this year. It's kind of insulting to spent a lot of time arguing for Griffin, and going back through lots of guys that everyone tried to compare him to, Griese, Vick, Cutler, Plummer, Elway even, and coming up with (at least what I thought was) some pretty substantive stuff. Then I get on here and see my argument is just reworded by others and now you just take their word for how good he is. How deflating.....
I'm not claiming that I'm the first guy to recognize that Griffin has had a great year. Its just that I was the first to come to his defense after Doc claimed that Griffin "couldn't carry Wilson's jock" and I did so very thoroughly, addressing all of the complaints/questions about his ability.
Do you think the head coach who made the terrible! decision to keep him in the game would ever admit that his quarterbacks' throwing ability was deteriorated by his injury? Would Shanahan have the guts to say that he couldn't throw as effectively because he was hurt, but he left him in anyway? Of course he would never admit that. And neither would Griffin. Guys like him are trained and coached to play through pain, and to never make excuses for poor performance. It's the warrior mentality.
I mean if you're only takeaway from that game is that Griffin just isn't very good throwing the ball, and that it was in no way affected by his injury or the fact that he was playing a great defense, then we're not watching the same game.
And finally, just for some more statistical perspective (that seems to be my thing), here is Trent Dilfer's BEST year of his career. 1997, 4th year of his career, age 25. 56% comp, 21/11 td/int, 6.6 ypa, 83 rating. He has a career td/int ratio of 113/129, and 70 rating.
As for Jackson, he had so many partial seasons, that its hard to define his "best" year. The two years that he started more than 5 games he had a 71 rating in one and 79 in the other. He had a career 59% comp. 38/35 td/int, and 78 rating.
Every time names get thrown out there as comparisons or as just as likely to succeed in the same system candidates, they have all fallen well short of the stats that Griffin has produced. In his rookie season...
The Falcons are a hard team to get a handle on.
They have a LOT of plus talent - but little "exceptional" talent, (they have a lot of talent that was at some previous point "exceptional").
They played a weak schedule, but beat both of the playoff teams they faced, (beating both early in the season).
They sort of meandered home on auto-pilot once they became a virtual lock for #1 seed.
For a team almost universally regarded as "over-rated" and "not a real contender", they seem to have a distinct lack of ire about the assessments. Maybe they feel the disrespect and are just (relative to the rest of the NFL) quiet about it ... but in the age of twitter, it is disconcerting to not have get some push back.
IMO, Ryan is just a hair below "exceptional" as a QB. He EASILY had a his best year, jumping his completion rate from arount 62% to 68.6% this year. His Y/C were normal. Five years in and he's never won fewer than 9 games and he's twice won 13. He "ought" to be getting the kind of kudos that Philip Rivers was getting in SD (until this year), but since Ted Turner left TBS, Atlanta is sort of an east coast version of Seattle - a great city that by and large doesn't get anywhere near the respect from the press they deserve.
The reality is that Atlanta is DANGEROUS because Ryan is so good, (and NOT given his due). But, the Atlanta defense is getting old and wearing down.
If Seattle repeats their Washington start, they will still have a chance to come back versus the Atlanta defense, (which is good, but not great). But, if Seattle gets a lead, do NOT think that it is safe. Ryan is a poor man's Peyton Manning. He is smart, talented and doesn't make a lot of mistakes. He *rarely* beats himself. The Falcons have better receivers than Seattle, (heck, they probably have the best receiving corps in the NFL at the moment). Stopping ALL of the Atlanta receivers is a huge task - (unless the Falcons are coasting).
On a neutral field, I'd give the edge to the Seahawks. At home ... it's a coin flip game. The Falcons have had "just" enough of a running game to keep their passing game going. It should be interesting ... but every now and then, Atlanta just doesn't show up.
As most who know me know, my father was a career sportswriter. I've been around sports and met countless athletes in my life, meaning my reaction to them is they are humans like us....for the most part. Several have a transcendent "it" about them, which, when combined with a world-view that is in tune with mine make them very impressive to me.
As a sportswriter's son, you might expect that I have had all sorts of memorabilia and the like. Not so. About the only thing I remember us keeping around the house was Pele's autograph. (I wish I knew what my father did with that).
