How long are morons gonna say LUCK > WILSON...??!!

[SalishHawkFan]

I would pick Wilson over Luck, i was stating that i'm ok with with people saying they rather have Luck than Wilson because of the reason Luck had to carry a team, ok defense, and no run game, probably didn't come out that way now that i see how i typed it. I think it's to the point where it's almost to the topic of religions and politics, no matter how much you argue about the subject no one will come out changing the other person's mind. Luck can be the new Peyton Manning, and he's on his way there, let him have those crazy star wars stats in regular season, if anything he's just like Manning with those crucial INT in games that counts.

Actually, Luck isn't on his way to being the next Peyton Manning, though he's doing quite well. Wilson, on the other hand, has blown past what Peyton did his first two seasons.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

I hear ya, I've seen the stats. The stat i really hate was the one that gives a nod to Luck for comeback games. It wouldn't be a come from behind game if he didn't put the team in that position in the first place. We will see this season, the media has doubted Wilson even before he was drafted, and will continue to do so until Wilson has proved them wrong, but he doesn't have to prove to his fans anything, cause we already know.

The thing is, it used to be Wilson would prove them wrong when he won a Super Bowl before any of them did. Well, he won the Super Bowl and that still didn't matter.

 

[Anthony!]

I hear ya, I've seen the stats. The stat i really hate was the one that gives a nod to Luck for comeback games. It wouldn't be a come from behind game if he didn't put the team in that position in the first place. We will see this season, the media has doubted Wilson even before he was drafted, and will continue to do so until Wilson has proved them wrong, but he doesn't have to prove to his fans anything, cause we already know.

]

Worse part is Rw has more now, so Luck is not even first and you are right a huge number of lucks comebacks were because he gave up points with ints

 

[Anthony!]

Okay so, you should be flattered, not got your nose bent out of shape , the information is available free to anyone, I have people use the stats I show all the time, no big deal. No place did I say it was my work, so no problem.

I am flattered, actually. But I still had to bust you out.

LOL no worries dude, just happy someone besides me did so fact finding

 

[Anthony!]

Why do people think we had a great running game last year...it wasnt that good.....

If you take away Wilsons 500 something yards we are ranked somewhere around 20 for total rushing yards on the season.

Lynch also only had 3 games where he went over 100 yards and in one of those games (Colts) Wilson had the same ammount of yards Lynch did.

There were 9 games were Lynch didnt even average 4 yards a carry in the game....Is THAT a great running game to you?

Towards the end of the year starting with the Vikings Lynch Had:

54 yards
45 yards
72 yards
47 yards
71 yards
97 yards

That is 110 carries he had for 386 yards and 5 TD. YPC avg of 3.5 per game.

actually without RWs yards and ypa we only avg 3.99 ypa, here are comparisons with the some of the other teams who have supposedly great QBs

GB was 7 in rushing and avg 4.7 ypa,
NE was 9th and avg 4.4 ypa,
Indy was 20th but avg 4.3 ypa,
Denver was 15th and avg 4.1 ypa,
Detroit was 17th and avg 4.0 ypa
Seattle were 4th and avg 4.3 ypa
NO was 25th and avg 3.8 ypa

Now by YPA

GB 4th at 4.7 459 attempts
NE 9th at 4.4 470 attempts
Seattle 12th at 4.3 509 attempts
Indy 13th at 4.3 409 attempts
Denver 20th at 4.1 461 attempts
Detroit 22nd at 4.0 445 attempts
NO 25th at 3.8 391 attempts

Take out the QB yardage and the number are even closer since RW had 539 yards rushing and the next nearest on this list had was luck who had only 377 and then Rogers at 120, so you can see that RWs ability to run skews the numbers a lot and he avg 5.6 ypa so that even skews that number.

