Russell Wilson Gets A Little Help

[dw49]

I would argue that Lucks rating is down a bit as he's asked to carry the team and turns it over a bit more than he would with a better roster, But regardless of that , this supports what many here have been saying......

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/101699/no-one-gets-more-help-than-russell-wilson

[BleedBlu8792]

I would argue that Lucks rating is down a bit as he's asked to carry the team and turns it over a bit more than he would with a better roster, But regardless of that , this supports what many here have been saying......

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/101699/no-one-gets-more-help-than-russell-wilson

 

Ehh... Luck is in the position he's in because they (coaching staff) choose to make it that way. Sunday is a prime example in that the Colts really didn't have much of a problem running the ball, yet they kept choosing to let Luck pull the trigger. It's not entirely his fault by any means, but considering the weather and how he's played against New England in the past, why are they forcing the issue with Luck?

 

Would WIlson's dynamic be different if he had Hilton, Wayne, Allen, and Fleener? Lynch is all he really had this year, and last year it was really only Golden Tate and Lynch. Where Wilson excels is keeping his defense off the field. Seattle as a team is very good about not turning the ball over on offense. Very rarely do they ever put their defense in a bad position. Don't get me wrong, Seattle's defense is great, but that offense has a part in them being as good as they are as well.

 

NFL network showed a stat on the Colts about mid-way through this season and it said, since Luck started in 12', if the Colts didn't commit an offensive turnover the defense gave up an average of ~18ppg. However, if the Colts committed 1 or more turnovers the defense gave up ~24 points ppg. 6+ point differential! You simply cannot give your opponents extra possessions and Seattle for the most part, except for last Sunday, just does not do that where as the Colts have had their fair share of issues with turning over the ball.

 

Wilson is every bit as important to that Seahawk team as is Lynch and that defense.

[amfootball]

I would argue that Lucks rating is down a bit as he's asked to carry the team and turns it over a bit more than he would with a better roster, But regardless of that , this supports what many here have been saying......

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/101699/no-one-gets-more-help-than-russell-wilson

Did you notice who was number two on the list of QBs that get the most help? Joe Flacco. No surprise there.

 

I believe in this Super Bowl you are going to see the Pats absolutely bottle up this Seattle O. This is by FAR the worse offense they have ever faced in the Super Bowl in their six trips in the Brady era. NE's defense is better than GB and we can play Wilson the way the Packers did except we won't let up at the end. You got a glimpse in the conference champ game at just how bad he can be when Lynch is contained and you man up his receivers.

 

In fairness to Wilson though, he has junk at every position other than RB. So I will give him credit there. How he scores as many points as he does especially this season with no Tate and Harvin traded is impressive. But it all runs out on the 1st.

[rsrobinson]

Did you notice who was number two on the list of QBs that get the most help? Joe Flacco. No surprise there.

 

I believe in this Super Bowl you are going to see the Pats absolutely bottle up this Seattle O. This is by FAR the worse offense they have ever faced in the Super Bowl in their six trips in the Brady era. NE's defense is better than GB and we can play Wilson the way the Packers did except we won't let up at the end. You got a glimpse in the conference champ game at just how bad he can be when Lynch is contained and you man up his receivers.

 

In fairness to Wilson though, he has junk at every position other than RB. So I will give him credit there. How he scores as many points as he does especially this season with no Tate and Harvin traded is impressive. But it all runs out on the 1st.

Worst offense by far? The Seahawks finished 10th in points scored, 9th in total yards, and had the best running attack in the NFL by a wide margin. Russell Wilson's rushing numbers alone would have made him the leading rusher on half the teams in the league. He also has a career passer rating of 98.6 so he will beat you with the pass if you stack the box. The Seahawks offense led the NFL in explosive plays this year (runs of 12+ yards, passes of 16+ yards) so they aren't a dink and dunk, three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust offense. They can and do pick up yardage in large chunks. Football Outsiders ranked them as the 5th most efficient offense in the league by DVOA ahead of the Patriots at 6th.

