Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

What to do with Matt Flynn...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Seattle Seahawks
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hawksman81


Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 2571
Location: I am the Eyas
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hawksman81 wrote:


Iím talking about strictly their rookie seasons, not going forward.


In that context, what's the point of the comparison?[/quote]

Because thatís what were debating? Question Confused
_________________


SaveourSonics wrote:
I love D!ck

JustisM wrote:
Why'd they turn the lights on?
Big Ben is more effective in the dark.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chpjns15


Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 1698
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
chpjns15 wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
SaveourSonics wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
SaveourSonics wrote:
Let's look at Peyton's rookie season. I'll take Wilson's.


Why even make this comparison? Because you certainly wouldn't take Wilson over Manning AS A PLAYER.


Straight up? Obviously not. Considering their age? Yea, I'll take Wilson. As rookies? Yea, I'll take Wilson, which is obviously a perfectly fine comparison considering Wilson is only a rookie.

Oh and I'd sure as hell take him over Badford Wink


Well, that's a bad move. You're going to pass on the GOAT(arguably) as a rookie for Russell Wilson because Wilson has better numbers...huge mistake. You already know what Manning becomes...


He is obviously saying this assuming we dont know what Manning becomes. Show some common sense.

And I would easily take Wilson over Manning after their rookie seasons. Manning had 26 TDs and 28 INTs, while Wilson is at 25 TDs and 10 INTs and still had a game to play. Because we assuming that we dont know what Manning will become, I definitely take Wilson.


I still take Manning. Just like I would take Calvin Johnson over Torrey Smith just considering their rookie years despite Torrey having better numbers. Both Torrey and Russell were in better situations while Calvin and Manning had better tools.

There's more to the game than stats. Wilson appears to have a bright future but stats or not, I wouldn't have considered taking him over Manning.


How can you know? Its easy to see how Johnson turned out and say, "I would have chosen him over Smith based on their rookie seasons", but you cant be too sure who you would have chosen over the other one.

Quote:
I mean consider this, when talking about the most elite of the elite QB prospects, people say he's the best QB prospect since Manning...that's how elite of a prospect Manning was.


The most elite PROSPECT since Manning. Not the best rookie season since Manning. Remember, we are ONLY talking about rookie seasons here.
_________________
"Trying is the first step towards failure"


"If you can't win, cheat. If you can't cheat, don't play."


"Getting a paper cut, that is tragedy. Someone falling down a sewer and dying, that is comedy."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 45626
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chpjns15 wrote:


How can you know? Its easy to see how Johnson turned out and say, "I would have chosen him over Smith based on their rookie seasons", but you cant be too sure who you would have chosen over the other one.

Quote:
I mean consider this, when talking about the most elite of the elite QB prospects, people say he's the best QB prospect since Manning...that's how elite of a prospect Manning was.


The most elite PROSPECT since Manning. Not the best rookie season since Manning. Remember, we are ONLY talking about rookie seasons here.


I can be absolutely sure and I loved Torrey Smith. Megatron had freakish once in a decade talent. You never pass that up after a rookie year.

And we're talking about picking who to move forward with after their rookie year(without knowing what Manning will become)...at least that's how I took the comments.

hawksman81 wrote:


Because thatís what were debating? Question Confused


That's not what's being debated. I think it's pretty obvious who had a better statistical year. What I'm debating is the argument that after their rookie years, a couple people said they'd choose Wilson over Manning AS A PLAYER.(with the idea of being ignorant of what Manning becomes)
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaveourSonics


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45415
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age.


And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course).
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 45626
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SaveourSonics wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age.


And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course).


Luck has done more with a lot less? My arse. Especially considering WHEN Manning did that.

Oh...ok...so Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin and Sidney Rice aren't good players...it's just Wilson makes them look good. I'll go ahead and remember that for next time when you're talking up one of them.

Nope, Wilson doesn't possess those on the same level of Manning. And I'm literally laughing my butt off at you using wins as proof of a guy's ability to command his team. Sounds like the same argument the Luck fans use to try to claim he's equal or better than Wilson...an argument that I think you probably would say is ridiculous...but hey, lets evaluate a player based on how many games his team wins. That Rodgers guy sure sucked in his first year as a starter...I mean the Packers only won 6 games...Andrew Luck this year is far better than Rodgers was.

I'm just gonna walk away now, SOS, your homerism is taking over.
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheoryofSeahawk


Joined: 25 Feb 2008
Posts: 1933
Location: Kosmic Satori
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SaveourSonics wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age.


And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course).


