I have to confess that history was always favorite subject in school, and it encompassed only a tiny fraction of my school work, unfortunately it had minimal impact on my GPA. In high school, the only time study hall animated me when it was located in the school library, and I could spend my time poring over books about Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire and the Great Age of Kings; most of the books stocked in my personal "library" are of a historical nature. One useful aspect of having a working knowledge of history is that it allows you to observe events with an eye toward "perspective"; for example, you won’t understand what is really at play in Arizona unless you have a working knowledge of the social ideology of the antebellum South and Nazi Germany. “Perspective” is also something that is sorely lacking in what I am hearing from the Russell Wilson partisans. This past Saturday, some person by the name of Dane Looker came out of the woodwork and told ESPN's John Clayton that he didn’t have enough “information” to judge Seattle Seahawks quarterback Matt Flynn, but of Wilson, who has never played an NFL down, he was predicting he’d be the team's starter by Week 8 of this upcoming season. The lack of logic in this reasoning is manifest when commentators downgrade Matt Flynn because his two starts do not constitute a "history," and yet base their assessment on Wilson on even less information. Incredibly, few commentators want to believe what their eyes showed them: That if Flynn’s two starts constituted his “ceiling,” any complaints about his supposed “weaknesses” seem petty and trivial. And Flynn's career trajectory was certainly stunted by another "Russell" who was also "athletic" with a "strong arm"—and who turned-out to be one the all-time draft busts of any sport.
But what does history say about Wilson? Throw out his season with Wisconsin, and what do you have? Why do Wilson’s partisans avoid discussing his years at NC State? Why doesn’t anyone talk to any sports reporters who are familiar with his time there, and why Wilson initially opted for a baseball rather than football career? In three years at NC State, in a conference that is far removed from its peak years, Russell was not an accurate passer, completing less than 60 percent of passes in each season. In his junior year, he was the 68th rated passer in the nation, and far from being a passer who lived on the deep ball, his 6.6 yards-per-pass indicated that he was trusted to be no more than a dink-and-dunker. Wilson had no serious future in the NFL and likely would have at best a late round pick with no great expectations, and he knew it. After signing a minor league contract with the Colorado Rockies, in 93 games he hit .229 with 5 HRs and 26 RBIs. Since it was unlikely that the Majors was in his future, so he decided to go back to college and play another season. But his coach at NC State refused to take him back, saying that it was unfair to his successor, who also happened to have a better season statistically than Wilson did the previous season. But if Wilson had been an integral to the success of the team, why was the coach so reluctant to take him back?
In any event, Wilson was given his release. Normally, he would have had to wait a full season, but apparently NCAA rules allowed him to played on another team immediately. Somehow he chose to play for Wisconsin. And why not? For a quarterback as short as he is, playing behind a powerful offensive line and backed by a perennially potent running game was an ideal job. And Wilson did put-up impressive numbers--not Peyton Manning-like numbers, but numbers that were impressive on a team in which the passing game was a complement to rather than the key to the offense's success. But then that word "perspective" comes into play: The season before, Scott Tolzien also had an "impressive" season for Wisconsin; he finished 6th in the nation in passing efficiency, and his 72.9 pass completion percentage was actually a tick higher than Wilson's. Tolzien isn't going anywhere soon in the NFL, yet for some reason we are expected to believe that Wilson--who benefited from the same scheme that produced a Heisman Trophy candidate in Montee Ball--is demonstratively "better" than Tolzien? I won't necessarily argue with that—I think Wilson was the better quarterback—but I also find the justification for making Wilson something that he has yet to prove he is rather lacking, given his "history."
And let's make no mistake about Wilson's so-called "strengths" and how his weakness—his height--will be taken advantage of by opponents. It will be vital for Wilson to have the ability to make immediate reads and get rid of the ball quickly, especially in tight coverage. He will simply not be able to see the field, especially when routes break down or the pocket collapses. This isn't college anymore; we should take into consideration that great college players (and I don’t think that Wilson qualifies as such) do not necessarily make great pro players; the Duke University basketball program is the classic example of this truism.
It is clear to me that the unsettled nature of the Seahawks' quarterback position is the reason for all this "confusion" about who the quarterback should be. Part of this has to do with the politics of the observer, but I put more of the blame squarely on coach Pete Carroll. He has always shown an affinity for the "underdog," and some of his "hunches" have panned out, and others have not. But what I see is that if he is serious about T-Jack, it means that he is not serious about moving the team forward. If he is "serious" about Wilson, then he either believes that the quarterback position is not a vital position in the offense, or he is willing to allow sentimentality to contaminate his “competition” mantra. I am more than willing to eat crow if I am wrong about Wilson, being a Badger fan, but somehow I doubt I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment