- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russell Wilson is nothing more than a game manager
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:25 pm to TH03
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:25 pm to TH03
quote:Did you miss the part where i said the stats are average? So never really looking good or never really looking bad for a long period of time is what I would consider a game manager. around 180 yards a game with around 55% completion and around 1 td a game. Not someone who averages over 200 a game with 2tds on 64% and over 100 QB rating in his first 3 NFL seasons. Because that isnt even freaking close to average
so having essentially the same stats every game
1
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:28 pm to lsupride87
let's not say over 200 yards per game because 204/game is basically 200, which is very average. elite QBs are at 250-300 normally and 300-500 in great games.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:31 pm to TH03
quote:You are right. But show me where those qbs extend as many plays and drives as WIlson does with his feet? My whole wilson thing started because of how lazy and simple minded sports fans are now. A qb that can move and doesnt throw ints? Game manager. Such a lazy arse way to describe Wilson. It is the same shite when people try to use the rings argument for who is a better football player. It is simple and easy to point at so people do it
elite QBs are at 250-300 normally and
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:33 pm to lsupride87
I'm not saying he's not good. he just isn't asked to win the game by himself. he's asked to manage the game and let the strengths of the team carry them to the win. he can extend plays with his legs, but he's not like cam newton who is arguably their entire running game at times.
This post was edited on 10/12/14 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 10/12/14 at 9:36 pm to TH03
quote:Neither is Manning, or Luck. they both have 21 teammates too
he just isn't asked to win the game by himself.
ETA: No team worth a shite will ever be just one player
This post was edited on 10/12/14 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:04 pm to lsupride87
quote:
lazy and simple minded sports fans are now. A qb that can move and doesnt throw ints? Game manager. Such a lazy arse way to describe Wilson.
You know which other QB moves around, is athletic, extends plays and doesn't throw interceptions? Aaron Rodgers. You don't see anybody calling him a game manager, do you? There is a reason why people think Russell Wilson is a game manager and not somebody that can quite carry the team on his QB play alone and today was an example of that. Accept it and move on.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 10:10 pm to saintforlife1
quote:Really? Then game 1 was an example Rodger cant do it either. And Brees showed he couldnt do it against the cowboys. And Manning showed he couldnt do it in the super bowl. Im fine for you to have an opinion but to use this one game is dumb as shite
today was an example of that.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 7:17 am to TH03
quote:Well obviously, we're not speaking in absolutes. If you have a game manager, sure he can be great and then awful sometimes.
no it isn't. game managers have great games sometimes
But you basically said he's inconsistent, that really is the opposite of a game manager.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 7:23 am to TH03
quote:Again, nothing is absolute.
so your definition of game manager is having the exact same stats every single game?
But I think the general definition of game manager is the guy who won't win you games or lose you games, for the most part.
You're basically saying he does both regularly, which makes him inconsistent.
And all of that is the complete opposite of the generally accepted definition of a game manager.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 9:24 am to shel311
Like you said, nothing is absolute, so yes, his games fluctuate from time to time. Even though the saying is "he won't win you or lose you any games" it's not an absolute. He can and will win/lose games for you. You ask the game manager to win the game for you when the run game is being stopped. Sometimes the QB is up to the challenge, sometimes he's not. Having a few really great games doesn't make him an elite qb any more than having a few bad games makes Peyton Manning a shite qb
Posted on 10/13/14 at 9:48 am to TH03
My personal opinion on whatever the definition of the mythical game manager is, an inconsistent QB would not qualify as a game manager.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 11:01 am to TH03
Without reading the entire thing, let me guess the trajectory of this thread.
-At least 3-4 completely subjective arguments that relegate Wilson to be nothing more than a "game manager", whatever that means.
-Data is posted that directly refutes the above.
-People hopelessly cling to the "game manager" argument despite clear evidence to the contrary
-Thread dies a slow, embarrassing death until a new installment is presented next week.
-At least 3-4 completely subjective arguments that relegate Wilson to be nothing more than a "game manager", whatever that means.
-Data is posted that directly refutes the above.
-People hopelessly cling to the "game manager" argument despite clear evidence to the contrary
-Thread dies a slow, embarrassing death until a new installment is presented next week.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 11:01 am to lsupride87
quote:
Will be unreal if Wilson gets a win here. Would have wins over Manning, Rodgers, and Romo just this season. Unreal
No he wouldnt. He would have wins over the Broncos def, the Packers def, and the Cowboys def. I cant stand when people say shite like this.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 11:04 am to brgfather129
quote:Couldn't have said it better myself.
-At least 3-4 completely subjective arguments that relegate Wilson to be nothing more than a "game manager", whatever that means.
-Data is posted that directly refutes the above.
-People hopelessly cling to the "game manager" argument despite clear evidence to the contrary
-Thread dies a slow, embarrassing death until a new installment is presented next week.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 11:11 am to dnm3305
quote:
I cant stand when people say shite like this.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 11:14 am to dnm3305
quote:
No he wouldnt. He would have wins over the Broncos def, the Packers def, and the Cowboys def. I cant stand when people say shite like this.
I agree with this.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 11:16 am to castorinho
quote:Do yall realize I threw out that shitty line because it is the same dumbass shite that "game manager" people say? It is the lowest common denominator go to media lines
I agree with this.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 11:23 am to lsupride87
well I was replying to that statement out of context, I don't think he's a game manager. But I hate the QB h2h crap.
Posted on 10/13/14 at 12:28 pm to saintforlife1
quote:
You know which other QB moves around, is athletic, extends plays and doesn't throw interceptions? Aaron Rodgers. You don't see anybody calling him a game manager, do you? There is a reason why people think Russell Wilson is a game manager and not somebody that can quite carry the team on his QB play alone and today was an example of that. Accept it and move on.
Are you saying that since he is not as good as Aaron Rodgers, one of the best qbs in the league who will likely go to the HOF, he must be a game manager?
Posted on 10/13/14 at 12:40 pm to TH03
quote:
Russell Wilson is nothing more than a game manager
Your nothing more than a shitty poster.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News