Anyway, I have never, ever worn a jersey from any team with someone else's name on the back, other than my own. Russell Wilson's is the first - finally at age 49. This guy is rock solid in every possible way at this point. I don't know how he could fail.
Just my .02.
Reminds of the all the times we've found ourselves playing the same sheet of music by sheer happenstance :- )
3. Looking at that O-line and AlMo yesterday, I can easily see how Trent Dilfer or Tarvaris Jackson for that matter could run a 102 rating earlier this year.
And I bring you Washington Redskins rookie Kurt Cousins, proud owner of a career 101.6 QB Rating across 48 attempts.
The game has fundamentally changed in a measurable way.
In the history of the NFL there have been 110 performances of more than 4000 yards passing in a single season. 21 of them have come in the last 2 seasons since the new rules protecting receivers... Let that sink in for a moment
We are now in the " player safety era" in the NFL. The impact of the rule changes to football are every bit as big as lowering the mound was to baseball. It used to be a benchmark of the elites to get within a thousand yards of Marino's record, now it appears we can expect the top 3-5 qb's to make a run at 5000 every year.
We are right now at the genesis of establishing new statistical baselines for what it means to be a good quarterback or a good passing defense and it will take several more years for it all to shake out so we can actually make any sense of it.
One thing IS absolutely certain though, you can't compare numbers from pre rule change to post rule change, it's apples to oranges.
Matthew
The game has fundamentally changed in a measurable way.
In the history of the NFL there have been 110 performances of more than 4000 yards passing in a single season. 21 of them have come in the last 2 seasons since the new rules protecting receivers... Let that sink in for a moment
We are now in the " player safety era" in the NFL. The impact of the rule changes to football are every bit as big as lowering the mound was to baseball. It used to be a benchmark of the elites to get within a thousand yards of Marino's record, now it appears we can expect the top 3-5 qb's to make a run at 5000 every year.
We are right now at the genesis of establishing new statistical baselines for what it means to be a good quarterback or a good passing defense and it will take several more years for it all to shake out so we can actually make any sense of it.
One thing IS absolutely certain though, you can't compare numbers from pre rule change to post rule change, it's apples to oranges.
Matthew
when you compare the season that Griffin just had against the other 63 "seasons" that QB's have had in the last 2 years. Just compare what he did to the other QB's just this year. Sure, maybe his and his peers numbers would've have been more meaningful 20 years ago. The NFL has made throwing the football easier by penalizing defenses more. But when Brady has a great year, or Rodgers, or Manning, everybody says (Doc included I'm assuming) that they are great QB's who would've been great 10 or 35 years ago. But when this guy lights up the NFL the way he has, some just want to explain it away.
I'm starting to wonder if it has something to do with his immense athleticism, and that people who grew up watching great traditional pocket QB's like Montana, Fouts, Manning, Favre, or Aikman have some kind of deep seeded disdain for QB's who don't play the position the "right" or "pure" way. But then those who are doubtful or dismissive of Griffin have no issue whatsoever with Wilson using his athleticism to run around for 5 seconds in the pocket and find someone downfield, or take off and pick up 25 yards using his legs. So i really don't get it.
But back to the topic at hand, if you don't think it's fair to use his 102 rating as a barometer for his historical significance, then just compare his 102 rating and his 66% comp, and his 20/5 td/int, and his 8.1 ypa, and his 71 QBR against his peers for the 2012 season. Here, I'll do it again.
comp %, 4th in NFL
int %, t-1st in NFL with Brady
ypa, 1st in NFL
and then top 5 in categories: Adjusted Yards per Attempt, Yards per Completion, QBR (new ESPN stat), and a few other similar stats. And there's this 1 other stat that i keep harping on: his age. He was the YOUNGEST starting QB in the entire NFL this season.
So i can understand if some are antsy to dismiss higher passing numbers as just an effect of the NFL evolving towards a passer friendly league. Just don't forget that all of these other great QB's that we all respect and unanimously elect as being at or near the best at their position, regardless of era, are playing in the same league and under the same rules as Griffin. And he has performed right there with them.
