Bronco's board Luck vs. Wilson debate

[Ramfan128]

I probably can't justify it.

It's all speculation, either way. Just opinions.

In my mind, some of what has been posted is why I rank Wilson below several QBs in the NFL. The easiest way for me to say it is, if I was starting a franchise and could pick any QB in the NFL, Wilson would be below several QBs. It's all a matter of opinion.

I'd wager that Seahawk fans are pretty much the only people that would actually call him elite right now.

The rest of the team being arguably the most dominant and most talented that the NFL has seen in years, with arguably the best defense of all time, certainly hurts him.

You have to use your imagination, but just think about it. Something unique I've noticed about the Seahawks that's different from most good teams is that when they get up, the defense still doesn't let down. If Rodgers/Brady/Manning/Brees were orchestrating the offense, and they had a D like Seattle, I think they would win games 50-0 all the time. Now, Seattle has won games like that with Wilson over the past two years - I just think it would happen more often.

Also, as a Rams fan and playing Seattle twice a year, I am just flat out not afraid of Wilson. And before I get flamed let me say, I know Bradford was worse than Wilson, and that I go into the games knowing that our offense wont score and that we will probably lose............but I'm just not afraid of Wilson.

I guess it's just a gut feeling. He's had some good performances against us (300 yds and 2 TDs 2nd game his rookie year). But it's just not the same. I don't know how to explain it. When you don't have an elite defense (which the Rams haven't had in my generation, although hopefully we're getting close), you expect to lose when playing an elite QB. I never expect to lose to Seattle. I think we probably will - because of the defense. But it's completely different than if Green Bay was coming to town, because I know we wouldn't be able to stop them. All about match ups I guess.

 

[Anthony!]

As an outsider on this issue, I want to see more from both before I say one is better than the other. On the one hand you have a qb (Wilson) who has one of the best backs in the game keeping defenses honest. On the other you have a qb (Luck) who has less talent around him (no rb like Lynch, but receivers on par with Seattle's).

I don't agree with the talking heads that are rushing to put Luck in the conversation as an elite qb. They tried the same thing with Kaep in SF last year, and we all saw how that mess played out.

Ahh actually Lucks Wr are better than Rws, and he has a much better o-line so Luck has plenty

 

[Anthony!]

Russ could win 5 super bowls, but as long as he has guys like Lynch, Sherman and Kam on his team he will never be considered the QB he is because he didn't do it single handed. It's a strange phenomenon with many fans, that a QB has to throw for 350 yards a game to be considered elite, even if he doesn't win games.

I don't think that it's so much that as it is, a difference of opinion. If you are going by stats then Luck is your guy (much like Manning or Marino are your guy over Tom Brady). If you are going for a winner you go with Wilson or Brady over the Luck's, Manning's and Marino's, but you also have to accept with it that Wilson and Brady have more complete teams around them than Luck, Marino, and Manning, and football (unlike basketball) is a team sport, and it takes all 52 guys to win a title (something you guys are more than aware of as you just won a Super Bowl).

Really going by stats you need to look at the stats again to date(not counting this year) so first 2 years



Rw 6473 yards, 800 attempts Comp% 63.6, 8.1 ypa, 52 tds, 6.5td%, 19 ints, 2.4 int%, 100.5 QB rating, 1028 rushing yards, 5 rushing tds

Luck 8196 yards, 1197 attempts, complt% 57, 6.85 ypa, 46tds, 3.8td%, 27int, 2.3int%, 81.5 Qb rating, 632 rushing yards, 9 rushing tds


So other than yards and attempts Luck has nothing over Rw at all nothing

 

[Anthony!]

If Luck had Marshawn Lynch, Percy Harvin, and the Seahawks defense backing him up. I'm pretty sure you would doubt his abilities as well.

Ahh no they would not, because he was the chosen one even before he played a down in the NFL.

 

[Anthony!]

It is impossible to know who is better, so this debate will go forever.

