The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I like Russell Wilson as a person.  ...and as a teammate.  I root for him to do well, because there needs to be more guys like him in the NFL.

However, I like prototype QBs.  For that, I wouldn't choose Wilson as a player.  Ever.

I've been saying that I'd rather have Tannehill than Wilson going back as long as forever.  For a while, I looked crazy.  But I stand by it, regardless of the outcome.  I just think that there is a low ceiling for Wilson.

I think that this is going to be especially true when it's time for Wilson to get paid.  I think that his resume (behind a world class defense and running game) demands he get a big contract, but he doesn't do enough to justify it and the team will greatly suffer.   We'll see, I guess.

I recently saw Tim Cowlishaw talking about Tannehill having a better career than Wilson on Around the Horn -- that's why I brought this up.

Who would you rather have?

Tell me the ways that Wilson is different from a 3rd-year Tom Brady.

I like both Wilson and Tannehill...but I think Wilson is going to have a little bit better career than Tanny.

After 12 games, Russell Wilson is 2nd on his team in rushing attempts, yards, and touchdowns with 91/679/4.

3rd year Tom Brady:
42 carries, 63 yards, 1 TD

Before you tell me that "QB's aren't supposed to be runners" - that's exactly the point about Russell Wilson.  He's a double-threat.

Passing-wise:
Brady, first three seasons:
62.7%, 6613 yards, 46 TD, 26 INT

Wilson, first three seasons:
63.7% 8941 yards, 67 TD, 24 INT

Tannehill, first three seasons:
61.4%, 10024 yards, 56 TD, 39 INT

Is your claim that BOTH Wilson and Tannehill are on pace to be better players than Tom Brady?

The difference is that 3rd year Tom Brady had room to grow into one of the best prototypical QBs the world has ever seen.

Wilson doesn't have that room to grow.

I think they are both good and would take either as the QB of my team.

A better question would be to look at other QB's drafted highly that year.

Is Tannehill better than Andrew Luck?  I don't know...  Probably not.
Is Tannehill better than Robert Griffin?  I think so, yes.

Makes you wonder how Tannehill would have progressed if he had Reggie Wayne and TY Hilton to throw to.

You can't compare 2014 passing stats to 2003.  Matt Stafford is not a first-ballot HOFer.

My point is that 2003-era Brady was a gritty game-manager who Just Knew How To Win, but was nowhere remotely near the record-setter he became later.

By "room to grow," are you literally referring to their height?  Brady was not an elite passer early on, but he quickly became one when he was finally paired up with elite receivers.  Golden Tate and Doug Baldwin are not elite receivers.

Of course not.  I think that was the gist of my pointedly-tongue-in-cheek response to your question.  I wasn't sure where you were going with that comparison...

So is Tannehill with 45/289/1. While Wilson is certainly more dangerous running than Tannehill, I actually think that Wilson and Tannehill are more alike then they are different. Both players are nice players to build around.

You don't know? Seriously?

If that was a serious statement, then it means one of two things:

1) You've never watched Andrew Luck play, or
2) You're suffering from some serious mental delusion issues.

Andrew Luck is significantly better than Tannehill. Tannehill is a very good QB...but Luck is an elite QB.

Luck is a cut above these guys.  He's going to be elite.  Manning & Brady Level.

Tannehill is going to probably be a slower burn, but he's definitely a good player.

I think that Wilson is going to max out at a Doug Flutie type guy.  Decent player, but not franchise QB material that he's made out to be.

While Wilson has not had elite WR's to throw to, he has had a great running game to take the pressure off, and a stout defense to keep games close.

So Wilson, with a good running game and a very good defense, has lost a total of two home games in 3 years, has won in the playoffs every year, and has a Super Bowl title.   So what do you think he would do with Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb?

I'm not unreceptive to the argument that the jury is still out on Wilson...  but comparing Tannehill to Wilson (or Luck?!?!) at this point is just ridiculous homerism.  For someone to say, "I think Wilson's ceiling is Doug Flutie" (when Wilson has already outperformed Flutie as a pro) as if Tannehill has shown anything better is just not reasonable.  If you're going to say that Wilson's ceiling is Flutie, wouldn't Tannehill's ceiling be Alex Smith?

Not only has he not had "elite" WRs to throw to, he's had absolute bums. The WRs he lines up with make Miami's WR corps look like hall of famers. Jermaine Kearse? Doug Baldwin? Those are his two starters. Chances are good that neither of those guys would start for ANY other team in the NFL.

Yes, Wilson has had an excellent running game and a top shelf defense to support him, and he has the wins to show for it. The players that give QBs the counting stats that make casual fans all moist in their nether regions are the receivers, and Wilson has had big steamy piles of crap in that department.

Nothing against Tannehill, who I have repeatedly said that I like, but if I was Miami's GM for a day and had the opportunity to trade Tanny for Wilson, straight up, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Sydney Rice and Percy Harvin are better players than Jermaine Kearse and Doug Baldwin.  Still not elite, and Harvin was injured most of last season.  The point is the same.

I see Wilson above Doug Flutie, who was mostly a backup during his career until his last few years in San Diego.

I think 2009 Sidney Rice was better than 2014 Doug Baldwin; 2013 Sidney Rice was hanging on to the league by a thread (and is now out of the NFL entirely).  Last year, he finished behind both Baldwin and Kearse in every receiving category.

Still, the point is the same: give Wilson Miami's receiving corps and he would probably look a lot better.  Brian Hartline would be the #1 receiver on Seattle.

The fact that Spidey and I agree on this issue should qualify as empirical evidence... ;)

I'm not sure I would. I've got nothing against Wilson, but I also prefer a prototypical pocket passer over Wilson's style. Wilson is the better runner, Tannehill might be the better passer. I say might because I think the jury is still out, but Tannehill in the last 4 or 5 games has shown to be a better passer than Wilson in that same time and I think that Tannehill's arrow is still pointing up whereas I think Wilson's arrow might be about as high as it's ever going to get.

I still don't know why people are saying Wilson has reached his "ceiling" when his receiving corps has been a bunch of scrubs.

Jaws had some good comments about Wilson today. He basically said that Wilson in the pocket is an average QB, but Wilson in scramble mode is one of a kind. He does things nobody else can. I think that's a pretty good assessment of Wilson. So would he be a better QB with better WR's? I'm sure he would be to a degree, but the way he plays I think the WR's he has do a pretty good job.