By any measure the Seahawks are a top ten offense and they did it while facing tough, physical defenses more frequently than the Pats did. FO has the Patriots defense ranked 11th by DVOA which is pretty good but puts them behind every defense in the NFC West. I'm not sure why you think they will be an impenetrable force the likes of which Seattle has never seen before.

And the Packers did nothing on defense they hadn't seen many times, they just uncharacteristically turned the ball over and executed poorly for much of the game. Even so, they STILL ended up with more passing yards, more rushing yards, more first downs, and more touchdowns than the Packers. Also be careful about pinning your hopes on manning up the receivers because Wilson tends to run wild on man coverage. And don't tell me that the Pats will handle that by putting a spy on Wilson because everyone does that and he still ran for almost 900 yards. Spying him and actually containing him are two different things.

[dw49]

Ehh... Luck is in the position he's in because they (coaching staff) choose to make it that way. Sunday is a prime example in that the Colts really didn't have much of a problem running the ball, yet they kept choosing to let Luck pull the trigger. It's not entirely his fault by any means, but considering the weather and how he's played against New England in the past, why are they forcing the issue with Luck?

 

Would WIlson's dynamic be different if he had Hilton, Wayne, Allen, and Fleener? Lynch is all he really had this year, and last year it was really only Golden Tate and Lynch. Where Wilson excels is keeping his defense off the field. Seattle as a team is very good about not turning the ball over on offense. Very rarely do they ever put their defense in a bad position. Don't get me wrong, Seattle's defense is great, but that offense has a part in them being as good as they are as well.

 

NFL network showed a stat on the Colts about mid-way through this season and it said, since Luck started in 12', if the Colts didn't commit an offensive turnover the defense gave up an average of ~18ppg. However, if the Colts committed 1 or more turnovers the defense gave up ~24 points ppg. 6+ point differential! You simply cannot give your opponents extra possessions and Seattle for the most part, except for last Sunday, just does not do that where as the Colts have had their fair share of issues with turning over the ball.

 

Wilson is every bit as important to that Seahawk team as is Lynch and that defense.

 

 

That number could also reflect the fact that when Indy get's down big , Luck throws it every down and the defense plays pass. That certainly results in more points surrendered but yeah... I won't argue the other way is true also ... turn overs result in more points given up.

[amfootball]

Worst offense by far? The Seahawks finished 10th in points scored, 9th in total yards, and had the best running attack in the NFL by a wide margin. Russell Wilson's rushing numbers alone would have made him the leading rusher on half the teams in the league. He also has a career passer rating of 98.6 so he will beat you with the pass if you stack the box. The Seahawks offense led the NFL in explosive plays this year (runs of 12+ yards, passes of 16+ yards) so they aren't a dink and dunk, three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust offense. They can and do pick up yardage in large chunks. Football Outsiders ranked them as the 5th most efficient offense in the league by DVOA ahead of the Patriots at 6th.

By any measure the Seahawks are a top ten offense and they did it while facing tough, physical defenses more frequently than the Pats did. FO has the Patriots defense ranked 11th by DVOA which is pretty good but puts them behind every defense in the NFC West. I'm not sure why you think they will be an impenetrable force the likes of which Seattle has never seen before.

And the Packers did nothing on defense they hadn't seen many times, they just uncharacteristically turned the ball over and executed poorly for much of the game. Even so, they STILL ended up with more passing yards, more rushing yards, more first downs, and more touchdowns than the Packers. Also be careful about pinning your hopes on manning up the receivers because Wilson tends to run wild on man coverage. And don't tell me that the Pats will handle that by putting a spy on Wilson because everyone does that and he still ran for almost 900 yards. Spying him and actually containing him are two different things.

Check Brady's numbers when he had played top 10 DVOA defenses this year.

 

I am sorry you can spin numbers all you want but this Hawks team is nowhere as good offensively as the other teams the Pats have played in the SB. Even the lousy Eagles had Terrell Owens on one leg who is better than your whole receiver corp combined. Lynch is a beast but that is about it.

[jvan1973]

Did you notice who was number two on the list of QBs that get the most help? Joe Flacco. No surprise there.

