What the average stats and scoreboard don't tell you is that Wilson converted 3rd down after 3rd down in this Super Bowl. So what if he didn't throw for 400 yards and 4 TD. He had a very good game in this Super Bowl and made plays when they needed to be made. He was just overshadowed by how dominate the Defense was.

 

Not bad for a so-called "game manager"...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

You only have to look at the whoping that the SeaHawks did to Peyton early in this SuperBowl & the average stats of Wilson based on the scoreboard to realize that the Jaguars would be better off drafting Clowney or the best available defensive player at #3 than reaching on another QB hopeful that might turn out to another let down.

 

Basically I agree with Mike DiRocco's article.

I'm not opposed to drafting the BAP defensive player if they don't think any of the QB's are worth the pick, however as a living room GM I'd rather have the best QB if he's available there. Would the Seahawks have won the SB or even be in the playoffs if they had Henne or Gabbert as QB? Possibly, but I don't think so.

 

In my opinion, in hindsight, if the Seahawks or for that matter any other team knew that Russell Wilson would have turned out the way he did, he would have been drafted well before Bruce Irvin.

---

In my opinion, in hindsight, if the Seahawks or for that matter any other team knew that Russell Wilson would have turned out the way he did, he would have been drafted well before Bruce Irvin.

 

I think that would have been very bad for a Franchise to do that. Wilson is able to have some success early in his career due to the talent he has around him. If he is not playing well, he doesn't have to "carry" a team so to speak.

 

Alot of QBs that are considered Franchise or Elite QBs benefited from having rosters loaded with talent to help them adjust to the NFL game. Then as the years go by they begin to flourish as some of the best QBs in the NFL.

 

I am all for taking a QB, but I think having talent around him will lead to more success and faster growth, than taking a QB with a roster that doesn't have the talent to back him up initially. Look at Bradford or Alex Smith, their growth was stunted because of the lack of talent around them. You can't just expect a QB to come in and carry the franchise. That happens gradually over the course of a few years.

 

Only QBs I can think of that really carried their teams from day one are Elway, Marino, and Manning.....

---

I think that would have been very bad for a Franchise to do that. Wilson is able to have some success early in his career due to the talent he has around him. If he is not playing well, he doesn't have to "carry" a team so to speak.

 

Alot of QBs that are considered Franchise or Elite QBs benefited from having rosters loaded with talent to help them adjust to the NFL game. Then as the years go by they begin to flourish as some of the best QBs in the NFL.

 

I am all for taking a QB, but I think having talent around him will lead to more success and faster growth, than taking a QB with a roster that doesn't have the talent to back him up initially. Look at Bradford or Alex Smith, their growth was stunted because of the lack of talent around them. You can't just expect a QB to come in and carry the franchise. That happens gradually over the course of a few years.

 

Only QBs I can think of that really carried their teams from day one are Elway, Marino, and Manning.....

 

Andrew Luck is carrying the Colts, but only due to the fact that he was an elite quarterback prospect.

---

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

 

http://s6.postimg.org/vyr2ycdfz/Teddy_Br...cked_4.gif

It's not a question of "should", it depends on the situation. If Clowney isn't there would it be a good idea to pass on Bridgewater to take Mack or Watkins? Probably not. If Clowney is there would it be a better idea to take him instead of a QB? Yes.

---

"A man with no sauce is lost.

<p style="text-align:center;">But that same man can get lost in the sauce."

Since we are now using the Seahawks argument, should I point out that most of their impressive defensive players were later round draft picks? Maybe we should wait until the later rounds to go defense? Cuz, you know, the Seahawks did...

---