I remember a KJR talk show, back in the 1980's was it?, where feebleminded ;- ) deejays were arguing that David Krieg was every inch the quarterback John Elway was, and then some. Had a higher QB rating, don'tcha know.
A Denver guy called in, very calmly controlled, but very annoyed. "Seattle. Runs. To. Set. Up. The Pass. ... Denver. Passes. To Set UP. The RUN."
Elway's passes were being completed under totally different circumstances. And you know how the history turned out.
.............
Michael Vick had one whale of a rookie season. His passes were being thrown under the most favorable conditions possible: defenses were massively confused. At all times. You could time RGIII's pocket time (after he faked a read option, or rolled out and back, or whatever) with a calendar. And the defenses were 80, 90% committed to dealing with the novelty ground game.
RGIII's passes have been completed under totally different circumstances than everybody else's -- circumstances that will soon vanish.
If Vick's precedent doesn't help anybody see the issue here -- sustainability after RGIII's super-favorable circumstances wear off -- then fine. I'll give you the last word.
That's exactly right Auto5. Vick's rookie season was easily comparable to Griffin's, era and team adjusted. It didn't mean that Vick was a historically great QB. It meant that he was a pioneer.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I literally talked about Vick specifically last week in depth. He DID NOT have a whale of a rookie season. He attempted 113 passes, completed 44% of them, and had a 63 rating. Maybe you are referring to his second season, in which he started 15 games? Well let me again post those stats. 55% comp, 16/8 td/int, and an 82 rating. His ranks for the 2002 season were as follows:
comp %-- 25th
int%-- 6th
ypa--12th
rating--18th
And again Griffin's rankings in those categories
comp %--4th
int%--t1st
ypa--1st
rating--3rd
Notice any differences? To compare Griffin's rookie season to Vick's is a complete travesty. To compare Vick's second year to Griffin's rookie year is still not even close. And that's spotting Vick a year.
So what about Tom Brady? He sits back in the pocket for hours sometimes and finds guys open, do we now say that his success shouldn't count either? Do we now go back through the record books and put an asterisk by any QB who had good pass protection? Does your hometown hero Wilson get good pass protection? I notice a few marquee Pro Bowl Offensive Lineman on Seattle's roster. So now lets invalidate his stats too. And now when a QB gets extra time because of a play-action or boot leg, those stats shouldn't count either? Every team in the NFL does things to try to buy their QB's more time.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Imagine another athletic young(first or second year) QB had played all season for Washington instead of Griffin. Who would you choose, Tebow, Tarvarris Jackson, maybe Colt Mccoy, how about Vince Young, or let's try Jake Locker. Your pick. Most of those guys have been in systems that cater to their specific abilities, and how have they ended up? How about Cam Newton. How'd his rookie year end up? Similar athletic abiltiy. #1 overall draft pick.
60% comp, 21/17 ratio, 7.8 ypa, 85 rating. Would you look at those numbers and say, geez, what a bust, that guy cant play QB. Once defenses adjust he's dead in the water. What if those were Andrew Luck's rookie numbers or Sam Bradford's or Matthew Stafford's? You'd say, that's solid for a rookie, and will only get better from there. Almost anyone would say that. So why all the vitriol for Griffin? If ever the phrase "the sky is the limit" were apt for someone playing QB in the NFL, it would be for Robert Griffin.
And finally, how about all of those QB's that Shanahan had in Denver with that great ground game he always had. I posted detailed long-term numbers in the other thread addressing exactly this. The conclusion: Jake Plummer was the only QB he took from below average/decent to good. Cutler, Griese, Elway, Grossman, his affect on their production was negligible.
Vick's rookie season isn't remotely comparable to RG3 or Wilson.
In 2001, Vick, as a rookie, only played in 8 games and only started 2, completing 44% of his 113 passes for a 62.7 rating.
In 2002, in his SECOND year, he started 15 games and managed an 81.6 QBR, (which would be his career high until after returning from jail).
So, what did the Passer Rating chart look like in 2002 - (if we count his sophomore year as if it were his rookie year).
1 - 100+ passer (Pennington).
4 guys over 90.
McNabb was tied for 7th with Bledsoe (86.0)
And Brady we tied with Brunell for 9th at 85.7.
