Siri Picks Best QB in the NFL

[KJJ]

I disagree. Russell is a decent QB but he is not great and is bailed out by running game and defense. ......just so you know Russell isn't the only player that changed that team around.

Never said he was a "great" QB he's far from that but he's a very good QB who does more than just drive a bus. That running game you speak of never bailed out Jackson/Whitehurst despite 1200 yards by Lynch in 2011 because neither were efficient QB's (check their passer ratings) and both had turnover issues. Jacksons TD to turnover ratio in 2011 was 14 to 18 with a 79.2 passer rating. Jackson had a total of 9 fumbles in 2011. By 2008 Matt Hasselbeck's game was in the toilet his TD to turnover ratio the last 3 seasons he was in Seattle was a pathetic 34 to 52. The Seahawks were suffering with poor QB play and it all changed when Russell Wilson took over. When a franchise has gone through years of suffering at the QB position nothing can turn their fortunes around quicker than hitting on a young QB in the draft. It excites the fan base and the players. A solid efficient QB improves the offense and the defense. I'm not saying it was just Wilson but the Seahawks turnaround clearly started with him and it raised their level of play throughout the team. He excited the Seattle fans and the players around him started to believe in him.

Drafting him was a game changer and if he was just a decent bus driver like you claim he wouldn't be up for a mega contract. Say what you will but no way would Seattle have had the success they've had the past 2 seasons without Russell Wilson. They wouldn't have won CRAP with Tavaris Jackson regardless of the defense. Their defense wouldn't be as good if they had to defend his turnovers and spend extra time on the field due to his and the other Seahawks QB's inefficient play. Give Romo Wilson's receiving corp last season and see what his numbers would look like. Romo had Dez Bryant catching jumps balls and only threw for 230 more yards than Wilson in 2014. Wilsons receiving corp hasn't been close to what Romo has which is why Seattle traded for Jimmy Graham. Give him some weapons and he'll produce more yards and TD's in the passing game. He's an excellent young QB who's accomplished a great deal in only 3 seasons but typical of this board is to tear his game down along with other young QB's like Andrew Luck.

 

[rpntex]

Bradshaw's TD to turnover ratio was actually a lot worse than 212 to 210 because his lost fumbles aren't listed and I'm sure there were quit a few. His TD to turnover ratio reflected the era in which he played in and a lot of QB's didn't have great TD to turnover ratios during the 70's because the game was played under different rules. The passer ratings back in the 70's weren't close to what they are today as well as completion percentages. The rules today have perfected QB's in every statistical category. Bradshaw had a career completion percentage of only 51.9% which wouldn't even gain a QB a roster spot in todays game. Although Bradshaw's TD to turnover ratio wasn't very good during the regular season it was 9 to 4 in his 4 SB wins.

If you consider his fumbles, then you also factor in rushing TDs as well. He would be equally responsible for both.

Career regular season - 244 total TDs, 294 turnovers. That's a 4:5 ratio

Career postseason - 36 total TDs, 39 turnovers.

Now, if you wish to "cherry pick" and say Super Bowls only, then you may be closer to accurate. My point remains, however...Bradshaw is an excellent example of how a QB with a poor TD:int ratio can still win championships. That was in response to the poster who was downplaying the QB rating stat, but still trumpeting stats that factor into the rating.

 

[KJJ]

If you consider his fumbles, then you also factor in rushing TDs as well. He would be equally responsible for both.

Career regular season - 244 total TDs, 294 turnovers. That's a 4:5 ratio

Career postseason - 36 total TDs, 39 turnovers.

Now, if you wish to "cherry pick" and say Super Bowls only, then you may be closer to accurate. My point remains, however...Bradshaw is an excellent example of how a QB with a poor TD:int ratio can still win championships. That was in response to the poster who was downplaying the QB rating stat, but still trumpeting stats that factor into the rating.

