HawkShack.com

Wilson is within one game-winning drive of tying the franchise record of 20, held jointly by Dave Krieg (1983-91) and Matt Hasselbeck (2001-10). Krieg set the mark over 136 games (regular season and playoffs) and Hasselbeck matched it in 149.

Wilson played in his 75th game Sunday.

*credit: Steve Rudman of SportsPressNW.com

What's the definition of a "game winning drive"? Does it have to be in the 4th-quarter, do you have to be behind or just tied, etc?

It didn't say, but if it's a stat kept even back in Krieg's day I imaging there has to be an accepted criteria for it.

c_hawkbob wrote:It didn't say, but if it's a stat kept even back in Krieg's day I imaging there has to be an accepted criteria for it.

Oh I don't doubt that- I just honestly am not sure what it is.

Why isn't this The Lead story on espn?:)

For as brutal as Sunday was in any number of areas, #3 got us the win at the end, and with a swollen ankle to boot.

burrrton wrote:What's the definition of a "game winning drive"? Does it have to be in the 4th-quarter, do you have to be behind or just tied, etc?

Good question. Since he has 20 of them, I assume the definition of a GWD would be to score to take a lead that their team never relinquishes and that it occurs in the 4th quarter or OT, but that doesn't necessarily seem very clutch relative to the other 45 minutes of play IMO. I mean, a drive late in the 3rd quarter bogs down an the 30 yard line and you kick a FG at the start of the 4th quarter and you get credit for a GWD? Doesn't sound very clutch to me.

Perhaps scoring to take the lead on the last offensive series of the game, like we did last weekend, would make it more reflective of clutch play. I don't think he's had 20 GWD's based on the latter criteria.

How many times has that even happened? Doubt a FG early in the fourth after driving late in the third, has stood up very often ( maybe once out of the twenty? though I doubt even that)....

The criteria is ( and has always been) when trailing or tied in the fourth quarter ( or now OT) and leading your team to the winning score.

Jeezus RD he has them by the same criteria used to measure everyone else. I understand that its damn lies and statistics.
I also understand that to have a comeback you are part of a team that got way behind to begin with.
But lets face it. When Russ gets the ball with under 3 to play in a 1 score game he either wins or gets damn close every single time. Hes an all time great in the making by the same yardstick everyone else is measured by....

HumanCockroach wrote:How many times has that even happened? Doubt a FG early in the fourth after driving late in the third, has stood up very often ( maybe once out of the twenty? though I doubt even that)....

The criteria is ( and has always been) when trailing or tied in the fourth quarter ( or now OT) and leading your team to the winning score.

If the stat has been applied over the course of 25-30 years of football, it probably has happened quite a few times. It was just an example, the point being that scoring early in the 4th quarter and the two defenses subsequently shutting down everything else from that point doesn't seem to me like the last score was 'clutch'. Leads quite often change hands 3 or 4 times during the 4th quarter. The term "game winning drive" suggests to me that it's a walk off or very near a walk off drive.

Hawktawk wrote:Jeezus RD he has them by the same criteria used to measure everyone else. I understand that its damn lies and statistics.
I also understand that to have a comeback you are part of a team that got way behind to begin with.
But lets face it. When Russ gets the ball with under 3 to play in a 1 score game he either wins or gets damn close every single time. Hes an all time great in the making by the same yardstick everyone else is measured by....

I wasn't knocking Russell's stat, I was knocking the stat in general. You'll get no argument out of me about Russell being a clutch player...although there's one clutch play situation that I can think of that I wish he would have came through for us.

Dog you can do that to absolutely any stat: Was it really a tackle if the RB fell down, was it really a sack if you just pushed the QB out of bounds etc. ... the point is all players are measured by the same criteria so pointing out an instance like that is useless and adds no value to the conversation. Go ahead and point out that you don't like stats every time someone uses one if you want, but maybe don't toss out specific instances that look like you're trying to minimize the accomplishment of a single player like that. All it does is derail the conversation into one about stats in general rather than about the player.

c_hawkbob wrote:Dog you can do that to absolutely any stat: Was it really a tackle if the RB fell down, was it really a sack if you just pushed the QB out of bounds etc. ... the point is all players are measured by the same criteria so pointing out an instance like that is useless and adds no value to the conversation. Go ahead and point out that you don't like stats every time someone uses one if you want, but maybe don't toss out specific instances that look like you're trying to minimize the accomplishment of a single player like that. All it does is derail the conversation into one about stats in general rather than about the player.

Actually it was burrton that initially asked the question about how the stat was derived, and I simply responded, so you should probably include him in on this accusation of yours that I'm derailing of the conversation and not adding value to the discussion.

Regardless of what you think my intent was, it wasn't to minimize Russell's accomplishment or status as a clutch quarterback, and I said so in my comments. You've known me long enough to understand that I'm not big on stats, particularly individual stats, and this one is a prime example of why I don't like stats monkeys that seem compelled to quantify every aspect of the game with a number based on some random criteria of theirs. And who knows, if they were to pare the GWD stat down from a full 25% of the game to the last 5-10% or so as I've suggested, Russell might have an even more impressive stat, not that it would change my opinion of his performance.

RiverDog wrote:Actually it was burrton that initially asked the question about how the stat was derived, and I simply responded, so you should probably include him in on this accusation of yours that I'm derailing of the conversation and not adding value to the discussion.

Regardless of what you think my intent was, it wasn't to minimize Russell's accomplishment or status as a clutch quarterback, and I said so in my comments. You've known me long enough to understand that I'm not big on stats, particularly individual stats, and this one is a prime example of why I don't like stats monkeys that seem compelled to quantify every aspect of the game with a number based on some random criteria of theirs. And who knows, if they were to pare the GWD stat down from a full 25% of the game to the last 5-10% or so as I've suggested, Russell might have an even more impressive stat, not that it would change my opinion of his performance.

There was no accusation. An observation and maybe a suggestion at most.You're getting touchy in your old age.

That actually brings up a good question.
How do you define a 'game winning drive'? Does a drive have to end in a TD?
If a team gets a turnover at the 50, and they move the ball 25 yards for a FG, is that a game winning drive?
If they get the ball just outside of FG range, and move it 10 yards, is THAT a game winning drive?
The question is how do you define it and where is the line drawn.
I consider getting the ball on your own 2 yard line and moving down to the opposing teams 20 then kicking a game winning FG to be a game winning drive. Does anyone else see it that way?