Vick's 81.6 - (his pre-jail career high), was "good" enough to rank 18th among all NFL QBs. He only played 5 games the next year, (with a 69.0 rating). So, moving to his 4th season in the NFL, he posted a 78.1 rating in 2004. That was 21st in the NFL, tied with that superstar of dropback QBs ... Tim Rattay.
Vick didn't finish in the top HALF of QB rating until after his stay in jail. (In fairness to Vick, he did manage a single season with a QB rating above 100. In 2010, at age 30, he squeaked out a 100.2. But that was in only 11 starts (not 16). And he plunged right back to 84.9 the next year and 78.1 this past season.
=============
Now yes ... comparing eras, a 102 QB Rating isn't the same in 2012 as it was in 1975. But I didn't read any comparisons of RG3 or Wilson to Staubach or Montana.
The fact is RG3 was the 3rd ranked QB in the NFL this year and Wilson was 4th. They ranked just behind Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning and just in front of Matt Ryan and Tom Brady. Ryan, as a rookie, managed an 87.7 rate. Five years of experience later, he's worked his way up to run with the elite.
Honestly, the guy who is a so-so pocket QB, (but with potential to improve), relying too much on his legs is Cam Newton. This is backed up by his 84.5 and 86.2 ratings for his first two seasons.
Could 2012 be "flukish" for RG3 and/or Wilson? Sure. It's "possible" to have a career year in your rookie season. But it is highly unlikely ... and is also nearly unheard of for NFL QBs.
Rogers, playing behind Favre for 3 years managed a 93.8 his first year starting, (his career rate is 104.9).
Peyton Manning managed a 71.2 rate as a rookie, then 90.7 in his 2nd season. He broke 100 for the first time in 2004.
Rivers managed a 92 in his first full season, (after 2 on the bench), but put together a trio of 100+ seasons at ages 27-29.
Brady posted an 86.5 in his first season starting, (2nd in the league), didn't break 100 until age 30 (2007), but does have a 96.6 career rating.
The point here is that even rookie QBs that step in and are immediately successful have almost never matched what Wilson and RG3 did this year. The closest comp would be Roethlisberger, who had a 98.1 in 2004 (good enough to rank 5th in the NFL). His career rating is 92.7. He's the only QB I can find with a downward move in QB rating after his rookie season, (mostly due to a horrid 3rd year, when he threw 23 interceptions for a 75.4 rating that year).
Yes, today we see 4 or 5 guys a year posting 100 ratings, whereas it used to be 1 guy. So, this means you're better than 28 other QBs instead of 31.
Perhaps the best evidence is Andrew Luck ... who, as a rookie, in the exact same era, managed a 76.5 rate this year.
Wilsons numbers stand up quite well next to the leaders as well. I have to work with an obnoxious Steelers fan (Heaven help me!) and I love to needle him that Wilson has a higher rookie passer rating than Roethliserger and tied Mannings rookie TD record. I say it to get under his skin but I know I'm being disingenuous. They really aren't comperable. Wilsons TD total is equal to Manning in number only, not in accomplishment.
I'm as big a Wilson homer as there is. I have an embarrassing man crush on the guy. I'm not picking on Griffin. The same discount on the numbers apply to Wilson as well.
Or even grouping players. I think the WAY the game is played is changing and thus the players themselves are going to change. Imagine if the NBA lowered the basket a foot, not only would the number of points being scored change, but also the way the points are scored which would lead to a change in the TYPE of player scoring those points.
My personal theory is that we are going to see more separation between the top half and bottom half of the QBs. Yet a bit of parity between those at the top. There is a limit to what is possible that will clump the leaders together. Those that struggled with the mental and physical speed of the game will still struggle with it, while those who were competent will be able to exploit the changes and increase their production.
First full year.
Atlanta was 5th in the the NFL in offense that year and Vick, although not *quite* up to the level that Luck, RGIII, Wilson achieved this year, wasn't playing under Mike Shanahan, either.
Vick ran for 777 yards, threw only 8 picks as a 'rookie,' and Atlanta went from #23 in NFL offense to #5 in NFL offense under Vick. He had a whale of a season. If you are trying to say that Vick was not impressive in 2002, based on an 82.0 rating that was nominally #18, you must not have watched many games that year. :- ) For you San-Man I doubt that was the case with the Atlanta Falcons. C'mon, give it up. Vick landed with a bang.