I believe in this Super Bowl you are going to see the Pats absolutely bottle up this Seattle O. This is by FAR the worse offense they have ever faced in the Super Bowl in their six trips in the Brady era. NE's defense is better than GB and we can play Wilson the way the Packers did except we won't let up at the end. You got a glimpse in the conference champ game at just how bad he can be when Lynch is contained and you man up his receivers.

In fairness to Wilson though, he has junk at every position other than RB. So I will give him credit there. How he scores as many points as he does especially this season with no Tate and Harvin traded is impressive. But it all runs out on the 1st.

the panthers and eagles had worse offenses than the Seahawks. And this is the best defense the pats have ever played in the suoetbowl.

The pats had a hard time containing Forsett. What is lynch gonna do to them?

[LockeDown]

the panthers and eagles had worse offenses than the Seahawks. And this is the best defense the pats have ever played in the suoetbowl.

The pats had a hard time containing Forsett. What is lynch gonna do to them?

 

This defense will rise up like they did against Denver last year and play their best game of the year.  When they do that, they can stop anyone. 

[Shane Bond]

Seattle defense is an animal. Hope the injuries are healed.

[Shane Bond]

Seattle has a great chance for a first 3 peat in NFL.

Great defense with a QB who is born for big games. The guy just wins, no matter what.

[Synthetic]

As good as Seattle is, I just can't get it out of my head that Green Bay lost that game. They played a perfect game against those guys and lost it.

 

Normally when the NFC winner wins the NFCCG in a nail biter/OT game where it's very close, they normally do not make mistakes like that in the SB. 

 

2007 - Giants win in a very tight game at Lambeau field where they out played a much better opponent. In the SB, they win. 

 

2009 - Saints in all honesty should have lost to Minnesota. Check the stats, we got out played big time....then in the SB we out played the Colts.

 

2010 - Packers win in a game they let Chicago come back in and nearly beat them. in the SB they were up 21-3 at one point vs Pittsburgh. Yes, the Steelers came back, but that game was totally controlled by Green Bay.

 

2011 - Giants win in a nail biter vs the 49ers, in the SB they have no problem against the Pats. Do not turn the ball over once. 

 

2013 - Seahawks nearly lose at the last minute vs the 49ers, then in the SB they cream Denver. 

 

No doubt in my mind, and especially after this recent scandal that proves yet again that the Pats are cheaters, I have no doubt that Seattle is going to win this game. They are the best team in the league anyway. How often do #1 defenses lose the Super Bowl? Not very often.

 

All year long too that the Pats had some obvious issues. Now it makes complete sense how Brady can't hit a bomb and then all of a sudden he can late into the season and into the playoffs, and their defense is drastically overrated. Sure they look good blowing out cupcake teams all year long. Thank god for the Pats that they play 3 of the worst offenses in the league in the AFC East. 

 

Their defense got gashed by Forsett and the Ravens in all reality should have won that game. I don't think their defense is as good as it's made out to be. Then they went the '95 Cowboys route and blew a bunch of money trying to buy a SB with star power. I wanted both Denver and New England to fail at the beginning of the season just for that reason alone. 

 

Before this scandal, my pick was on Seattle. After this scandal? Oh yes, still on Seattle.

 

Seattle can become the savior of this league if they beat New England cause then their little dynasty is shattered. 3-0 SB's in the Spygate era...0-3 after it. 

 

   

[rsrobinson]

Check Brady's numbers when he had played top 10 DVOA defenses this year.

 

I am sorry you can spin numbers all you want but this Hawks team is nowhere as good offensively as the other teams the Pats have played in the SB. Even the lousy Eagles had Terrell Owens on one leg who is better than your whole receiver corp combined. Lynch is a beast but that is about it.

Considering that Brady played against top 10 DVOA defenses only three times all season (I'm not counting the last Bills game which was a glorified exhibition game) that's a pretty small sample size isn't it? Meanwhile the Seahawks played half their regular season games against top 10 DVOA defenses so I doubt there's anything NE's defense can show them they haven't seen before from better defenses.

[NFLfan]

Check Brady's numbers when he had played top 10 DVOA defenses this year.