It's pretty simple to see both sides: you have people (mainly Seahawk fans) who want Wilson to be the best, and probably think he is. Then you have people (mainly Seahawk haters) that want to tear Wilson down.

It's both easy to build him up, and tear him down. And that is a unique situation IMO. It probably means he's somewhere in the middle. Above "great game manager" but below "elite".

I think he's a good player. But the way I try to think of things like this is, you have a completely average team in place and you can pick any QB - between Wilson and Luck, who would win you more games. I believe it's Luck, so I'd say that IMO Luck is better.

HMm average which means 8-8 and well we were 7-9 before Rw so thanks for proving our point. You should have taken Rw the facts prove it.

 

[El Caliente]

As an outsider on this issue, I want to see more from both before I say one is better than the other. On the one hand you have a qb (Wilson) who has one of the best backs in the game keeping defenses honest. On the other you have a qb (Luck) who has less talent around him (no rb like Lynch, but receivers on par with Seattle's).

I don't agree with the talking heads that are rushing to put Luck in the conversation as an elite qb. They tried the same thing with Kaep in SF last year, and we all saw how that mess played out.

Ahh actually Lucks Wr are better than Rws, and he has a much better o-line so Luck has plenty

So your saying:
Colts Wr's> Seahawks Wr's
Colts o-line> Seattle o-line

Very well. I don't see it that way (though I am high on Baldwin, and now that Harvin is back I believe he blows anything the Colts have out of the water), but differing opinions.

 

[Anthony!]

I probably can't justify it.

It's all speculation, either way. Just opinions.

In my mind, some of what has been posted is why I rank Wilson below several QBs in the NFL. The easiest way for me to say it is, if I was starting a franchise and could pick any QB in the NFL, Wilson would be below several QBs. It's all a matter of opinion.

I'd wager that Seahawk fans are pretty much the only people that would actually call him elite right now.

The rest of the team being arguably the most dominant and most talented that the NFL has seen in years, with arguably the best defense of all time, certainly hurts him.

You have to use your imagination, but just think about it. Something unique I've noticed about the Seahawks that's different from most good teams is that when they get up, the defense still doesn't let down. If Rodgers/Brady/Manning/Brees were orchestrating the offense, and they had a D like Seattle, I think they would win games 50-0 all the time. Now, Seattle has won games like that with Wilson over the past two years - I just think it would happen more often.

Also, as a Rams fan and playing Seattle twice a year, I am just flat out not afraid of Wilson. And before I get flamed let me say, I know Bradford was worse than Wilson, and that I go into the games knowing that our offense wont score and that we will probably lose............but I'm just not afraid of Wilson.

I guess it's just a gut feeling. He's had some good performances against us (300 yds and 2 TDs 2nd game his rookie year). But it's just not the same. I don't know how to explain it. When you don't have an elite defense (which the Rams haven't had in my generation, although hopefully we're getting close), you expect to lose when playing an elite QB. I never expect to lose to Seattle. I think we probably will - because of the defense. But it's completely different than if Green Bay was coming to town, because I know we wouldn't be able to stop them. All about match ups I guess.

Its funny ESPN did a survey of all the GMs and only 2 QBs were selected by all of the GMS as 1st round 1st picks to build a team around Rw and Luck with 60% picking Rw over Luck. SO I guess you wrong and you should be afraid of Rw I know your coaches are.

 

[Anthony!]

As an outsider on this issue, I want to see more from both before I say one is better than the other. On the one hand you have a qb (Wilson) who has one of the best backs in the game keeping defenses honest. On the other you have a qb (Luck) who has less talent around him (no rb like Lynch, but receivers on par with Seattle's).

I don't agree with the talking heads that are rushing to put Luck in the conversation as an elite qb. They tried the same thing with Kaep in SF last year, and we all saw how that mess played out.