............
Let's not quibble here. Vick was not quite up to Luck, RGIII and Wilson but the salient point is: a debut QB can have an impact and then fail to move forward.
............
If your position is that the differences between Vick and RGIII are important, I would agree that they are. RGIII is not doomed to a Michael Vick career arc. But I wouldn't blithely dismiss the concern that RGIII might have difficulties emerging as a Manning / Brees / Rodgers level pocket passer.
His missing two easy TD's, that drive where he ran for 30 rather than throwing to Rice for 60, and then overshooting Baldwin next play* ... there is a lot of stuff like that. Wilson has issues seeing the field for sure.
But you gotta love his rate of improvement in that department.
Just to reiterate: my opinion is that you can apply the metric of the Rookie Montana and you can come back with a reading of 80%, 90% or whatever. You cannot measure RGIII on this scale, at least not in the two games I saw.
Like you can apply the metric of the young Greg Maddux to Erasmo Ramirez, see where Erasmo IS on that scale SOMEWHERE, but you're not going to apply that scale to Charlie Furbush.
..........
You guys are fully justified in leaping to RGIII's defense. I did say that he can't carry Wilson's jock, as a pure dropback passer, so I've got to own the boxing headgear on this one :- ) ... lemme reiterate too, if we didn't have Wilson, I'd be thrilled to DEATH to hitch the Seahawks' wagon to that young man...
Good stuff San. By the way -- given your druthers, who would you rather have going forward? Andrew Luck, or a reasonably (not perfectly) healthy RGIII?
Or even grouping players. I think the WAY the game is played is changing and thus the players themselves are going to change. Imagine if the NBA lowered the basket a foot, not only would the number of points being scored change, but also the way the points are scored which would lead to a change in the TYPE of player scoring those points.
My personal theory is that we are going to see more separation between the top half and bottom half of the QBs. Yet a bit of parity between those at the top. There is a limit to what is possible that will clump the leaders together. Those that struggled with the mental and physical speed of the game will still struggle with it, while those who were competent will be able to exploit the changes and increase their production.
My comments were solely and purely and only concerned with passing ability.
Vick was an exceptional athlete - and I never denied he was a massive complication when on the field. But Vick will end his career with ONE (1) really good season **PASSING**. Vick was dangerous DIRECTLY due to his running - and running alone. His passing was basically neutral.
RG3 (and Wilson, who is nearly as mobile), are both gifted in terms of mobility ... but neither really matches what Vick was with his legs in his debut. When Vick did have his 100 rating 12-game season, I said BEFORE the next year that I would believe it was not a fluke if he managed to post a 90 or above, because he still had not shown good passing ability.
RG3 and Wilson are both exceptionally good passers ... which is hard enough to do after 5 years of experience, much less doing it from day one.
Hey - I get that 100 today isn't the same as 100 10-15 years ago. But 100 today is not the same as 75 a year ago. The LEAGUE did not suddenly add 30 points to all QB ratings. It's more like 5-10 points, (compared to what Vick faced as a rookie).
==========
What I don't get is why you are questioning RG3 and Wilson as Manning/Brees/Rodgers level passing talents, when both have VASTLY surpassed what ANY of these guys did as a rookie - and they both basically equalled what the superstars did THIS YEAR.
I mean, seriously, if any hitter came in and posted a .326/.399/.564 (.963) line as a rookie in 139 games ... would there be even the hint of saying ... "Well, I just don't like the way he looks in the box as a 20-year old. It's not like he's anywhere near as good as Fielder."
Because that's what I'm hearing. That RG3, because he looked poor in two games somehow did not earn his 102 rating. It's akin to dismissing Trout's entire 2012 campaign if he had posted a golden sombrero or two the final week.
=======
In closing, I will just note, in 2001, Atlanta passed for 3695 yards, (Chandler had a rating of 84.1 in 14 games)
In 2002, yes the Atlanta offense improved - but the PASSING dropped 300 yards to only 3,384 yards.
