He was actually pretty good (relatively speaking) for Tennessee last year. If you extrapolate his stats over the course of a whole season, he'd have 3,700 yards, 62%, and 21 TD but 18 INT. 82 passer rating, 55.4 QBR. Not great but not awful either. More middle of the pack to slightly above average which is better than what the Texans got out of the QB position last year.
The better the rest of the team is, the less you rely on the QB. The seahawks had LOB, beastmode, and a very good offensive line. They didn't need a Peyton Manning for a QB. If the rest of the team isn't as good then you need your QB to be exceptional (i.e Patriots). If the Texans' roster is solid all the way through, they could make do with an average QB who doesn't make too many mistakes. Right now the Texans have neither an exceptional roster nor an exceptional QB.
The question is, is it easier to build that entirely solid roster or find that elite QB? Elite QBs are rare, but building a dominant defense means hitting on a bunch of picks and FA acquisitions and managing the cap well enough to keep that many good players on the team at the same time. Neither is particularly easy to do.
Teams should be trying to get both. Build the roster but if you get the chance for an exceptional QB, go for it. The defense doesn't have to have all-pro starters at every position; just no weak links. Every position group needs to be solid. And you also need a good running game.
I think many of us sale Russell short (no pun intended).... For example, if Seattle had Manning this past season instead of Russell _ I don't think they win a championship with that receiving core and Manning not being able to consistently throw the ball down field (people don't take into account that Manning threw A LOT of screens and short passes _ over 70% of his passes). Seattle also lost offensive linemen during the year and since they don't have receiving options like the Thomas boys, Welker, and Decker _ I doubt Manning would have survived. I don't believe they could have plugged in Nick Foles and won a championship either. I'm not saying Russell is elite but he's the right quarterback for that team and he's a lot better than average. Cleveland and Buffalo have talent on both sides of the ball and average quarterbacks and they're both drafting in the top 10. On the flip side I believe Schaub was just average and Yates was less than average but they could only get so far with those quarterbacks.
It's more than just having talent. I think you have to be solid all through the roster without any links. They don't have to be all stars but they need to be really good across the board. If Manning had a defense like the seahawks did, he would be giving the ball to the running back for the whole second half of games. You put Wilson on the Broncos team and I don't think they make it to the super bowl.
Of course Lynch is the backbone for Seattle... But Russell made plays with his arm and because of his limited receiving options and not a great offensive line he had to make plays with his feet as well.... Manning can't do that. On the flip side. We saw how Russell was airing the ball out in the super bowl once he had Harvin on the field. If you put Russell on Denver with that great receiving core, they may not make the super bowl but I bet they would come darn close. Russell is no Tebow. But I understand the point you're making though.
Agreed completely, the Broncos weren't a good enough team to win with a game manager like Wilson, even if he's a game manager with plus wheels. I think the Seahawks could have won the SB last year(specifically that game) with almost any starting QB in the NFL with the performance of their supporting cast. People get way too worked up about the QB position but a lot of meh type QB's have "won" SB's lately and 3 of the last 4 QB's in the SB have been nothing special at all.
The Broncos were a good enough team to win with Tebow but not a good enough team to win with Russell I guess it's too "BLACK AND WHITE" for me to understand Bobby's logic on that one...
My point is if that team can win a playoff game against Pittsburgh with Tebow as the quarterback... I'm sure they could have success with Russell, and that's with Welker and J. Thomas added to the receiving core. And good luck with Manning trying to get through the NFC west without a bunch of receiving options and no stud tight end and a weak passing rushing offensive line.
There is winning one playoff game in overtime. Then there is going to the superbowl. Then of course there is winning the superbowl. If you are trying to argue that Russell Wilson is better than Manning, please stop.
LOL, exactly. Remii isn't the brightest, but he tries. I do think it's funny that he's trying to insinuate that there is a race aspect to why I call Russell a game manager. Either way, there's a reason why I blocked him.
I never insinuated Russell was the better quarterback but I'm definitely saying Russell was a better quarterback for that particular Seattle team. I seriously doubt they would have won a super bowl or even made it that far with Manning at his age and lack of arm strength and being non-mobile. I don't know if Russell would have won a super bowl with Denver. All I said was that they would have success. I don't see how what I said sounds so crazy to you considering you're comparing Teddy Bridgewater to Joe Montana.
Back on topic, I really hope the texans draft a player to play in the position he played in college. Please no more DEs being turned into OLBs in their rookie year.
I don't understand this line of thinnking; never have. It feels like people reaching to confirm a conclusion they made long ago and won't change. You don't think there's any pressure if you know you're career is on the line? That, to me, anyway, seems infinitely more difficult than a pressure-packed moment with playoff implications. Or, at the very least, just as hard. He was a highly-regarded kicker who had some early bumps but seemed to straighten himself out. Again - I thought his kickoffs were far more problematic and the Texans should absolutely bring in competition. But I think - after a tough start- that he very quietly was better than most people realize.
They really set the kid up for failure IMO. 9 of his first 15 kicks were further away than 40 yards, 5 of them further than 45 yards, and he had such terrible protection that he was having to deal with kicks being blocked which can really get in the head of a kicker and cause them to rush kicks. A bunch of high pressure, long distance kicks isn't exactly what you want for a rookie kicker, especially if your line is a joke. I think he'll be fine, he's got the tools to be a really good kicker for a long time, he just needs to work a bit more on his long FG's and he needs a line that won't make him rush to get the kick off.