Without QB

Denver 1873 yards 461 attempts 4.1 ypa
GB 1955 yards 412 attempts 4.7 ypa
Detroit 1723 yards 408 attempts 4.3 ypa
NE 2047 yards 438 attempts 4.67 ypa
Seattle 1649 yards 413 attempts 3.99 ypa
Indy 1366 yards 342 attempts 3.99 ypa
NO 1421 yards 356 attempts 3.99 ypa


so as you can see without RW we are actually not as good as running the ball as we think, of course people will point to lynch so lets look just at the to RB from each team(of 2 rbs are close in stats I will list both

Seattle-Lynch had 1257 yards on 301 attempts and 4.2 ypa
GB-Lacey had 1178 yards on 284 attempts and 4.,1 ypa
Denver-Moreno had 1038 yards on 241 attempts 4.3 ypa
Det-Bush had 1006 yards on 223 attempts 4.5 ypa
Ne-Ridley had 773 yards on 178 attempts 4.3 ypa-note they also had Blount who had 772 yards on 153 attempts 5.0 ypa
Indy-Brown had 537 yards on 102 attempts 5.3 ypa
NO- Thomas had 549 yards on 147 attempts 3.7 YPA(interestingly all the other RBs they have avg over 4.2 ypa and mark ingram who had 386 yards avg 4.9)

So even going by the top RB we actually had the 2nd lowest ypa, so more proof all these teams have good run games the just do not run as much.

 

[RiverDog]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Russell does get some degree of statistical benefit from passing less often on a run orientated, defense dominated team, much like Alex Smith was able to do with the Niners for 1.5 years. I'm not comparing Russell to Smith, but you do have to take into account what the quarterback is being asked to do, the overall team composition, and the style of offense they play in rather than making a purely statistical argument.

What specifically is the statistical benefit gained by throwing fewer passes and wouldn't that be more than offset by the much stronger defenses that Wilson faced?

Out of curiosity I looked up Troy Aikman's stats who had a similar situation in Dallas where he benefited from a great defense and running game. He never needed to throw the ball a lot and, in fact, exceeded Russell Wilson's 2013 passing yardage only once in his career. Aikman was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2006.

When did throwing the ball 35-40 times a game become a prerequisite for becoming an elite quarterback? I think it's primarily been in the last ten years or so with the rule changes that made passing easier along with the rise of fantasy football and the video game mentality of the Madden generation. Personally, I see no statistical reason to believe that Luck's larger number of passing attempts somehow trumps Wilson's significantly better efficiency ratings.

For one, if a QB's passing less and the team running more, he's more likely to see man coverage and fewer blitzes, which would have the effect of making his attempts a little better quality than slinging it around like Mathew Stafford does.

I never said Russell wasn't an 'elite quarterback.' I was merely commenting about using a purely statistical argument. If you did that, you'd have to elevate Tony Romo to elite company.

 

[Anthony!]

I would pick Wilson over Luck, i was stating that i'm ok with with people saying they rather have Luck than Wilson because of the reason Luck had to carry a team, ok defense, and no run game, probably didn't come out that way now that i see how i typed it. I think it's to the point where it's almost to the topic of religions and politics, no matter how much you argue about the subject no one will come out changing the other person's mind. Luck can be the new Peyton Manning, and he's on his way there, let him have those crazy star wars stats in regular season, if anything he's just like Manning with those crucial INT in games that counts.

Actually, Luck isn't on his way to being the next Peyton Manning, though he's doing quite well. Wilson, on the other hand, has blown past what Peyton did his first two seasons.

Interesting you are correct below are comparison of their 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

Manning 7874 yards, 1108 attempts, 59.4 compl%, 7.2 ypa, 52 tds, 4.7 td%, 43 ints, 3.9 int%, 90.95 qb rating, 135 yards rushing, 2 rushing tds.

 

[Anthony!]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Russell does get some degree of statistical benefit from passing less often on a run orientated, defense dominated team, much like Alex Smith was able to do with the Niners for 1.5 years. I'm not comparing Russell to Smith, but you do have to take into account what the quarterback is being asked to do, the overall team composition, and the style of offense they play in rather than making a purely statistical argument.

What specifically is the statistical benefit gained by throwing fewer passes and wouldn't that be more than offset by the much stronger defenses that Wilson faced?

