Russell Wilson isn't asked to do half of what Tannehill does in an offense. There are very very few QBs that can regularly do what you describe. Wilson (so far) hasn't needed to be one of them. Waiting on one of them is likely to be an exercise in futility. Even the magical young QBs, Luck and Wilson are a combined 1-3. IMO, your impressions of Wilson are based largely on the fact that the team has won. He is surrounded by a ton of talent. Last season I pointed out that Seattle had a very good record (something like 4-2) when Wilson played poorly. Miami, OTOH was something like 1-5. That doesn't tell me that the QB is magical when the team isn't clicking. It tells me that the team still performs when the QB isn't clicking. I asked this question last season, and I'll ask you here. In a game where Tannehill is a little off, do you have the feeling that someone else on the offense is going to pick up the slack? After week 1, I thought it was going to be Moreno and the running game this year.
The Philly-Indy game on Monday night is the perfect example of this. Foles was definitely off target in that game. What happened? Sproles and McCoy put the team on their backs and they won anyway. Every screen pass to McCoy or Sproles looks like a potential TD. The Dolphins screen passes look like a potential disaster. I think it will get better but so far this offense is still not sharp. The offense against Buffalo had no rhythm, no pace. Good defense? Poor execution? Poor play calling (or good defensive play calling)? Probably a little of all of the above.
I think looking for a bit of magic to rescue an offense is a fantasy. They need execution from everybody on offense, defense and special teams.
Disagree with me by all means, but don't patronise me. I've been watching Russell Wilson since he was in NC State. I feel like an ass for having to say that, but please don't project on me what I think or don't think about him or anyone else.
For what it's worth, I agree with you in general. Russell has the luxury in Seattle of not having to always be good and they still have a run game and a great D to lean on. But people also use that to undervalue just what that kid achieves with his offense. It's not like his or the team's passing stats are poor, even with the limited gameplan they ask him to run, even though defenses have a lot easier a time keying the Seattle system because it isn't wildly complicated. He also help Lynch's run game by running the read option well.
What makes Russell good is that he does what he's supposed to do, he puts the ball where it needs to be more often than not and - when it's needed - he makes that throw or finds that receiver that keeps the drive/game alive. I'm sure he's very grateful that others can step up in his place, but he's also demonstrated that he can be that guy. It's not gaudy, he's not perfect, but he's very dependable when he's needed to be.
Tannehill would love guys to step up for him when he's off. He can thank Jeff Ireland and Joe Philbin that there really isn't anybody (bar Moreno hopefully and Clay when he's recovered fully). It's a harder job to be more heavily relied upon, for sure. But when a receiver does produce something special, like Wallace getting the jump on Graham in single coverage deep downfield, Ryan has to hold up his end of the bargain and hit him. That's the QBs job. That's why they get mollycoddled and adulated, don't get rotated in games and that's why they get the big bucks.
The Buffalo game wasn't on Tannehill by any means. But if your guy can't make something happen, inject the momentum, get the mojo working, then he's just a system piece like any other roster player and we should talk about him at the level he merits, like we would Brandon Gibson or Reshad Jones.