Ahh actually Lucks Wr are better than Rws, and he has a much better o-line so Luck has plenty

So your saying:
Colts Wr's> Seahawks Wr's
Colts o-line> Seattle o-line

Very well. I don't see it that way (though I am high on Baldwin, and now that Harvin is back I believe he blows anything the Colts have out of the water), but differing opinions.

So lets start with o-line Football otusiders had our ranked 32nd in pass blocking Indys 9th. Last year ESPN had Indys Wrs ranked 11th our ranked 22nd enough said. This year Indys Wr were ranked 9th and ours 15th

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Every single human being on the planet could say ________ quarterback is "better" than Russell Wilson, but as long as Russ continues his career 100+ rating, his 2.8 TD to INT ratio, and his 71% win rate, all the hot air of 7 billion people is worthless.

 

[El Caliente]

As an outsider on this issue, I want to see more from both before I say one is better than the other. On the one hand you have a qb (Wilson) who has one of the best backs in the game keeping defenses honest. On the other you have a qb (Luck) who has less talent around him (no rb like Lynch, but receivers on par with Seattle's).

I don't agree with the talking heads that are rushing to put Luck in the conversation as an elite qb. They tried the same thing with Kaep in SF last year, and we all saw how that mess played out.

Ahh actually Lucks Wr are better than Rws, and he has a much better o-line so Luck has plenty

So your saying:
Colts Wr's> Seahawks Wr's
Colts o-line> Seattle o-line

Very well. I don't see it that way (though I am high on Baldwin, and now that Harvin is back I believe he blows anything the Colts have out of the water), but differing opinions.

So lets start with o-line Football otusiders had our ranked 32nd in pass blocking Indys 9th. Last year ESPN had Indys Wrs ranked 11th our ranked 22nd enough said.

But they have Seattle's o-line ranked #9, and to be honest with you, as a fan of an opponent you guys beat twice last year, its Lynch that teams fear, and less Wilson (which might be the reason teams keep losing to the Seahawks). At any rate, with Harvin back, and Baldwin being able to take a bigger role, I would take Seattle's wr's over Indys.

 

[Ramfan128]

I probably can't justify it.

It's all speculation, either way. Just opinions.

In my mind, some of what has been posted is why I rank Wilson below several QBs in the NFL. The easiest way for me to say it is, if I was starting a franchise and could pick any QB in the NFL, Wilson would be below several QBs. It's all a matter of opinion.

I'd wager that Seahawk fans are pretty much the only people that would actually call him elite right now.

The rest of the team being arguably the most dominant and most talented that the NFL has seen in years, with arguably the best defense of all time, certainly hurts him.

You have to use your imagination, but just think about it. Something unique I've noticed about the Seahawks that's different from most good teams is that when they get up, the defense still doesn't let down. If Rodgers/Brady/Manning/Brees were orchestrating the offense, and they had a D like Seattle, I think they would win games 50-0 all the time. Now, Seattle has won games like that with Wilson over the past two years - I just think it would happen more often.

Also, as a Rams fan and playing Seattle twice a year, I am just flat out not afraid of Wilson. And before I get flamed let me say, I know Bradford was worse than Wilson, and that I go into the games knowing that our offense wont score and that we will probably lose............but I'm just not afraid of Wilson.

I guess it's just a gut feeling. He's had some good performances against us (300 yds and 2 TDs 2nd game his rookie year). But it's just not the same. I don't know how to explain it. When you don't have an elite defense (which the Rams haven't had in my generation, although hopefully we're getting close), you expect to lose when playing an elite QB. I never expect to lose to Seattle. I think we probably will - because of the defense. But it's completely different than if Green Bay was coming to town, because I know we wouldn't be able to stop them. All about match ups I guess.

Its funny ESPN did a survey of all the GMs and only 2 QBs were selected by all of the GMS as 1st round 1st picks to build a team around Rw and Luck with 60% picking Rw over Luck. SO I guess you wrong and you should be afraid of Rw I know your coaches are.