Out of curiosity I looked up Troy Aikman's stats who had a similar situation in Dallas where he benefited from a great defense and running game. He never needed to throw the ball a lot and, in fact, exceeded Russell Wilson's 2013 passing yardage only once in his career. Aikman was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2006.

When did throwing the ball 35-40 times a game become a prerequisite for becoming an elite quarterback? I think it's primarily been in the last ten years or so with the rule changes that made passing easier along with the rise of fantasy football and the video game mentality of the Madden generation. Personally, I see no statistical reason to believe that Luck's larger number of passing attempts somehow trumps Wilson's significantly better efficiency ratings.

For one, if a QB's passing less and the team running more, he's more likely to see man coverage and fewer blitzes, which would have the effect of making his attempts a little better quality than slinging it around like Mathew Stafford does.

I never said Russell wasn't an 'elite quarterback.' I was merely commenting about using a purely statistical argument. If you did that, you'd have to elevate Tony Romo to elite company.

Except when you have avg WR and an oline ranked dead last in pass blocking that man coverage means little. SO again stats mean a lot.

 

[chris98251]

Man coverage when a QB rolls out or the pass rush breaks down opens up a lot more lanes to throw in since players are covering and or handing off coverage in a scramble drill. Thats also where quick receivers that can change direction and tall receivers that can box out are beneficial.

It also supports Wilson being a QB that is quick at reading coverage when it breaks down and that can get the ball out in a multitude of throws and on the run.

 

[Anthony!]

Man coverage when a QB rolls out or the pass rush breaks down opens up a lot more lanes to throw in since players are covering and or handing off coverage in a scramble drill. Thats also where quick receivers that can change direction and tall receivers that can box out are beneficial.

It also supports Wilson being a QB that is quick at reading coverage when it breaks down and that can get the ball out in a multitude of throws and on the run.

And there in lies one of the many exceptional things Rw does that most qbs cannot do, and how he helps our o-line and wr look even better.

 

[RiverDog]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Russell does get some degree of statistical benefit from passing less often on a run orientated, defense dominated team, much like Alex Smith was able to do with the Niners for 1.5 years. I'm not comparing Russell to Smith, but you do have to take into account what the quarterback is being asked to do, the overall team composition, and the style of offense they play in rather than making a purely statistical argument.

What specifically is the statistical benefit gained by throwing fewer passes and wouldn't that be more than offset by the much stronger defenses that Wilson faced?

Out of curiosity I looked up Troy Aikman's stats who had a similar situation in Dallas where he benefited from a great defense and running game. He never needed to throw the ball a lot and, in fact, exceeded Russell Wilson's 2013 passing yardage only once in his career. Aikman was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2006.

When did throwing the ball 35-40 times a game become a prerequisite for becoming an elite quarterback? I think it's primarily been in the last ten years or so with the rule changes that made passing easier along with the rise of fantasy football and the video game mentality of the Madden generation. Personally, I see no statistical reason to believe that Luck's larger number of passing attempts somehow trumps Wilson's significantly better efficiency ratings.

For one, if a QB's passing less and the team running more, he's more likely to see man coverage and fewer blitzes, which would have the effect of making his attempts a little better quality than slinging it around like Mathew Stafford does.

I never said Russell wasn't an 'elite quarterback.' I was merely commenting about using a purely statistical argument. If you did that, you'd have to elevate Tony Romo to elite company.

Except when you have avg WR and an oline ranked dead last in pass blocking that man coverage means little. SO again stats mean a lot.

Absolutely true. My point is that there's scores of variables that one can cojure up to justify or discredit stats to support or dismiss a particular point of view. They are not always apples to apples.

Question: Of those that qualified (200+ attempts), who was the top rated passer in the NFL last season? Hint: It wasn't Peyton Manning.

 

[Diezel Dawg]

Let's be honest, it's all about that cool neckbeard!

Winner!

He looks like Andre the Giant Jr.

 

[TXHawk]

For one, if a QB's passing less and the team running more, he's more likely to see man coverage and fewer blitzes, which would have the effect of making his attempts a little better quality than slinging it around like Mathew Stafford does.

