Bret Bielema Says Talks To Coach Phins Broke Down In 2012 Because Of Russell Wilson

That's saying that when his team sucks around him, Wilson doesn't win as often.

DUH. IT'S A TEAM GAME.

Crazy pills. Feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

Well, CK, I've been told over and over that Tannehill isn't very good because they haven't made the playoffs, with a constantly poor defense and an average receiving corps.

People are simply applying the standards to Wilson that some are applying to Tannehill.

 

Yes. These things that we're applying to Wilson right now, are exactly the standards that have been applied to Tannehill. I'm glad you feel like you're on crazy pills defending Wilson, because that's what I've felt like all season reading this stuff about Tannehill, when people try to compare Tannehill to Wilson.

 

And that's an unknown, but certainly based on the objective evidence currently available to us, we should err much more on the side of saying he would, rather than on the side of saying he wouldn't, if we had to choose one or the other.

It's easy to come post on a message board with some theory that Wilson wouldn't do as well individually if he didn't have his supporting cast, but if one of us were forced to bet let's say a year's salary on the matter, well then I suspect we'd be taking a much harder look at the objective evidence currently available, and basing our bet on that, not just some theory that sounds plausible but has no objective support.

 

Yeah talk about cherry picking (taking isolated games out and making an argument) while deriding others for cherry picking. That defense won't last forever so let's just wait and see. It is unkown and unknowable is all I've been arguing.

It is highly unlikely Seattle will field a dominant defense like that for the next 15 years, so we will get the answer soon enough.

 

Oh please. Quit with the martyr routine. If back in 2013 I saw someone on FinHeaven make some stupid argument about "Cam Wake sux0rz cuz he dint even get 10 sakcs wut u think?" does that give me license to just go around making stupid *** arguments in earnest out of some warped sense of fairness?

 

I agree. In the meantime, whether Wilson is better or worse than Tannehill (I think RW's more valuable, but I think Tannehill has the potential to be really good), we should just be happy we're not in the same QB situation we were in after Marino and before Tannehill.

 

But if we're looking at hard numbers, you would say that if you surround Wilson with a great defense and very good run game, he can win Super Bowls. You could even say that with Wilson's great physical attributes, he can mask a poor oline. You can't really say what will happen when he doesn't have a great defense, or he loses a little bit of his ability to make these crazy lateral moves he makes.

All I'm saying, is that any starting QB in the league, and some backups, could look very good in the win loss column if they were only asked to throw a handful of times a game, and only had to score 20 points a few times a season to win games.

 

Ah. So it's only cool to try and isolate samples to demonstrate a trend when it supports your viewpoint. Sort of like how it's not cool to judge him on games where he drops back 35+ times because he might be tearing it up in that game and so it doesn't count.

 

There are 3 QBs that I would say, and this is my own personal grouping, you can hitch your wagon to every year and if they're healthy you're pretty much guaranteed playoffs. Brady, Manning and Rodgers. That's it. Im shocked if they don't make the playoffs.

Next up are QBs that are great, but sometimes need a little more help. Brees and Roethlisberger. Maybe Romo but it's hard because they've failed spectacularly. He's a tweener between that group and the next for me.

After that, are fine QBs who need more help. Rivers. Flacco. Luck.

Where does Wilson slot in this personal grouping? I don't know because it's a huge outlier to have such a dominant defense and running back. I think he'd slot in with Brees and Roethlisberger when it's all said and done. He's got that playmaking ability and calmness to him that is special.

 

No, I'm saying, it's not cool to call people out for cherrypicking and then cherry pick. I never called anyone out for cherry picking I just went along with it.

ETA: And I believe cherry picking has been wrongly defined here btw

 

You can surround Russell Wilson with whatever you want because as I've demonstrated about 50 times he has a higher standard of performance than almost any other quarterback in the league or even the history of the league. The most important thing is that you surround him with the best TEAM you can because this is still a TEAM sport and everyon wins as a TEAM. After that it doesn't particularly matter if it's a great defense and good ground game or a great ground game and receivers unit and mediocre defense, etc. Wilson has demonstrated both efficiency and productivity in all situations.

 

I'm just making a point, dude. People get all bent when you say this stuff about Wilson, but any number of posters come on here and post thread after thread using this stuff to diss Tannehill. It's not accurate, but those of us who dispute it get labeled homers, or other various insulting names. I'm not saying it was you labeling, cause I generally respect what you write, and enjoy your posts. But this garbage has been spewed about Tannehill for the last two years.