Well, that poll must have been based on current ages, because there is no way any GM is picking Wilson over a young Manning or Brady. Obviously I'd take Wilson over Manning if age was involved. But when talking about elite QBs right now......no RW wouldn't be up there, and if GMs could draft any QB in the game now and they all started as their rookie selves, very few would draft Wilson in the top 12 I bet.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

But it's completely different than if Green Bay was coming to town, because I know we wouldn't be able to stop them. All about match ups I guess.

Or maybe it's all about willful ignorance. Doesn't matter to us either way. The only difference I've seen it make is in the depth and breadth of opposing fans' collective meltdowns after our game manager manages to beat their teams.

 

[Hawkpower]

I probably can't justify it.

It's all speculation, either way. Just opinions.

In my mind, some of what has been posted is why I rank Wilson below several QBs in the NFL. The easiest way for me to say it is, if I was starting a franchise and could pick any QB in the NFL, Wilson would be below several QBs. It's all a matter of opinion.

I'd wager that Seahawk fans are pretty much the only people that would actually call him elite right now.

The rest of the team being arguably the most dominant and most talented that the NFL has seen in years, with arguably the best defense of all time, certainly hurts him.

You have to use your imagination, but just think about it. Something unique I've noticed about the Seahawks that's different from most good teams is that when they get up, the defense still doesn't let down. If Rodgers/Brady/Manning/Brees were orchestrating the offense, and they had a D like Seattle, I think they would win games 50-0 all the time. Now, Seattle has won games like that with Wilson over the past two years - I just think it would happen more often.

Also, as a Rams fan and playing Seattle twice a year, I am just flat out not afraid of Wilson. And before I get flamed let me say, I know Bradford was worse than Wilson, and that I go into the games knowing that our offense wont score and that we will probably lose............but I'm just not afraid of Wilson.

I guess it's just a gut feeling. He's had some good performances against us (300 yds and 2 TDs 2nd game his rookie year). But it's just not the same. I don't know how to explain it. When you don't have an elite defense (which the Rams haven't had in my generation, although hopefully we're getting close), you expect to lose when playing an elite QB. I never expect to lose to Seattle. I think we probably will - because of the defense. But it's completely different than if Green Bay was coming to town, because I know we wouldn't be able to stop them. All about match ups I guess.

So your analysis is based on the fact that you are "not afraid" of Wilson??

Let me tell you why you are having a hard time explaining it. Its bunk. It has no factual basis. Its based on the fact that you also are a victim of buying into the media game manager label and dont even realize he is schooling your team each and every time they play. Numbers dont lie. You can be manipulated into believing QB's X and Y "scare you" but you can't be lied to by the numbers. And the numbers tell me you should be very VERY afraid of RW. He is a monster.

For you, its kind of like the Preseason top ranked college football team vs. an unranked one. The unranked team practically has to win all of its games to even be considered even with a 2 loss preseason #1 because they have so much ground to make up.

You and others are pre-disposed to believe RW isnt as good as others. So RW doesnt pass your eye test not because he isnt amazing, but because he has to make 3 times as many plays as a Luck or a Rodgers to be considered at the same level. Again, look at the numbers. You will be surprised.

 

[DavidSeven]

"Never confuse potential for production."

I've seen Andrew Luck make some incredible throws. I've also seen him make some mind-boggling decisions.

Right now, Luck is getting the benefit of the doubt arising from his pre-draft hype and amassing couple decent season records by scraping by the likes Jacksonville, Tennessee and Houston.

The argument that Luck is a premiere QB basically goes the same as the one for Patrick Peterson being an elite corner. The pundits have already been sold by their physical tools -- if they put up poor numbers, there has to be some other reason. "They have to do so much," they say. As if that, in itself, is an indicator of productivity. At some point, Luck will need to show it on the field and pull his rating out of the 80s to stay in this discussion. He's currently riding a train of goodwill that other young quarterbacks were simply never afforded. Those QBs were "asked to do a lot" too.

