Bronco's board Luck vs. Wilson debate

[Seahawk Sailor]

Sarlacc, you were actually pretty close. Actual quarterbacks in order:

Set one:

Carson Palmer
Andrew Luck
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Kyle Orton

Set two:

Peyton Manning
Russell Wilson
Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady

Original post quoted for stat comparison.

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.

 

[bigskydoc]

Set One:
Carson Palmer
Andrew Luck
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Kyle Orton

Set Two:
Peyton Manning
6,666 must be SATAN! Or RW
????
Drew Brees.


- bsd

 

[Tokadub]

If you are going by stats then Luck is your guy

Why are some people so simple minded when it comes to their QB evaluations? They think that total yards is the ONLY stat that matters? No offense to Caliente, but in general I would say that people like this aren't worth our time. They will never understand the full complexities of football which is necessary to understand how good a QB really is.

If you are going by stats WILSON is your guy... hands down no comparison.

If you are going by his physical stature, his #1 pick, and his imaginary theoretical potential despite his terrible decision making than Luck is your guy.


I'm getting tired of these debates when the Luck supporters have literally no intelligent argument, really isn't worth the time they just can't comprehend football as a whole, they just follow the media like sheep and look at total yards...

But I posted this on the Packer's forum when they too were saying Luck > Wilson. My response was basically OK... well you guys realize Rodgers is WAYYYY more similar to Wilson than Luck right? So why would you not want the QB who is very similar to Aaron Rodgers? Would you really choose Luck who isn't even close?

I think Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the league. I think Wilson is the 5th best QB in the league and could very well move up to #3 by the start of next season... Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees are getting kinda old, but it's not impossible that they could continue to perform at a top 5 level for another few seasons.


Regular Season (Touchdown/Interception Ratio) / Passer Rating / Yards Per Attempt:

Aaron Rodgers: 3.62 (Touchdown/Interception Ratio) / 104.9 Passer Rating / 8.19 YPA
Russell Wilson: 2.73 (Touchdown/Interception Ratio) / 100.6 Passer Rating / 8.09 YPA
Andrew Luck: 1.7 (Touchdown/Interception Ratio) / 81.5 Passer Rating / 6.85 YPA

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00/gamelog/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00/gamelog/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00/gamelog/

Post Season Touchdowns / Interceptions / Passer Rating:

Aaron Rodgers: 19 Touchdowns / 5 Interception / 103 Passer Rating
Russell Wilson: 6 Touchdowns / 1 Interception / 102 Passer Rating
Andrew Luck: 6 Touchdowns / 8 Interceptions / 70 Passer Rating

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00/gamelog/post/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00/gamelog/post/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00/gamelog/post/

Oh and let's not forget that Wilson's completion percentage is about 2 percent lower than Rodgers. Luck is 9 percent lower than Rodgers.

It's also worth noting that if you add in rushing yards into the equation to form a QB's total yard production per game Wilson isn't even that far behind in total yards:

Passing + Rushing Yards Per Game Average

1) Brees = 278
2) Luck = 276
3) Rodgers 273
4) Manning = 257
5) Wilson = 234
6) Brady = 222

So while this comparison does make Luck look pretty good at first glance if you really think about it... well Wilson is about 40 yards per game behind Luck. Wilson is about 20 yards behind Manning.

So we measure the value of Luck's additional 42 yards per game against his interceptions.

Including the post-season Luck has 54 interceptions in 35 games an average of 1.54 interceptions per game.

Including the post-season Wilson has 20 interceptions in 38 games an average of .526 interceptions per game.

So I ask YOU RUSSELL WILSON DOUBTERS... WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER 42 MORE YARDS PER GAME OR 1 LESS INTERCEPTION PER GAME?

I sure as heck would prefer my QB to get 1 less interception per game than just 42 more yards...


According to this source:

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-drives-per-game/2013/

Average Drives Per Game in 2013:

Colts: 11.8
Seahawks 11.4

So while 42 yards might sound like a big advantage for Luck if you average that out for 11 drives per game that is 3.81 more yards per drive.

So would you rather have about 4 more yards per drive or 1 less interception per game? The choice is clear Wilson > Luck.

There is just no valid analysis to state Luck is better, people who believe that simply don't understand what QB's need to do to win football games consistently.