Lol, that's epic. Hindsight is 20/20 and there is no way anyone can say that they could decide between Manning or Wilson based strictly on their rookie years without being biased by the fact that Manning was annointed as a possible HoFer before he played his first snap. That has clouded the way everyone has perceived Manning ever since. It's also clouded the way people have perceived the comparison between Luck, Griffin, and Wilson all year. It's easy to ignore all the variables to these kinds of arguments and act like this kind of comparison takes place in some kind of vacuum, but that's not reality.
_________________
ďThey were threatened by my intelligence and too stupid to know thatís why they hated me.Ē

Sheldon Cooper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SaveourSonics


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45415
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
SaveourSonics wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age.


And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course).


Luck has done more with a lot less? My arse. Especially considering WHEN Manning did that.

Oh...ok...so Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin and Sidney Rice aren't good players...it's just Wilson makes them look good. I'll go ahead and remember that for next time when you're talking up one of them.

Nope, Wilson doesn't possess those on the same level of Manning. And I'm literally laughing my butt off at you using wins as proof of a guy's ability to command his team. Sounds like the same argument the Luck fans use to try to claim he's equal or better than Wilson...an argument that I think you probably would say is ridiculous...but hey, lets evaluate a player based on how many games his team wins. That Rodgers guy sure sucked in his first year as a starter...I mean the Packers only won 6 games...Andrew Luck this year is far better than Rodgers was.

I'm just gonna walk away now, SOS, your homerism is taking over.


Read more carefully there, sport. No where in my post is there an admittance that Tate/Rice/Baldwin are bad players. I clearly state that they were not "considered" good players prior to Wilson taking over, which is completely true. There was a poll in the Comparison forum over the offseason of who had the better weapons between us and Cleveland. So you can forget whatever thing you were trying to put tabs on.

And I'm laughing my butt off about you talking about "evaluating" players and "scouting" when there is little doubt in my mind you did neither during Peyton's rookie season considering your age. Luck has taken a team that could barely compete last year and has turned them into a playoff team. Certainly not single-handed, but the difference between 9 or 10 wins is pretty substantial to Peyton's 3.

I can be honest and say I didn't get the opportunity to "evaluate" Peyton in his rookie season considering my age, but I feel pretty safe saying that he wasn't great when looking at all of the numbers and the numerous highlights/lowlights I've seen over the years. Perhaps that's not fair, but I think it's better than you pretending like you've done much more.
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 45626
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SaveourSonics wrote:


Read more carefully there, sport. No where in my post is there an admittance that Tate/Rice/Baldwin are bad players. I clearly state that they were not "considered" good players prior to Wilson taking over, which is completely true. There was a poll in the Comparison forum over the offseason of who had the better weapons between us and Cleveland. So you can forget whatever thing you were trying to put tabs on.


You're dancing around the point. Are they good players or is Russell Wilson the reason they look good?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You're trying to use the opinions of other fans to make a point that I'm specifically asking YOU about. And it's because we both know that you've said Tate, Rice and Baldwin are good players.

So to give Wilson credit for making them good players is ridiculous. That said, you can certainly give him credit for utilizing them better than T-Jax but that's a far cry from the claim you made a couple posts ago.

I don't care what they're "considered" to be. I care what they are. Hell, a lot of people considered Brockers to be a bad pick and thought he'd bust...they were dead wrong. Some people "consider" Janoris Jenkins to be the DROY...right now, they're wrong.(I mean barring a 3 int 2 DTD performance in Week 17 or something like that...he doesn't deserve it)

Quote:
And I'm laughing my butt off about you talking about "evaluating" players and "scouting" when there is little doubt in my mind you did neither during Peyton's rookie season considering your age. Luck has taken a team that could barely compete last year and has turned them into a playoff team. Certainly not single-handed, but the difference between 9 or 10 wins is pretty substantial to Peyton's 3.

I can be honest and say I didn't get the opportunity to "evaluate" Peyton in his rookie season considering my age, but I feel pretty safe saying that he wasn't great when looking at all of the numbers and the numerous highlights/lowlights I've seen over the years. Perhaps that's not fair, but I think it's better than you pretending like you've done much more.


Yea, it sucks that back in the distant past of 1998 that there was no way for the games to be recorded...
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaveourSonics


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45415
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
You're dancing around the point. Are they good players or is Russell Wilson the reason they look good?


How can I be dancing around a point that I made? Laughing Yes, they certainly are good players, but Wilson is truly utilizing them to their full potential as it stands and that's not something you could say about Peyton on his rookie season.

Quote:
Yea, it sucks that back in the distant past of 1998 that there was no way for the games to be recorded...


So you've gone back and watched/evaluated all 16 games of Peyton's rookie season from '98? No offense, but color me a skeptic.
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 45626
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SaveourSonics wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
You're dancing around the point. Are they good players or is Russell Wilson the reason they look good?


How can I be dancing around a point that I made? Laughing Yes, they certainly are good players, but Wilson is truly utilizing them to their full potential as it stands and that's not something you could say about Peyton on his rookie season.