 

[rideaducati]

How is it possible for Russell to have better talent around him than Luck? The Seahawks have had the worst drafts in the league every year. It's sad that the same idiots argue both of these things. There is absolutely nothing that will change their minds until Russell retires.

I remember feeling the same way about Troy Aikman that opposing fans feel now about Russell. When all is said and done, I have a feeling that Russell will leave no doubt.

Did having Irvin, Emmitt, and the best defense in the league hurt Aikman's HOF bid? So he's not mentioned in the same way as Marino, but whose career would each of them rather have?

This Luck vs Wilson debate will be like Aikman vs Marino. Sure, Marino (Luck) had more yards, but Aikman (Wilson) won championships.

I say we let the Luck worshippers win fantasy leagues while Russell wins everywhere else.

 

[enamel]

Russ plays to win. If he ends up winning multiple superbowls over his career, I don't care where anyone ranks him in these kind of beauty contests. He will be better than most of the players he's compared to.

 

[kearly]

I just .. never understand this debate. Luck's great. Wilson's great. The end.

Therein lies the rub. According to the eyeballs in my head and what the stat sheet bears out, Russell Wilson is a far better QB than Andrew Luck.

Wilson is off to the best start of any QB in NFL history (in maybe the toughest defensive division in NFL history!); Luck is a statistically league average QB who's had unsustainable good luck in close games while playing one of the league's easiest schedules. The 2013 AFC South was, according to FO, the third worst division season since realignment. It was worse than all but two of those "NFC WORST" era seasons.

If Luck had gone 15th overall this wouldn't even be a discussion. The real reason this discussion exists is because Luck is still riding the coattails of his predraft hype. Scotte compared Luck's situation to Elway. Elway was not a great passer but he had a knack for winning games he shouldn't, and that allowed him to sustain his massive pre-draft hype throughout his career and into his legacy. But it doesn't mean that Elway was as good a QB as say, Joe Montana.

Putting Luck on the same level as Wilson is annoying if only for it's lack of basis in reality. The only argument that makes any sense for Luck is that he's won on a worse team, but how many games would he be winning in the NFC West while playing 12 games a year against the NFC?

To make it worse, most people have Luck higher. It is a testament to how large a percentage of our population is made up of stubborn, lazy thinkers and laggards.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Guess the quarterbacks compared.

Set one:

Completion percentage: 62.6% Yards: 33,739 TD:INT ratio: 1.4 TDs per INT Rating: 85.9

Completion percentage: 57.0% Yards: 8,196 TD:INT ratio: 1.7 TDs per INT Rating: 81.5

Completion percentage: 59.8% Yards: 16,790 TD:INT ratio: 1.1 TDs per INT Rating: 77.5

Completion percentage: 58.5% Yards: 15,019 TD:INT ratio: 1.4 TDs per INT Rating: 79.9


Set two:

Completion percentage: 65.5% Yards: 64,964 TD:INT ratio: 2.2 TDs per INT Rating: 97.2

Completion percentage: 63.8% Yards: 6,666 TD:INT ratio: 2.8 TDs per INT Rating: 100.9

Completion percentage: 65.9% Yards: 24,386 TD:INT ratio: 3.6 TDs per INT Rating: 104.7

Completion percentage: 63.4% Yards: 49,149 TD:INT ratio: 2.7 TDs per INT Rating: 95.7


Edit: changed the number of TDs and INTs to a ratio for more clarity.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Guesses:

Set 1 (in order)

Jay Cutler
Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Mark Sanchez (wouldn't that be a burn.)

Set Two (in order)
Peyton Manning
Russell Wilson
Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Russ plays to win. If he ends up winning multiple superbowls over his career, I don't care where anyone ranks him in these kind of beauty contests. He will be better than most of the players he's compared to.

You mean like Aikman and Montana? The horror I say! The horror! Begone you non fantasy football player you offend my delicate sensibilities.