 

Right, but again, in saying that you're failing to make the distinction between how Wilson's surrounding talent affects the team, versus how it affects his individual performance.

 

And this, in essence, it's what I've been saying about Tannehill all season. It gets lost in all the other bs that ends up being said.

 

Situations in which a team is not likely to get Wins were being picked out and then Wilson was being criticized on the basis of the team not getting Wins in those situations in which Wins are unlikely.

Yeah that's cherry picking.

Know what's not cherry picking? Taking split data from a specific situation (when trailing) and showing a league cross-section of results from other widely agreed upon league elites.

That's only cherry picking because you don't like what it says about your argument.

 

If your point is that I'm gonna make stupid arguments about Player X because I saw other people making stupid arguments about Player Y and I don't like that, then by all means point taken.

 

Sure? I didn't think the question was about individual performance, but wins/playoffs/Super Bowl. At least that was the narrative after this season, in regards to Tannehill. It didn't matter all the improvement he made, it mattered that he didn't make the playoffs, like Wilson did. As has been clearly said in here, it's a TEAM sport, and your defense/run game clearly matter in that respect.

It's taken a whole lot of stupid posts to get us to this point, which is really the crux of the whole matter.

 

Based on their individual contributions, however, for his team to win like the Seahawks have, Tannehill needs more talent around him at the present time than does Wilson. In other words, Wilson is making a bigger individual contribution to his team's success than is Tannehill, presently.

 

Just trying to get people to realize how stupid those arguments were. Are we there yet?

 

Thats the whole issue in a nutshell. He's obviously very good at playing the 24-28 attempt types of games. Does that make him elite though? I don't think it does. Others do.

As you say, what happens when throwing 24-28 times isn't an option? When 30-40 attempts is the norm, as it's been for Tannehill his entire career. It's an entirely diff ball game. If we had a defense and run game that could keep Tannehill in the 24-28 att range we beat Denver, Detroit, Green Bay, NY, maybe Baltimore too, and we're not even having this discussion.

 

That't not cherry picking. Segmenting performance based on certain criteria is analysis. Segmenting performance, and then picking out the instances that supports your argument is cherry picking. You should know this working in finance. It's like running a screen and then taking out the losers and presenting the winners as proof your stock screen works. That's cherry picking.

 

And then you go and say this. Yet, when Wilson's defense plays like the Dolphins defense (never as bad, actually, look at 30 point games) the results are actually pretty similar. LOSSES.

 

If you agree that Wilson is playing better than Tannehill individually, then by extension you agree that the Dolphins need more talent around Tannehill than the Seahawks do around Wilson, for both teams to perform equally as well. This is simple math.

Or do you not agree that Wilson is playing better than Tannehill individually?

 

Sort of like eliminating the isolation of games in which Wilson dropped back at least 35 times because for all we know he might be having a field day out there and creating all kinds of extra plays for himself and that's why he got 35+ dropbacks.

Yeah. That's cherry picking. That's trying to game the system to get results that understate his performance, to the point that you toss out split data because it's possible that he is creating the qualification for inclusion by him being so good.

 

Wilson performs much better than Tannehill on average when both QBs attempt a number of passes in the 30s.

Certainly you could say that if that was the norm for Wilson, he'd play differently, and once again, you'd then be arguing from a position of the unknown and the unknowable, which is a fairly weak position.

 

EDIT: I got the posts mixed up.

I didn't eliminate those because but it wasn't yet relevant to the argument about how he performs when the defense doesn't perform spectacularly. If you show me the games where the defense let up and he had to throw it that much, it would be pertinent to the discussion.

It is established he does well when throwing it 35+ times. But in the five games the defense allowed more than 20 points, he threw it only an average of 31 times a game.

 

I literally JUST did that. What exactly do you think it means when I show data where a quarterback is trailing in the box score and his number is being called 65-66% of the time?

By its very definition, those situations are ones in which the defense allowed the other team to take the lead, and so there's now pressure on the offense to come back. Hence the QB getting the call about 65-66% of the downs.

And you don't think it's significant that his results in those situation, throwing to UDFA receivers and tight ends, are literally better than every single "elite" quarterback?

 

So many fan boys get so butt hurt when Wilson gets credit.