Quote:
Yea, it sucks that back in the distant past of 1998 that there was no way for the games to be recorded...


So you've gone back and watched/evaluated all 16 games of Peyton's rookie season from '98? No offense, but color me a skeptic.


Are they really? And how can you claim that?

All 16? No. But I have seen 3 or 4 of the games.
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaveourSonics


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45415
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Are they really? And how can you claim that?

All 16? No. But I have seen 3 or 4 of the games.


I know it goes against your religion, but I can tell by looking at the numbers for the most part.

And that's enough to have you talking so matter-of-factly about this topic? I mean, for the most part, it's a topic of opinion, yet your tone would seem to indicate that there is only one right answer here. I don't think it's absurb by any stretch of the imagination to say that based solely off of rookie seasons, Wilson could be the better QB.

Now, do I expect Wilson to even touch what Peyton has done in the league? Hell no, that'd be ludicrous. But he has looked damn good, especially as of late. Of course I haven't seen as much of '98 Peyton as you have, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that at any point he shined as much as Russell Wilson has these past few weeks.
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 45626
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SaveourSonics wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
Are they really? And how can you claim that?

All 16? No. But I have seen 3 or 4 of the games.


I know it goes against your religion, but I can tell by looking at the numbers for the most part.

And that's enough to have you talking so matter-of-factly about this topic? I mean, for the most part, it's a topic of opinion, yet your tone would seem to indicate that there is only one right answer here. I don't think it's absurb by any stretch of the imagination to say that based solely off of rookie seasons, Wilson could be the better QB.

Now, do I expect Wilson to even touch what Peyton has done in the league? Hell no, that'd be ludicrous. But he has looked damn good, especially as of late. Of course I haven't seen as much of '98 Peyton as you have, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that at any point he shined as much as Russell Wilson has these past few weeks.


What happens if Sidney Rice's maximized potential is 2009? What happens if Golden Tate's maximized potential has yet to be seen?

How can we be sure that they're being utilized up to full potential?

And I always speak matter of factly, it's just who I am. I always speak with the utmost confidence...some see it as arrogance. Some see it as being confident in what you're saying.

But I'm not the only one who has spoken matter of factly. Wink
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SaveourSonics


Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45415
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
What happens if Sidney Rice's maximized potential is 2009? What happens if Golden Tate's maximized potential has yet to be seen?

How can we be sure that they're being utilized up to full potential?


Maximized potential is probably the wrong way to say it. What I'm trying to articulate is that Sidney Rice is having his best season in Seattle under Wilson. As is Golden Tate. As is Zach Miller. As is Anthony McCoy. As is Marshawn Lynch. I don't think that's any coincidence at all. He has raised the play of all of these players as a rookie. Again, I don't see the numbers from the '98 Colts team to back that up for Peyton.
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 45626
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SaveourSonics wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
What happens if Sidney Rice's maximized potential is 2009? What happens if Golden Tate's maximized potential has yet to be seen?

How can we be sure that they're being utilized up to full potential?


Maximized potential is probably the wrong way to say it. What I'm trying to articulate is that Sidney Rice is having his best season in Seattle under Wilson. As is Golden Tate. As is Zach Miller. As is Anthony McCoy. As is Marshawn Lynch. I don't think that's any coincidence at all. He has raised the play of all of these players as a rookie. Again, I don't see the numbers from the '98 Colts team to back that up for Peyton.


What numbers should there be?

No, it's not a coincidence, Seattle was a good team who was held back by bad QB play. Now they have very good QB play.
_________________
The LBC wrote:
Harper41 wrote:
Don't worry. Sean Payton would pass the ball in a Tornado.

But would he do it in a Sharknado?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SwiftTexan


Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Posts: 3449
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
SaveourSonics wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age.


And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course).


Luck has done more with a lot less? My arse. Especially considering WHEN Manning did that.

Oh...ok...so Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin and Sidney Rice aren't good players...it's just Wilson makes them look good. I'll go ahead and remember that for next time when you're talking up one of them.

Nope, Wilson doesn't possess those on the same level of Manning. And I'm literally laughing my butt off at you using wins as proof of a guy's ability to command his team. Sounds like the same argument the Luck fans use to try to claim he's equal or better than Wilson...an argument that I think you probably would say is ridiculous...but hey, lets evaluate a player based on how many games his team wins. That Rodgers guy sure sucked in his first year as a starter...I mean the Packers only won 6 games...Andrew Luck this year is far better than Rodgers was.

I'm just gonna walk away now, SOS, your homerism is taking over.


Four posts later in the span of four and a half hours... still arguing with SoS and still circling around the same thing.

You're just a big phony!
_________________
The Ultimate Fantasy Football Challenge
FootballsFuture Fantasy Scrubs League
Discussion Thread Link
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=550031
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Seattle Seahawks All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 8 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group