I am sorry you can spin numbers all you want but this Hawks team is nowhere as good offensively as the other teams the Pats have played in the SB. Even the lousy Eagles had Terrell Owens on one leg who is better than your whole receiver corp combined. Lynch is a beast but that is about it.

I would take Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch over Jake Delhomme and Stephen Davis. I agree with you about Seattle's receivers, but that tells me that Wilson is better than he is being given credit for.

[rsrobinson]

Seattle defense is an animal. Hope the injuries are healed.

Sherman has been practicing with no limitations. Thomas sat out a couple of practices but is back now. Both will play.

[amfootball]

I would take Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch over Jake Delhomme and Stephen Davis. I agree with you about Seattle's receivers, but that tells me that Wilson is better than he is being given credit for.

Yes but Carolina had Steven Smith and Muhammad too which had monster days vs the Pats.

[rsrobinson]

I would take Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch over Jake Delhomme and Stephen Davis. I agree with you about Seattle's receivers, but that tells me that Wilson is better than he is being given credit for.

Actually none of them could legitimately be considered superior to the Seahawks offense other than the Rams' Greatest Show on Turf. The Panthers and the 2007 Giants were worse by just about every measure. The 2011 Giants and the Eagles had relatively similar rankings in ppg and total yards but neither had a running game that could remotely match Seattle's. The Seahawks' defense is easily the best Brady has ever faced in a SB.

[amfootball]

Considering that Brady played against top 10 DVOA defenses only three times all season (I'm not counting the last Bills game which was a glorified exhibition game) that's a pretty small sample size isn't it? Meanwhile the Seahawks played half their regular season games against top 10 DVOA defenses so I doubt there's anything NE's defense can show them they haven't seen before from better defenses.

How were Brady's numbers in those games?

[NFLfan]

Actually none of them could legitimately be considered superior to the Seahawks offense other than the Rams' Greatest Show on Turf. The Panthers and the 2007 Giants were worse by just about every measure. The 2011 Giants and the Eagles had relatively similar rankings in ppg and total yards but neither had a running game that could remotely match Seattle's. The Seahawks' defense is easily the best Brady has ever faced in a SB.

I liked the Eagles team. I believe McNabb was better at that point in his career than Wilson is now, despite Wilson's having won the SB. The Eagles WR corp was better. I am drawing a blank as to who the RB was. I may also take Eli over Wilson, but not by much. The Giants WRs were significantly better than the Seahawks WRs. There is no WR on the 'hawks that comes near the caliber of Plaxico Burress on the current Seahawks team. All of this is only my opinion. I don't have stats to back these up.

[rsrobinson]

How were Brady's numbers in those games?

Very good, but do you think that translates to how well he'll do against Seattle's defense which has had a lot of success against top tier passing attacks? Over the last three years they are 10-0 against Super Bowl winning quarterbacks and have surrendered just 13.8 ppg to them.

[weslo1812]

Considering that Brady played against top 10 DVOA defenses only three times all season (I'm not counting the last Bills game which was a glorified exhibition game) that's a pretty small sample size isn't it? Meanwhile the Seahawks played half their regular season games against top 10 DVOA defenses so I doubt there's anything NE's defense can show them they haven't seen before from better defenses.

Seattle is the much more tested team, they are healthy now. And the numbers don't lie. Playing against the Defenses of the NFC west is gauntlet. And Pete Carrol always has his teams well prepared!!! Uncharacteristic week last week with Wilson but Im willing to bet that wont happen again anytime soon!

[rsrobinson]

I liked the Eagles team. I believe McNabb was better at that point in his career than Wilson is now, despite Wilson's having won the SB. The Eagles WR corp was better. I am drawing a blank as to who the RB was. I may also take Eli over Wilson, but not by much. The Giants WRs were significantly better than the Seahawks WRs. There is no WR on the 'hawks that comes near the caliber of Plaxico Burress on the current Seahawks team. All of this is only my opinion. I don't have stats to back these up.

