Pete Carroll announcement that Russell Wilson will be his week one starter has the aroma of inevitability. Matt Flynn was never “his” guy, and frankly neither was Tarvaris Jackson. I have to confess that I’m tired of hearing what Carroll’s idea of what “fair” is. First he thought he had to do what is “fair” for T-Jack (but to be “fair,” he has a chance to “start” in Buffalo); now it is what is "fair" for Wilson. What about Flynn? It was almost as if Carroll was forced to give him a “shot” when he really wasn’t disposed to do so.
Being a Wisconsin native, I have been a life-long Packer, Badger and Marquette fan. One of my treasures in my video collection is of the 1977 NCAA championship game; in a pregame interview, a contrite Al McGuire is heard expressing the hope that his antics don’t “blow it” for the team’s chances. But I’ve live here for twenty years, and the Seahawks qualify as my second team; but given the fact that they are a hard team to get excited about, the arrival of Matt Flynn gave me a reason to take the team more seriously. Since the New England game in 2010, I was certain that Flynn was a talent waiting for the right opportunity that he wasn't going to receive in Green Bay. Seattle seemed a logical choice, but he didn’t know Carroll and the Janus face he presents to the public. If Wilson starts against Green Bay, I have this hope that the Packers slaughter the Seahawks; I doubt this will happen, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Packer players have added incentive to show what they think of how their man was treated here.
You might ask, if I’m a Wisconsin fan, why I am less impressed than others in Wilson? When he showed up in Badger camp, I asked “Who is Russell Wilson?” I thought Scott Tolzien’s back-up looked impressive in spot appearances the previous season, and this guy who was little more than a walk-on was taking his job? Even his coach at NC State thought it was selfish of Wilson to expect to regain his starting job after he had supposedly decided on a baseball career, which apparently didn’t pan out. All I heard was that he was a great guy, and was a “real” quarterback, meaning that statistically at NC State he threw the ball more often they did at Wisconsin; in his junior year, Wilson threw for over 3400 yards—but on 520 pass attempts. Since he was a “real” quarterback, everyone seemed to think he was the “missing piece” the Badgers needed to make a run at the BCS title game.
I wasn’t so sure, but after starting off 6-0 I thought that although this was still a run-heavy offense, Wilson may have been worthy of the hype—although his most productive games were against second-division out-of-conference teams. The real test would be on the road against Michigan State; despite a fast start, Wisconsin’s offense did a disappearing act in the second and third quarters and fell behind by two touchdowns. Credit Wilson for two touchdown drives in the fourth quarter, but the Badgers ultimately lost the game, and part of the blame should go to Wilson for being inefficient for most of the game. The Badgers’ championship hopes were dashed after that game, but they had an opportunity to put things right against a down Ohio State team; again, the Badgers’ offense looked hapless for much of the game, and never should have allowed OSU even the opportunity to win the game late.
It was at that point I thought that Wilson was overrated after all; it was the Badgers’ potent running game that set-up success in the passing game (as it did the previous season, when Tolzien was the 6th rated passer in the nation), and it was Montee Ball—not Wilson—who was the Heisman finalist. In fact Ball ran for as many scores as Wilson threw for. Although they made it to the Rose Bowl for the second straight year, I thought that like in the loss to TCU, the Badgers did not play to their strength against Oregon. My overall assessment of Wilson—who we must remember was not seriously considered as an “elite” quarterback prospect by draft experts—was that in a program that had produced playmaking receivers in the past like Chris Chambers and Lee Evans, and last season in Nick Toon and Jared Abbrederis, a strong-arm quarterback like Wilson was better able to showcase their talent--and not necessarily his own.
I may be completely wrong in my assessment of whether Wilson shapes a team (like Peyton Manning), or is shaped by the team. I think it is interesting to note that Robert Griffin III has looked somewhat pedestrian in preseason play, 20-31 for 193 yards and 2 TDs. His presumed back-up, Kirk Cousins, was more impressive in just one preseason game against Chicago, going 18-23 for 264 yards and 3 TDs. Does this mean that Cousins is a superior talent? No, but it does suggest that RG3 may not be what people think he is. My personal opinion was that like for Wilson, analysts want him to succeed, even to the point of seeing what they want to see in their capabilities. We’re not talking Andrew Luck here, who is assumed to be the prototype franchise quarterback; neither Wilson nor RG3 fit that mold, yet some people still wish to see reality through a vortex. I recall the Oliver Stone film “Any Given Sunday,” where the Jamie Foxx character played what was supposed to be the “new” breed of quarterback. This was in 1999. Over a decade later, what has changed?
No comments:
Post a Comment