They went from 19/17 TD/INT ratio to 18/12.
The team rushing went from 1762 to 2368. The ENTIRE gain in the Atlanta offense fomr '01 to '02 was on the rushing side.
Although I've stated it a bunch of times.
Giffin's outcomes look A LOT better than they should, because he buys himself tons of extra pocket time, and because defenses focus on everything EXCEPT his pocket passing downfield. If he had to read the downfield patterns in 1 second, he couldn't.
Which he didn't, in the Dallas game and the Seahawk game. He looked terrible. Several times I did not know who he was throwing to.
If anybody has a clearer way to say that, help me out :- )
I loosely referred to 2002 as his rookie season. In retrospect I should have been careful not to assume too much. And as a side issue, it is indeed relevant that Vick had an NFL growth year under his belt when he took Atlanta from 21st to 5th in the league in offense.
No, his 2001 "season," with 113 passes, wasn't a good one, obviously.
but as Sandy pointed out, all of those gains and then some came from his running statistics. AAALLL of them. You are not comparing Griffin's running ability to Vick's right? This whole Vick comparison is just getting tired.
Your entire argument is based off of watching him play two games out of 16 when he was badly injured. Should we pick out Wilson's two worst games of the season and make snap judgements about him? Say that 9 for 23 with no tds and 1 int performance against San Fran in week 7? Or the week 4 game where he threw for 160 yards and 0 td's and 3 int's against the Rams? See how picking two games out of an entire season and then making sweeping claims about a players ability might be short-sighted?
Doc, I think it's time to come over to the dark side and just admit that Griffin based on his stats throwing the football is not just a random fluke. Sandy and G and I cannot spell out our case any more clearly. He has had an unbelievable year, as has Wilson. It's not because he runs around every play until someone gets open or he just has great pass protection or is just a product of the offensive scheme he's in. I've done all the research shooting down all of these theories. None of us are saying he is as good of a pocket passer as he will be 3 years from now if he is healthy. None of us are saying he is the best pocket passer in the league right now either. We are saying that based on his statistics, he cannot be a bad quarterback. He MUST possess some of the same skills that Brady and Rodgers have. You cannot reproduce the year he has had by smoke and mirrors and a great OC in your rookie season. My offer still stands: name me a few QB's who have had this much success in the last 30 years in their rookie seasons. You've tried Vick, Newton...
Here, let me help
Montana played 1 game his rookie season.
Elway posted a 55 rating with a 7/14 td/int ratio his rookie season.
Marino had a 96 rating his rookie season, he was great from day 1.
Warren Moon at the age of 28 having played pro ball for years posted a 77 rating and 12/14 ratio his rookie NFL season.
Troy Aikman had a 56 rating and a 9/18 ratio.
Brett Favre threw 4 passes, completing none with 2 interceptions his rookie year.
Steve Young had a 3/8 ratio with a 57 rating.
Peyton Manning had a 71 rating with a 26/28 ratio and a 56% comp.
Tom Brady threw 3 passes his rookie year.
Drew Brees threw 27 passes his rookie year.
Aaron Rodgers threw 16 passes his rookie year.
how's that for a list?
Or even grouping players. I think the WAY the game is played is changing and thus the players themselves are going to change. Imagine if the NBA lowered the basket a foot, not only would the number of points being scored change, but also the way the points are scored which would lead to a change in the TYPE of player scoring those points.
My personal theory is that we are going to see more separation between the top half and bottom half of the QBs. Yet a bit of parity between those at the top. There is a limit to what is possible that will clump the leaders together. Those that struggled with the mental and physical speed of the game will still struggle with it, while those who were competent will be able to exploit the changes and increase their production.
Or even grouping players. I think the WAY the game is played is changing and thus the players themselves are going to change. Imagine if the NBA lowered the basket a foot, not only would the number of points being scored change, but also the way the points are scored which would lead to a change in the TYPE of player scoring those points.
My personal theory is that we are going to see more separation between the top half and bottom half of the QBs. Yet a bit of parity between those at the top. There is a limit to what is possible that will clump the leaders together. Those that struggled with the mental and physical speed of the game will still struggle with it, while those who were competent will be able to exploit the changes and increase their production.