The Eagles offense was ranked roughly the same as the Seahawks in ppg and total yards compared to the rest of their leagues. I know those are fairly simplistic measures but I don't feel like going much more in depth than that at the moment. Their top RB was Brian Westbrook who was a decent back and a very good receiver. McNabb had a very good season that year and had better overall passing numbers than Wilson but far fewer running yards. Overall Wilson and McNabb produced about the same total yards. The Eagles had a better passing game but Seattle has a much better run game and I don't see much difference between them in overall offensive efficiency.

The 2007 Giants had a very mediocre offense and Eli Manning was terrible most of the year finishing with 20 picks and a 73.9 passer rating. If anything the 2011 Giants were even worse. Manning had a much better season but they had no running game and their defense stunk. Those are two of the most mediocre teams to ever win a Super Bowl and the Patriots should be embarrassed by losing to them.

[Malakai432]

I'll probably just stay at home and watch figure skating or HSN considering two teams I couldn't hate more are playing for a championship. Meh, who am I kidding, I'll probably still watch Vomit Bowl 2015....................................... Why couldn't GB wait till after the game to take a dump!!

=

[NFLfan]

The Eagles offense was ranked roughly the same as the Seahawks in ppg and total yards compared to the rest of their leagues. I know those are fairly simplistic measures but I don't feel like going much more in depth than that at the moment. Their top RB was Brian Westbrook who was a decent back and a very good receiver. McNabb had a very good season that year and had better overall passing numbers than Wilson but far fewer running yards. Overall Wilson and McNabb produced about the same total yards. The Eagles had a better passing game but Seattle has a much better run game and I don't see much difference between them in overall offensive efficiency.

The 2007 Giants had a very mediocre offense and Eli Manning was terrible most of the year finishing with 20 picks and a 73.9 passer rating. If anything the 2011 Giants were even worse. Manning had a much better season but they had no running game and their defense stunk. Those are two of the most mediocre teams to ever win a Super Bowl and the Patriots should be embarrassed by losing to them.

Yes, Westbrook was the starting RB... I don't recall the Giants defense and running game in 2011 being as bad as you describe. That was JPP's rookie year, no? I think the Giants playoff run may have erased their regular season from my memory.

I like Wilson a lot but he needs a #1 receiver. Are you satisfied with the receiving corps?

I will be rooting for Seattle next week.

[rsrobinson]

Yes, Westbrook was the starting RB... I don't recall the Giants defense and running game in 2011 being as bad as you describe. That was JPP's rookie year, no? I think the Giants playoff run may have erased their regular season from my memory.

I like Wilson a lot but he needs a #1 receiver. Are you satisfied with the receiving corps?

I will be rooting for Seattle next week.

The 2011 Giants defense gave up 400 points and they had to win their last two games to win the weak NFC East at 9-7. They averaged 3.5 yards per carry and their top back had less than 700 yards rushing. They were a pretty crappy team for most of the year but they managed to get hot and beat the 15-1 Packers, 13-3 49ers, and 13-3 Patriots in the playoffs somehow so give them credit. Overall they weren't a very good team, though, and they haven't been back to the playoffs since.

Yeah, the Seahawks definitely need to upgrade the WR corps. Rookie Paul Richardson was really coming on at the end of the year so losing him to an ACL injury was a blow. Upgrading at WR and OL should be a priority in the offseason.

[rsrobinson]

Scott Kacsmar of Football Outsiders has a piece in ESPN Insiders comparing Russell Wilson to a young Tom Brady in his first three seasons as a starter and uses advanced metrics to make the case that Wilson has been better so far. Here are a couple of excerpts: http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12213602/super-bowl-xlix-why-russell-wilson-looks-better-version-early-tom-brady (Most of it is behind a pay wall)

Thanks to Wilson's rushing value, his statistics are better than those produced by Brady in his first three years as a starter. Wilson had a 100.0 passer rating as a rookie, which ranked fourth in 2012; Brady did not have a season like that until his eighth in the league. Adjusting for opponent and the less pass-crazed period of 2001-03 paints a rosier picture for Brady.

