"Wilson has played in 51 games, regular season and postseason combined. And in every single one of those games, the Seahawks have had a lead."
Wilson of course also holds the record for most wins after two years in the league. His biggest loss in the NFL so far is by 9 points. His next most lop-sided losses are by 7 points, three times.
Yes, I know he has had an great D throughout his career.
I also know that he has an atrocious O-line, and a receiving corp that, even before Percy Harvin left, is below average.
This stat comes from someone who is a Russel Wilson homer, but who is also quite football knowledgeable. He provided this stat to re-iterate that RW3 is an absolute elite QB. He laughs at someone who still think RW3 is a game manager helped by a great D and running game. In fact, he absolutely believes that after all said and done, RW3 will have greater accomplishment than A. Luck.
How do/should you view this stat?
He doesn't do that in every system, Luck on the other hand makes any team better save a handful with better QBs.
He's a top 10 qb in my book.
At some point, his legs will wane and his athleticism will falter. This guy is exactly what Johnny Manziel should model himself after. Point being, I don't see him as a guy whose going to have success at age 33; where a lot of the great QBs today still put up fantastic #s.
Wilson extends plays and has just enough accuracy to stay in the pocket and be a pure passer. He throws an excellent deep ball with a lot of air to give his receivers the high point.
The few times the Seahawks attempted to make him throw it a lot this season, he's struggled.
Losses against Chargers and Cowboys this year both had inflated pass attempts compared to their norm. I don't recall any read option stuff in those games.
They learned their lesson and went back to the 50/50 balance.
Can't wait for the day that he gets his $18MM+ APY, and Lynch retires. We'll see how good he really is.
RW has every right to be a religious man, because he is in an absolutely blessed situation. Don't make TOs, run when you don't see anything, and we'll make sure beastmode and the defense handles the rest.
Nothing wrong with being a game manager, but game managers don't belong in top 10 conversation. Period.
There is no context for the information. We are not given information on how often teams in the NFL lead from beginning to end or trail from beginning to end. We are not provided with any comparable numbers for other quarterbacks. Therefore I cannot say whether this 51 for 51 is a highly probable or improbable event.
I don't find Wilson to be a particularly great passer. What he does do well is run the ball on designed QB runs without taking big hits. That's not a knock on him as a QB...personally he's one of my favorite QBs to watch play.
But I do think he is more easily replaced than the top pocket QBs...especially someone on Luck's level.
The true stars of that Seattle offense have been Lynch, who is a monster, and whomever calls their plays. The sequencing of plays is excellent, and they're rarely in poor down and distance situations. I think you if you put any of Alex Smith, RG3, and possibly even Geno Smith (not great but never had a chance with the coaching he got) and still get good results in that offense.
He has a tremendous amount of freedom within his system to use all of his weapons---and he lifts the players that he has---yes, he's a young qb CARRYING a less than fully stocked receiving corp. He's on a good team that would struggle without him.
There is no context for the information. We are not given information on how often teams in the NFL lead from beginning to end or trail from beginning to end. We are not provided with any comparable numbers for other quarterbacks. Therefore I cannot say whether this 51 for 51 is a highly probable or improbable event.
Ray, I myself think this guy is crazy in over-promoting Wilson, but I would not necessarily label this stat as raw data instead of meaningful info. We do know these:
1. Having a lead is a very good and meaningful thing to have in a NFL game. In fact, in the ultimate competition of the Super Bowl, teams that had the first lead are 32-16, or a 67% winning percentage, clearly better than random.
2. NFL game is a extremely competitive and any margin of any superiority is very hard to come by, so if you are able to achieve a good thing, on the team/game level, for each and every one of the 51 games you've ever played in, I appreciate that.
Put it this way, if I tell you an NFL team has created one turnover, or has not given up a turnover, which is a good thing to have, in 51 straight games, even withou any other comparative information, would you have appreciated it? I would have, to a non-so-small degree.
Quote:
in the mathematical sense. I would view it as a piece of raw data.
There is no context for the information. We are not given information on how often teams in the NFL lead from beginning to end or trail from beginning to end. We are not provided with any comparable numbers for other quarterbacks. Therefore I cannot say whether this 51 for 51 is a highly probable or improbable event.
Ray, I myself think this guy is crazy in over-promoting Wilson, but I would not necessarily label this stat as raw data instead of meaningful info. We do know these:
1. Having a lead is a very good and meaningful thing to have in a NFL game. In fact, in the ultimate competition of the Super Bowl, teams that had the first lead are 32-16, or a 67% winning percentage, clearly better than random.
2. NFL game is a extremely competitive and any margin of any superiority is very hard to come by, so if you are able to achieve a good thing, on the team/game level, for each and every one of the 51 games you've ever played in, I appreciate that.
Put it this way, if I tell you an NFL team has created one turnover, or has not given up a turnover, which is a good thing to have, in 51 straight games, even withou any other comparative information, would you have appreciated it? I would have, to a non-so-small degree.
Sorry I am not able to provide much feedback. I'm struggling with the terms you use ("meaningful, appreciate"). Once I stray from the professional terminology I'm kind of lost quickly. Even the statement "raw data instead of meaningful info" gives me pause because I don't look at raw data as actually meaningful or meaningless but rather something for which I more information to get an idea of large sample size behavior.
Regarding the turnover question my response is I am familiar enough with rates of turnovers to say that 51 games without a turnover would be an extremely low-probability event. We have over 1000 seasons of NFL teams since the merger with not even a single team committing less than 10 turnovers over a 14 or 16 game span. This gives us a large population of supporting information.
With the Wilson number we'd have to be careful about one aspect. Let's say we have some kind of statement about 51 for 51. But perhaps out of the population of quarterbacks there are similarly very high percentages (if not 100%). This gives us some ideas about the large-sample population, and helps move us from the realm of "data" to "statistics", because a statistic estimates a characteristic of a large sample-size population.
Hope this helps a little. Its been important to my work in the past not to introduce subjective elements into analysis.
low-scoring opponents + few turnovers + ball control offense = success.