I never said Russell wasn't an 'elite quarterback.' I was merely commenting about using a purely statistical argument. If you did that, you'd have to elevate Tony Romo to elite company.

Absolutely true. My point is that there's scores of variables that one can cojure up to justify or discredit stats to support or dismiss a particular point of view. They are not always apples to apples.

Question: Of those that qualified (200+ attempts), who was the top rated passer in the NFL last season? Hint: It wasn't Peyton Manning.

It's never been or is ever going to be apples to apples because every starting QB plays with different personnel, different offensive schemes, and against different levels of competition, yet stats have been used from the very beginning as a means to measure and compare quarterback play. It's not a perfect system - nothing created by man ever is - but it's what we have. So my question is this: why are stats that have been used for years to measure quarterback play (along with more recently developed advanced metrics) suddenly not relevant when it comes to comparing a 6'3" number one draft choice and a 5'11" third round pick? My belief is because there is an inherent bias toward the one with the prototypical size who was projected to be great all along. If Luck was putting up Wilson's stats and Wilson had Luck's stats everyone claiming that Luck is better would be using those stats as evidence of his superiority rather than coming up with excuses why stats aren't valid in making comparisons.

And to answer your question about who was the top rated passer in 2013 that would be Nick Foles. So why isn't he in the discussion? Much smaller sample size primarily. Wilson and Luck have two full seasons as starting quarterbacks under their belts now. Foles had six starts in 2012 in Andy Reid's system where he wasn't very good, and ten starts in 2013 in Chip Kelly's system where he was great. There's a big question about what's going to happen now that opposing DCs have a full season of tape and an entire offseason to prepare for the Eagles offense. There's inevitably going to be some regression by Foles (a 27/2 TD/Int ratio and 119.2 QB rating are unsustainable) so it remains to be seen how much that regression will be. Colin Kaepernick had a similar stretch of great play in the last half of 2012 when he was an unknown quantity with a unique skillset but regressed somewhat in 2013 after opposing defenses became better prepared for him. By contrast, Wilson and Luck both improved statistically in their second seasons despite opposing teams having a better book on how to defend them. If Foles has another outstanding season in 2014 he absolutely should be in the discussion of best young QBs.

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

Here's a good article on how good Wilson has been.

http://lastwordonsports.com/2014/07...he-development-of-a-future-elite-quarterback/

 

[jlwaters1]

Luck took at team who was zero wins into a perennial playoff contender all by himself. He has no running game to help him in PA situations, he has no defence. He has to drum up the team success all by himself.

While Wilson's statistics may be better, I'd still take Luck.

The Colts were 2-14, mainly because of HORRIBLE QB play, the year before they were 10-6 with Peyton Manning, the Colts were not some talent devoid team as the media would have you believe.

Much like the Chiefs of 2012, who with above average QB play in 2013 became a playoff team.

Luck is a great player, there's no question, however he's far from the top shelf player that the media makes him out to be. THey like to cite his "comeback" totals for his first 2 years. The funny thing is a number of those comebacks were only needed because of major mistakes by Luck ealier in the game. Take the Lion's game in 2012- Luck throws 3 picks in the first half, then rallies and throws the winning TD to their RB with little to no time left.

Look at his "Heroic" comeback in the playoff. He throws 3 picks and somehow the hapless Chiefs (along with some luck(fumble recovery TD)) allow them back into the game. IN 2013 playoffs he threw 6 TD's and 7 INT's in 2 games for a lousy 76 QB-rating.

 

[jlwaters1]

I'm sorry, but if I read one more time that TY Hilton is a top-10 receiver, I'm gonna blow up. He isn't a top 40 talent. If he is considered anywhere near a top-10 receiver, it is because Andrew Luck made him so.

You can't dismiss that Russell has the luxury of teams thinking the Seahawks are going to run the football and are not gearing up to stop the pass. Every single team that Luck plays against, is solely focusing on stopping the pass.