In Football Outsiders' key metrics, Wilson's average passing season ranks 10.3 in DVOA (value per play) and 10.3 in DYAR (total value). Sure enough, the 2001-03 version of Brady averaged rankings of 10.3 in DVOA and 10.3 in DYAR, too. Today's group of quarterbacks is a stronger bunch with better numbers, so it is harder to stand out. In 2014, Wilson rushed for 284 DYAR, the most by any quarterback in a season since at least 1989. Against the St. Louis Rams, Wilson had the first game in NFL history with at least 300 yards passing and 100 yards rushing.

Quarterbacks always get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses, but consider the data at Advanced Football Analytics. Wilson has averaged 0.17 win probability added (WPA) per game. The 2001-03 Brady averaged 0.10 WPA per game, so Wilson has been more statistically involved in his team's success.

Another thing that stands out about Wilson's crunch-time record is that it includes all 13 losses in his career. Dating back to his days at NC State, Wilson just does not get blown out. He has either led or been within one score in the fourth quarter of his past 82 games, including all 55 with Seattle. He has had a lead in all 55 of his NFL games, which is another NFL record. Seattle's 12-point fourth-quarter comeback against Green Bay was the largest ever in a championship game. Even on what looked like his worst day, Wilson played outstanding when it was most necessary.

Quarterbacks do not have a clutch gene, but they all have a clutch history, and those moments often tend to go well or disastrously. So far, Wilson's have gone very well, and he compares favorably to the Brady of today, who has long been the gold standard in that area, with a career record of 46-31 (.597) in GWD opportunities.

Obviously we don't know if Wilson will continue to improve at the level that Brady has over the years but he does compare very favorably so far to Brady's first three years as a starter and he might be the first QB since Brady to win back to back rings.

[amfootball]

Very good, but do you think that translates to how well he'll do against Seattle's defense which has had a lot of success against top tier passing attacks? Over the last three years they are 10-0 against Super Bowl winning quarterbacks and have surrendered just 13.8 ppg to them.

Brady threw for almost 400 yards on them two years ago ... and lost by a point. And he didn't have anywhere near as good defense then as he does now.

[rsrobinson]

Brady threw for almost 400 yards on them two years ago ... and lost by a point. And he didn't have anywhere near as good defense then as he does now.

So your basing your hopes on a game played nearly three full seasons ago? Both teams have had at least a third of their rosters overturned since then, the Seahawks defense was still young and learning to play together, it took Brady 58 attempts to gain 395 yards and he threw two bad picks, Brady's receiving corps of Welker, Hernandez, Gronk, and Lloyd was much better than he has today, it was only Russell Wilson's sixth NFL start and he outplayed Brady, and the Patriots lost the game.

[Track Guy]

In fairness to Wilson though, he has junk at every position other than RB. So I will give him credit there. How he scores as many points as he does especially this season with no Tate and Harvin traded is impressive. But it all runs out on the 1st.

There's some truth to that, but he doesn't make the guys around him look particularly good. Well, I don't know how much of it is Wilson vs just the offense the Seahawks run. Leaving Seattle was a good move for Tate, and I imagine Doug Baldwin would put up better numbers in a different system. In any event, I hope the Pats destroy the Hawks next Sunday.

[BleedBlu8792]

How were Brady's numbers in those games?

 

Good lord, you're talking as if Brady has the second coming of Moss and Rice as his wideouts. Seattle WILL NOT make the same mistake as the Colts did and stand 5-10 yards off of New England's receivers and allow Edleman and Amendola to run all of those chip shot routes. Denver tried the same thing last year and by the end of the first quarter they ALL were alligator-arming the ball because they didn't want to get hit. Green Bay got 4 extra possessions, 2 or 3 being in + territory, and still could only manage 22 points. You seriously can't be that big of a homer to believe New England's offense is better than Green Bay's and think they are going to do much to Seattle's defense.

 

Besides Gronk, who does New England really have? Seattle is going to take away the outside receivers, double Gronk, and make New England beat them with the run game, which more than likely, isn't going to happen. Seattle wants exactly that. New England, in my opinion, is going to get ran out of the stadium, and I look for Brady to get hit over and over. Seattle may not sack him, but they are going to make it really uncomfortable for him.