 

To drill the point home:

Drew Brees Trailing: 249 of 362, 2506 yards, 16 TD, 9 INT, 12 runs for 49 yards and 0 TD, 11 Sacks (92.6 Rating)
Peyton Manning Trailing: 170 of 265, 1903 yards, 14 TD, 7 INT, 4 runs for 1 yard and 0 TD, 8 Sacks (92.1 Rating)
Aaron Rodgers Trailing: 106 of 164, 1124 yards, 7 TD, 4 INT, 6 runs for 54 yards and 1 TD, 10 Sacks (88.6 Rating)
Tom Brady Trailing: 121 of 193, 1139 yards, 9 TD, 3 INT, 8 runs for 26 yards and 0 TD, 10 Sacks (86.3 Rating)

Russell Wilson Trailing: 110 of 169, 1348 yards, 9 TD, 5 INT, 34 runs for 348 yards and 3 TD, 12 Sacks (95.0 Rating)

So, officially:

1. Highest passer rating of the group (95.0 vs. Group Avg of 89.9)
2. Highest TD rate of the group (5.58% vs. Group Avg of 4.46%)
3. Highest yards per play of the group (8.35 vs. Group Avg of 6.46)

 

And yet, it seems that wins don't matter in regards to the QB, because Tannehill and Wilson fare about the same in wins when opponents out up 20+ points, even though Wilson better individual statistics than Tannehill.

 

It works the other way, too.

 

I think every data point discussed is valid. His performance when trailing, his performance when throwing it 35+, the teams record when they give up more than 20.

If he does so well when throwing it 35+, yet in their 5 games when they went 1-4 if the defense allowed more than 20 points he only threw it 31 p/g, then perhaps it's the coach's fault for not trusting him to do more in those games. It all adds to the guess of whether he can perform when the defense allows 20+ points per game.

 

I wouldn't know, I'm a fan of Tannehill....I'm just not so in love that my blinders are on and I don't see any flaws. That's the problem you are dealing with, and the reason why the only thing you do on this site seems RT based. It's creepy

 

i like both wilson and tannehill pretty much equally, they are vastly different qb's. i think both have room to improve and get better and it will be fun watching both wilson and tannehill on sundays for a very long time.

 

Thanks for continuing with the personal attacks.

What are the other driving topics on this forum that I should participate in? Is there a great thread on Lamar Miller that I missed? Should I start a thread talking about our woeful misuse of blue Gatorade? I really don't get it. I don't start many threads, I simply participate in ones others start.

Know what's creepy? Someone who seems to cruise threads just to make snarky remarks, while almost never adding anything resembling substance. You can disagree with my point of view, but I don't sit in threads trying to bait everyone I disagree with using insults and personal remarks.

 

What it adds up to is exactly what I've been saying all along, which is that we have seen him in all these situations. People keep saying we haven't seen him do this, we haven't seen him do that. It's BS. We have.

We have SEEN him depended on to be the guy that must manufacture offense. It's happened many times. Anyone that has watched any amount of film on him whatsoever has seen this. They've seen it at the end of halves when he has to lead his team down the field in the two-minute drill. They've seen it when the Seahawks are playing from behind and he's leading comebacks more effectively than any of the other elite QBs (see above stats).

We have seen consistent success across multiple seasons in these situations. So to sit here and say no but we haven't seen him REALLY be leaned on yet...is a fallacy. It's just not true. It's happened many times in all three seasons and he's enjoyed consistent success the whole time when it's happened.

I don't understand where this idea comes from that an NFL season is so one-dimensional, like it's just one situation and set of conditions over and over again. That's really not the way it works. An NFL season is a diverse collection of situations over the course of 16, or in the case of Russell Wilson consistently 18 or 19 games. Those diverse situations, plays, etc may add up collectively to where you can characterize very GENERALLY how a season went one way or another, but those general characterizations are now carrying implications of uniformity that are pure fallacy.

So yes absolutely we've seen Russell Wilson be depended on. Over and over. We've seen how he performs when that happens. Over and over. And he's so consistent in his performance that it's almost impossible to come up with a valid (not cherry picked) split that doesn't come out with him smelling like roses.

 

It also baffles me a bit that people still turn this into a Wilson versus Tannehill debate and say things like "they're both good in their own way" or other things that make it seem like a battle of equals.

That's like comparing Ryan Tannehill to Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers. The comparison just isn't there. I don't know what the future holds anymore than anyone else. Russell Wilson could report for baseball training camp and blow out his shoulder, never throw the football again. Ryan Tannehill could improve his decision-making, whip out a viable deep ball to Wallace, start showing some sense for pressure in the pocket, and go onto a Hall of Fame career. I don't know. I have my doubts.

But if we're talking about where these two are right now, and where these two have been over the last three years...put away the aqua shades. There is no comparison to be made here.