 

[bigskydoc]

It would be more interesting and instructional to look at the numbers for the QB's first two complete seasons for comparison.

- bsd

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

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.

That's because your DL owns our OL and Wilson is always about to die on every play it seems. The Rams DL is the ideal DL to stop Wilson.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

If you are going by stats then Luck is your guy

Oh really? Like the stats I just posted above? Those stats?

It would be more interesting and instructional to look at the numbers for the QB's first two complete seasons for comparison.

Screw comparisons to just the first two years in the league. Wilson already compares favorably to the sure-fire Hall of Fame veterans over their entire illustrious careers.

 

[taco40]

I don't care if someone picks Luck over Wilson nothing wrong with that..

This kind of logic and sense doesn't fly on this board mister. If one of our players is being attacked by evil doers, we have to attack back with the ferocity of a 1,000 dying suns.

I thought it was the ferocity of 1000 sighing nuns.

 

[scutterhawk]

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).

Okay, enough bullshit, so what you're theorizing is, that we all can DEDUCT Wilsons outstanding play, because it's the OTHER 52 Seahawk players that are doing 90% of the winning, and he's just along for the ride, that about it?
I'm going to startle you with a little bit of info here. The Seahawks don't go to Super Bowl 48 without Wilson, let alone win the damned thing. and that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Your buying into the worn out "Game Manager" bullshit.
Take the time to do an in depth and unbiased study on Wilson, check out his Quarterback rating, and you too will chide yourself for not taking the due time before posting nonsense.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

What a both awesome and terrible debate to have. It's awesome, at least for those who enjoy the act of arguing, because the formula is simple (it's really just [insert player who did more with lots of help] vs. [insert player who accomplished less but did so with less help]) and it's impossible to determine an absolute answer so the debate ends only when we decide we've had enough. On the other hand, the lack of an absolute answer is maddening if you're the kind of person that wants that type of answer (especially if any of the people involved don't trust even the most objective resources we currently have like DVOA).

That makes me wonder something though. For QBs of the 80's, it seems like the de facto debate would've been Montana vs Marino. The 2000's is certainly Brady vs Manning. Today, Luck vs Wilson is off to a healthy start. In the 90's, Aikman has gotta be the "player who did more with lots of help" but who was the QB who best filled the "player who accomplished less but did so with less help" role?

 

[scutterhawk]

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.

He has preconceived notions that won't allow him to admit that he's wrong, I would bet that he has no intentions of looking at the numbers, as that would short circuit his thinking organ.

 

[HansGruber]

We could have a debate probably still today over who was better: Dan Marino or Joe Montana. When I was younger and earlier in their career, I probably would have gone with Marino. After a while, though, the wins and the rings just become too much to argue against.

Heck, you could even say the same thing of Peyton and Brady.

I think the same will happen with Luck and Wilson.

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?232077-Luck-or-Wilson!

Interesting to see other fan's take on this oft mentioned debate. Pretty much plays out like you expect, with pretty much everyone backing Luck. Honestly I would have thought the Bronco's fans would be a little bit higher on Wilson as they saw him shred their D first hand, but it isn't so.

There is one guy supporting Wilson (Seahawks fan?). Maybe I'm just biased but he's been making the best argument.

Side note: are we more open to advanced football metrics than other fanbases? These Donkey fans really don't trust 'em it seems.

But no serious football fan at the time argued Marino. They still don't.

Like Manning and Luck, Marino was terrible in the clutch. And worse in the postseason.

I've never understood the hype behind some of these guys. I guess some folks just have a hard time accepting when they've been sold a bad bill of goods.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

In the 90's, Aikman has gotta be the "player who did more with lots of help" but who was the QB who best filled the "player who accomplished less but did so with less help" role?

Very good question. Can't be Jim Kelly, because he had HOF talent around him. Could almost be Favre, but he got a ring. Warren Moon? Tastaverde? QB Eagles?

 

[Mick063]

We could have a debate probably still today over who was better: Dan Marino or Joe Montana. When I was younger and earlier in their career, I probably would have gone with Marino. After a while, though, the wins and the rings just become too much to argue against.

Heck, you could even say the same thing of Peyton and Brady.

I think the same will happen with Luck and Wilson.

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?232077-Luck-or-Wilson!