 

If New England is within 7-10 points of Seattle I will be shocked.

[braveheartcolt]

Gronk is the most overrated player in the league. Like Brady.

The Squakhawks will shut them down and win, and we will never hear the end of it.

What a horrible start to the month.

[southwest1]

I'll probably just stay at home and watch figure skating or HSN considering two teams I couldn't hate more are playing for a championship. Meh, who am I kidding, I'll probably still watch Vomit Bowl 2015....................................... Why couldn't GB wait till after the game to take a dump!!

=

I'm just trying to picture you watching figure skating & being fascinated by it for 3 hours M-432. LOL! Vomit Bowl 2015 sounds like a World Wrestling Federation pay per view event on cable TV or a hotdog eating contest that took a horrible turn for the worst requiring personnel the Dept. Of Health to show up & do quarantine damage control.

 

Yeah, I know. I have a vivid imagination don't I?  It's late or should I say early & SW1 isn't in the mood to stay on the topic at hand. Oh well, such is life I guess. 

[Malakai432]

I'm just trying to picture you watching figure skating & being fascinated by it for 3 hours M-432. LOL! Vomit Bowl 2015 sounds like a World Wrestling Federation pay per view event on cable TV or a hotdog eating contest that took a horrible turn for the worst requiring personnel the Dept. Of Health to show up & do quarantine damage control.

Yeah, I know. I have a vivid imagination don't I? It's late or should I say early & SW1 isn't in the mood to stay on the topic at hand. Oh well, such is life I guess.

SW you are one of the best posters on here. I love your comments man. The Dept. of Health is going to have to show up after I watch this upcomming SB, then the Dept. of Sanitation will have to come out and make sure I still have a suitable living environment!!!!

I'm such a big fan of the game all I want to see is a good game without any concern on who wins. It's the New England De-flatriots vs the Seattle Skankhawks, I could really care who wins.

Hope you had a good weekend my friend.

[amfootball]

So your basing your hopes on a game played nearly three full seasons ago? Both teams have had at least a third of their rosters overturned since then, the Seahawks defense was still young and learning to play together, it took Brady 58 attempts to gain 395 yards and he threw two bad picks, Brady's receiving corps of Welker, Hernandez, Gronk, and Lloyd was much better than he has today, it was only Russell Wilson's sixth NFL start and he outplayed Brady, and the Patriots lost the game.

I am not basing anything on that game but was more just using it as an example of how easily Brady moved the ball on the Hawks defense but yes, he had the two picks and one in the red zone that had he not thrown would have iced the game.

 

In terms of the two teams now, this Pats offense is as good and maybe more versatile than 2012 because Lafells is a big target on the outside and Edleman is better than Welker in terms of being able to get down the field as well as the short routes. And this team also has  a run game with Blount. BUT the biggest difference is the defense. As I have been saying to you, this defense IS better than Green Bay's who shut you out for 56 minutes. What has been lost in al this silly deflategate stuff is not the fact that Brady and Blount put up insane numbers vs the Colts D as that was expected but the Pats defense completely shut down Andrew Luck who was coming in with the most explosive offense in the NFL. In fact the Pats defense have faced the best QBs in the league all year with Manning (when he was healthy), Luck (twice), Rodgers, Rivers, Stafford and held them all in check. And then you add in the fact that this Seattle offense lost Tate and traded Harvin and I just don't see where there is any threat outside of Lynch. I love Wilson and think he is a special guy but no way he is going to be able to put up much of anything on this defense with the guys he has around him.

[teganslaw]

So the article is saying that Wilson "gets by with a little help from his friends"? Of course, it seems that he does more than that.

[Narcosys]

Ehh... Luck is in the position he's in because they (coaching staff) choose to make it that way. Sunday is a prime example in that the Colts really didn't have much of a problem running the ball, yet they kept choosing to let Luck pull the trigger. It's not entirely his fault by any means, but considering the weather and how he's played against New England in the past, why are they forcing the issue with Luck?

