Not just a young quarterback versus another young one and an old quarterback versus another old quarterback but a traditional type of quarterback Peyton Manning against another traditional type quarterback Tom Brady but entirely new style quarterback Colin Kaepernick against another one being Russell Wilson.

One thing is for sure therefore, the next SuperBowl will be a show down of both age and playing styles.

We'll see then.

For the record, I don't like these college-style offenses that are being run in Seattle and SF, for example. They're like the Wildcat; it'll work for a while until defenses figure out how to stop it or at least make it less productive. I watched about half of the Army-Navy game, and it was the worst football I have ever seen... all the QBs did was run, and I think I saw just 3 passes.

I wouldn't go all "Bountygate" on them, but if I were a DC I'd make damn sure that if the QB runs, he'd be hit so hard and so often that he'll think twice about running.

Go Fins you sound like me with regards too not liking running QB's. I will say that even the 49ers, and the Seahawks would rather have Brady or Manning than their QB's because they are clearly some of the best read, and react QB's of all time. I like Kapernick however he will never stay in the pocket or be able to do what the great read, and react QB's can do.
Which is stay in the pocket move around buy extra time, and then complete a big pass. I don't like the QB's who run at the 1st sign of pressure. However that being said I would take Kapernick over Wilson because he is physically bigger has a stronger arm, and can be elite on some occasions. Wilson too me has many faults height being one of them, and also constantly running at the 1st sign of pressure. Too be a good QB one stand in the pocket while pass rushers are trying to kill you, and deliver the perfect ball. The art of quarterbacking has taken a recent hit lately with this new style. However Mike Tomlin said it best the read option QB's are a fad that in time will pass after a few more QB's get their clocks cleaned while running with the ball. The fact that you have Wilson and Kapernick playing the same style, and being in this game has more to do with the way their teams play defense, and run the ball. It is not because of the QB play as much as it is for the AFC teams. Everyone can agree with this hopefully.

I guess you could say Tannehill is more of a new style QB, when he is used appropriately. Let's hope that SF or Seattle wins the Super Bowl, and Tannehill is seen as a more valuable commodity for this team if just for self-confidence purposes, or even league wide and then whoever the GM is could get maximum value for him if ever they chose to move him to another team in a trade.

the seattle d won the game not wilson.

that proved nothing about their style of play.

but speaking of which, what did you think of seattle's read option offense?

jsm08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the seattle d won the game not wilson.
> that proved nothing about their style of play.

RESPONSE: WOW! I must have watched the wrong game. I didn't notice the Seattle Defense putting up 43 points? I saw one pick six but.............

And next you'll say how it was the receivers that did it all by themselves. LOL.

>
> but speaking of which, what did you think of
> seattle's read option offense?

So you're saying you did not see any read option plays being run.

sea's offense score just 27 of those points with a lot of help from turnovers. that blowout was due to their D and special teams with a lot of Denver's offensive ineptitude
the O did their part but Russel Wilson wasn't the reason for the win

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Seattle's offense did OK, but nothing special. They scored on a safety, a pick-6, and a kickoff return for TD. They also got the ball in Denver territory due to turnovers a couple of times and were able to only get field goals out of it. I give Seattle's D 22 points then, and their O 21 points.

wilson has one read. if it's not there he runs around and plays sandlot ball.

he's asked not to lose games.

chyren has these wierd obsessessions with his thread and writing war and peace length posts to try to prove his point.

what happened was pete carroll proved you can win the super bowl with a great d, special teams, and a caretaker qb.

A safety, a defensive TD, a special teams TD and 4 turnovers, but somehow in CB's world, it was all Russell Wilson and the read option that won it

Did I hear correctly that Wilson had a QB rating of over 120 for that game? Not too shabby.
It doesn't hurt when you bring your best game to the SB.

........................................

The Clown Show Continues



-

he played a good game. i'm not taking anything away from him but be honest, he wasn't asked to do too much.

as great as cb thinks he played you'd think he would have been named the SB MVP. The default choice is usually the QB in these types of games yet they gave it to an LB because of his pick 6.

Seattle's Defense/ST outscored both offenses

Safety 2 pts: Yes it was a miscue by the offense but the defense still has to capitalize on the mistake. They did. 2 points.

Haushka: 2 FG's, 5 EP's = 11 points

69 yard int = 6 points

KO return = 6 points

25 points

OFFENSE: 3 TD's = 18 points

Russell Wilson rushed for a whopping 26 yards!

I can't believe Carroll held him back like that and tried to turn him into a pocket QB. It's a wonder they even won the game. That's just bad coaching.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

you're trying too hard.

wilson played an efficient game. good for him.

would you pay him like a franchise qb?

eerrrrrr YAHHHH! Let me ask you, with what you know now, Just YOUR Opinion, and the draft were held all over again, would you still pick Tanny at no. 8 or would you draft Wilson????????????

i would have drafted luke keuchly

We're talking about quarterbacks, Mr. Duck the Issue.

COME ON, GIVE US JUST YOUR OPINION

that's a stupid question but i'll say tannehill. i still think he'll be a better qb.

Seattle's offense scored 3 offensive touchdowns. The longest drive for their offense was 58 yards, which they did twice - one resulted in a field goal, the other a touchdown. Two touchdown drives were less than 50 yards. Of those 3 offensive touchdowns, 2 came after Denver turnovers, and 1 came after Denver turned the ball over on downs.

Wilson played an efficient game, but he certainly wasn't the main reason that Seattle won, and he only ran the read option a few times. He totaled 206 passing yards, and 26 rushing yards on 3 attempts.

Even though Seattle scored 43 points, they only totalled a very pedestrian 341 yards. To put that into perspective, that is fewer than the Tampa Bay Bucs had in Super Bowl 37, the Carolina Panthers (in a losing effort scoring 17 points) in 38, and the Seahawks in 40, when they lost to the Steelers and scored only 10 points.

i'm sorry you don't approve of my answer.

but it is a stupid question.

would wilson make our d better than the 85 bears?

he's as much a part of that victory yesterday as dilfer was for the ravens.

Anemone, my comments were in response to those saying that the victory was TOTALLY THAT OF the Seattle defense. I never said that Russell Wilson won the game singlehandedly.

The question of the original post, which was posted before the TWO SUPERBOWL TEAMS WON THEIR SPOTS, was which would succeed, the new or the old style QB. I think it's obvious that Russell Wilson outperformed Peyton.

I was not asked, but I'd still take RT over Wilson @ #8 if we had to do it all again.

Even if I had fore-knowledge of Sunday's Superbowl outcome...I'd still draft RT over Wilson.

At the time the ONLY QB's I considered over RT were Luck and Griffin...both were simply way too expensive for us to get. RT was, our best, most complete, choice. So far, he's done nothing but improve, and he's done nothing to make me think he was the wrong pick.

Congrats to Wilson though as well as the the entire Seattle team...they put it all together and did what they had to do. Team football wins championships.

Yes, technically the "new style QB" won the game, but winning the game had little to do with Wilson being "new style." If Denver had Seattle's defense and vice versa, Denver would have been the winner, and the "old style QB" would have won. And for a "new style QB," Wilson played most of the game like a traditional drop-back QB, with only 3 scrambles and very little read option. The winner of this game had very little to do with being a new or old style QB, and very much to do with which defense was able to dominate.

Ken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was not asked, but I'd still take RT over Wilson
> @ #8 if we had to do it all again.

So would I if I could get a different coach and OC.

I would take Wilson. I was impressed w/ him at N C State and then he had repeated success at Wisconsin. I was prejudiced against him because of his height but he has shown that's not a problem.