Interesting to see other fan's take on this oft mentioned debate. Pretty much plays out like you expect, with pretty much everyone backing Luck. Honestly I would have thought the Bronco's fans would be a little bit higher on Wilson as they saw him shred their D first hand, but it isn't so.

There is one guy supporting Wilson (Seahawks fan?). Maybe I'm just biased but he's been making the best argument.

Side note: are we more open to advanced football metrics than other fanbases? These Donkey fans really don't trust 'em it seems.

But no serious football fan at the time argued Marino. They still don't.

Like Manning and Luck, Marino was terrible in the clutch. And worse in the postseason.

I've never understood the hype behind some of these guys. I guess some folks just have a hard time accepting when they've been sold a bad bill of goods.

I played fantasy football since 1990. All pencil and newspaper back then. A league consisting of a few sportswriters for the Tri City Herald. I can tell you right now, that from a fantasy perspective, Marino and Kelley were statistical monsters.

More so than Elway or Montana. Only when Bret Farve came along, did Marino get overtaken as top dog at the quarterback position. I'm talking about a time when my roster had Robert Smith, Keith Byars, Mark Duper, and Sterling Sharpe. Marino holds the all time record for most points in a game and in a season for that league (disbanded fifteen years ago). I should know as I was commissioner and kept the books (again all pencil, paper, and spreadsheet)

Marino's defense was horrid for the majority of his career. Marino threw for 48 touchdowns in his second season (before the "no contact after five yards" rule). He dismantled (and prevented a perfect season for) the vaunted 85 Bears. In his second season, Wilson threw for 26 and got a ring. I'll take the ring, but I'm not going to take anything away from the great Dan Marino.


Edited: found some old rosters.....disbanded fifteen years ago, not ten.

 

[Anthony!]

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.

that is 9th in run blocking they were 32bd in pass blocking, as to the Wr thing thats an opinion, and when an team talks about Seattle they talk about Wilson and being worried about what he can do.

 

[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.

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.

not sure on age but the point was they picked 2 and more picked Rw than Luck

 

[WilsonMVP]

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.

Marino also had the most TDs in his first 2 years....kind of reminds me of another QB we know...what is his name..oh ya Wilson. So Wilson is Marino+Aikman

 

[WilsonMVP]

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.

All I know is his stats against the Rams, Cards, and 49ers are god awful. Wilson has to play those teams 6 times a year

 

[camdawg]

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.

Fair enough that you haven't been blown away by Russell when he's played at the Jones Dome.

What did you think of Andrew Luck when he played at the Jones Dome? Three picks, right?

That's why Russell, today, is a better football player than Andrew Luck. Every now and then, Luck will have an ATROCIOUS game that stops the Colts from having any chance to win. His game against you. Both of his games against New England. The Baltimore playoff loss. The Jacksonville loss. Russell just doesn't have games like this-maybe the home Arizona loss, but that's pretty much it. I don't blame him for only scoring 14 against you on the road last year-that was some of the worst blocking I've ever seen a Seahawk QB have in front of him.

 

[Anthony!]

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.

All I know is his stats against the Rams, Cards, and 49ers are god awful. Wilson has to play those teams 6 times a year

Luck has a qb rating of 79 against common opponents to RWs 91,5 to date

 

[WilsonMVP]

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.

All I know is his stats against the Rams, Cards, and 49ers are god awful. Wilson has to play those teams 6 times a year

Luck has a qb rating of 79 against common opponents to RWs 91,5 to date

Ya Luck was 82/141, 58%, 904 yards, 6.4YPA 4TD 4Int 74.9 rating against the NFC west this year,

IF you just break it down into the Cards, Rams, and 49ers like Wilson faces he was

66/112 59%
675yds
2TD
4INT
67 qb rating...

Wilson in 6 games only had 3 ints. One of which was the BS call against the Cards where the ball "bounced" off Baldwins arm. The second one was @SF at the very end of the game when he was just launching it downfield hoping for something. Just like the Atlanta playoff game he didnt throw the interception until the defense let them score with barely any time left and he just chucked it up hoping for PI or a long catch. The third was where Tate actually fell down on a 3rd and long...yes he literally fell down against SF at Seattle. So really Wilson had ZERO ints against the NFC west unless you count any of those his fault