Would WIlson's dynamic be different if he had Hilton, Wayne, Allen, and Fleener? Lynch is all he really had this year, and last year it was really only Golden Tate and Lynch. Where Wilson excels is keeping his defense off the field. Seattle as a team is very good about not turning the ball over on offense. Very rarely do they ever put their defense in a bad position. Don't get me wrong, Seattle's defense is great, but that offense has a part in them being as good as they are as well.

NFL network showed a stat on the Colts about mid-way through this season and it said, since Luck started in 12', if the Colts didn't commit an offensive turnover the defense gave up an average of ~18ppg. However, if the Colts committed 1 or more turnovers the defense gave up ~24 points ppg. 6+ point differential! You simply cannot give your opponents extra possessions and Seattle for the most part, except for last Sunday, just does not do that where as the Colts have had their fair share of issues with turning over the ball.

Wilson is every bit as important to that Seahawk team as is Lynch and that defense.

Most wr and qb can be good just due to scheming. Bill Walsh helped with this. But a rb depends on a good o-line and his own skills more than the other two imo. That defense has been huge for them on scoring points because Wilson and the offense can't.

[NFLfan]

... What has been lost in al this silly deflategate stuff is not the fact that Brady and Blount put up insane numbers vs the Colts D as that was expected but the Pats defense completely shut down Andrew Luck who was coming in with the most explosive offense in the NFL. In fact the Pats defense have faced the best QBs in the league all year with Manning (when he was healthy), Luck (twice), Rodgers, Rivers, Stafford and held them all in check.

The Pats did not keep Rodgers in check. Rodgers was 24 of 38 for 368 yds (9.7 ypa), 2 TD and 0 picks. You boasted twice in this thread about Brady throwing nearly 400 yds against the Seahawks defense in 2012 but Robinson had to point out that Brady needed 58 passes and he threw 2 picks. Rodgers had 27 fewer yards but needed 20 fewer attempts. He clearly played better against your vaunted defense than Brady did against a young Seahawks secondary in 2012.

You made a lot of good points but they get overlooked when you provide inaccurate information. That makes you lose credibility.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/gamecast?gameId=400554371&version=mobile&src=desktop

[BleedBlu8792]

Most wr and qb can be good just due to scheming. Bill Walsh helped with this. But a rb depends on a good o-line and his own skills more than the other two imo. That defense has been huge for them on scoring points because Wilson and the offense can't.

 

That defense only scored 3 TD's all year, and were 15th in the league in defensive points per game. Sorry but 1.3 points is hardly justifying a defense being "huge" in that aspect.

[Narcosys]

That defense only scored 3 TD's all year, and were 15th in the league in defensive points per game. Sorry but 1.3 points is hardly justifying a defense being "huge" in that aspect.

But how many turnovers did they get? How many 3 and outs did they get to give Wilson another shot. That's how they get more points. Plus the past 3 years they have been league best at 4.4 points a game.

[Corndog]

I still think it's hilarious Russell Wilson gets no love from ESPN when he gets a Superbowl ring because of a great defense with limited pass attempts, yet when another QB did the same thing he was the second coming.  What was his name? I think it was Tom Brady.   I am curious to see if Wilson gets any credit if they win another.  Not to say he is the best in the league, but he deserves a little more credit.  

[dw49]

Did you notice who was number two on the list of QBs that get the most help? Joe Flacco. No surprise there.

 

I believe in this Super Bowl you are going to see the Pats absolutely bottle up this Seattle O. This is by FAR the worse offense they have ever faced in the Super Bowl in their six trips in the Brady era. NE's defense is better than GB and we can play Wilson the way the Packers did except we won't let up at the end. You got a glimpse in the conference champ game at just how bad he can be when Lynch is contained and you man up his receivers.

 

In fairness to Wilson though, he has junk at every position other than RB. So I will give him credit there. How he scores as many points as he does especially this season with no Tate and Harvin traded is impressive. But it all runs out on the 1st.

 

 

Off topic but anyway regarding our previous conversation on how I said the Pats would be favored and you said would be a underdog... here ya go.....As I said before , I did that stuff for real money a few years ago...

 

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/12232230/new-england-patriots-getting-bet-more-seattle-seahawks-las-vegas-sports-books