Bradshaw's total TD's passing/rushing was 244 but his total turnover count ints/lost fumbles was 235. You included all 84 of his fumbles and only 25 were lost. You're not making a very good point because Bradshaw's prime years were 35 + years ago when the NFL played under many different rules. QB's used to get killed during the 70's and receivers got bumped all the way down the field resulting in less TD passes for QB's and a lot more turnovers. Teams leaned heavily on the running game during the 70's. Even Staubach had seasons where he didn't have many more TD's than turnovers. In 75 the year the Cowboys reached the SB Staubach had 21 passing/rushing TD's and 18 turnovers int's/lost fumbles. Roger only completed 56.9% of his passes and his passer rating was only 78.5 that year but those stats were typical of the era. In todays game a team would never reach the SB with their QB only having 3 more TD's than turnovers along with a low completion percentage and passer rating. With the rules today that have opened up the passing game and protect QB's they have many more TD's than turnovers. Even teams that have QB's who've put up a number of TD's usually miss the playoffs if their QB suffers too many turnovers.

Take the Saints for example Drew Brees combined for 34 TD's last season passing/rushing but had 20 turnovers int's/lost fumbles and it contributed to a 7-9 season despite Brees completing 69.2% of his passes which led to a 97.0 passer rating. Some armchair fans don't understand how the rules have affected the game and are under the impression QB's weren't very good back in the 70's when they start looking at their TD to turnover ratio's along with their completion percentages and passer ratings. It was a DIFFERENT GAME back then. Like I pointed out the rules today have perfected QB's to where any passer rating under 90.0 or any completion percentage under 60% isn't going to get it done. If a QB today doesn't have at least twice as many TD's as turnovers their team isn't going to get very far. With all the changes that have been made to the game it makes no sense talking about how QB's were able to win championships 35 + years ago despite their TD to turnover ratio's, completion percentages and passer ratings. It's not the same game today much more is required from the QB because it's a passing league where the rules are bent to favor offenses which in turn has perfected the performances of all QB's. Even some backup QB's have been able to come in during the season and put up some pretty impressive numbers.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Never said he was a "great" QB he's far from that but he's a very good QB who does more than just drive a bus. That running game you speak of never bailed out Jackson/Whitehurst despite 1200 yards by Lynch in 2011 because neither were efficient QB's (check their passer ratings) and both had turnover issues. Jacksons TD to turnover ratio in 2011 was 14 to 18 with a 79.2 passer rating. Jackson had a total of 9 fumbles in 2011. By 2008 Matt Hasselbeck's game was in the toilet his TD to turnover ratio the last 3 seasons he was in Seattle was a pathetic 34 to 52. The Seahawks were suffering with poor QB play and it all changed when Russell Wilson took over. When a franchise has gone through years of suffering at the QB position nothing can turn their fortunes around quicker than hitting on a young QB in the draft. It excites the fan base and the players. A solid efficient QB improves the offense and the defense. I'm not saying it was just Wilson but the Seahawks turnaround clearly started with him and it raised their level of play throughout the team. He excited the Seattle fans and the players around him started to believe in him.

Drafting him was a game changer and if he was just a decent bus driver like you claim he wouldn't be up for a mega contract. Say what you will but no way would Seattle have had the success they've had the past 2 seasons without Russell Wilson. They wouldn't have won CRAP with Tavaris Jackson regardless of the defense. Their defense wouldn't be as good if they had to defend his turnovers and spend extra time on the field due to his and the other Seahawks QB's inefficient play. Give Romo Wilson's receiving corp last season and see what his numbers would look like. Romo had Dez Bryant catching jumps balls and only threw for 230 more yards than Wilson in 2014. Wilsons receiving corp hasn't been close to what Romo has which is why Seattle traded for Jimmy Graham. Give him some weapons and he'll produce more yards and TD's in the passing game. He's an excellent young QB who's accomplished a great deal in only 3 seasons but typical of this board is to tear his game down along with other young QB's like Andrew Luck.

Dude this debate is done. Go worship Russell all you want

 

[KJJ]

Dude this debate is done. Go worship Russell all you want

I gave you an honest, unbiased opinion of Wilson including all the issues Seattle had at QB prior to his arrival if you can't handle that don't read my posts or put me on ignore.

 

[dstovall5]

Awesome, Siri! Now please find me the best bacon double-cheeseburger in Beaumont, Texas. And from now on - call me 'sexy daddy'.

Me and you both.

 

[SuspectCorner]

Have you tried Willy Burger on Calder?

I haven't - but now I will have to get over there. I've like Hamburger Depot - usually go thru 3-4 napkins... how do they compare?