I hate having to take this argument because I feel like in trying to defend Luck against blind homerism, I therefore am taking shots at Russell Wilson, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm just saying that Russell isn't the only one that is one of the best young QB's in the history of the game.

It is absolutely impossible to compare the two since their situations and what is asked of them couldn't be further opposites. Russell is asked to play smart and not turn the ball over. Which he does insanely well. Luck is asked to go out and throw it so well that it will cause his team to win. Both are fantastic for their prospective teams and situations.

The Colts were ranked 14th in pass/run ratio in 2013. They unquestionably pass more than the Seahawks but lets not exaggerate the degree to which they depend on Luck's passing. As far as pass-happy offenses go they are roughly in the middle of the pack, just as they are in most offensive categories with Luck at the helm.

To me blind homerism is not using real world stats to support their case, which is what Wilson's supporters generally do. To me blind homerism is insisting on ignoring stats in favor of appeals to authority, vague assumptions, conjecture, and imaginary alternative scenarios which are generally the foundation of arguments by Luck supporters.

The coordinator for the Colts is hard-headed and continues to try to run the ball to help Luck, but because this doesn't work, they still end up #23 in the league in rushing attempts, and 20th in yards, and that is with the opposing defense putting zero emphasis on stopping the run. We all love to cherry-pick stats to prove our points. How about if we show the missing stats to show the entire picture about how much more Luck is asked to do than Wilson is:

Pass attempts
Luck 1322 Wilson 990

Pass Completions
Luck 1197 Wilson 799

Pass Yards
Luck 8196 Wilson 6475

Rush TDs
Luck 9 Wilson 5

300 yard games
Luck 9 Wilson 2

And yet you "Cherry Pick" the stats and obviously leave 1 important stat off this list.
Luck- 46 TD passes
Wilson- 52 TD passes

Combined:
Luck- 55 Total TD's
Wilson- 57 Total TD's.

If luck was so brilliant and because he's allowed to throw it significantly more, why then does he have less TD's? It's undeniable that Wilson has been more efficient than Luck at this stages in their career.

 

[Birdfinger]

I would pick Wilson over Luck, i was stating that i'm ok with with people saying they rather have Luck than Wilson because of the reason Luck had to carry a team, ok defense, and no run game, probably didn't come out that way now that i see how i typed it. I think it's to the point where it's almost to the topic of religions and politics, no matter how much you argue about the subject no one will come out changing the other person's mind. Luck can be the new Peyton Manning, and he's on his way there, let him have those crazy star wars stats in regular season, if anything he's just like Manning with those crucial INT in games that counts.

Actually, Luck isn't on his way to being the next Peyton Manning, though he's doing quite well. Wilson, on the other hand, has blown past what Peyton did his first two seasons.

Interesting you are correct below are comparison of their 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

Manning 7874 yards, 1108 attempts, 59.4 compl%, 7.2 ypa, 52 tds, 4.7 td%, 43 ints, 3.9 int%, 90.95 qb rating, 135 yards rushing, 2 rushing tds.

:shock: Manning with 43 ints??

Imagine these past couple years with Wilson throwing 24 MORE interceptions! This board would have written his pick-throwin' tail-feathers off and ran him out of the state of Washington!

But he didn't... because the man is good :thumbup:

 

[evergreen]

Luck took at team who was zero wins into a perennial playoff contender all by himself. He has no running game to help him in PA situations, he has no defence. He has to drum up the team success all by himself.

While Wilson's statistics may be better, I'd still take Luck.

Huh? All by himself? WTF? Let's look at their records. With the Suck for Luck year, they were 2-14,while 10-6, 14-2, 12-4, 14-2 before that making the playoffs nine straight years! He took a perrenial playoff team that had one bad year without a QB to the playoffs again. They had plenty of talent but no QB. They get a QB and they're right back in the playoffs. The year they went 2-14 was the only time they didn't make the playoffs for the last nine years.

We were coming off three coaches in three years having run out of gas after going 4-12, 5-11, 7-9, 7-9. Russell Wilson comes along and we are the hottest team in the league just barely missing the NFCCG in 2012. Then Owning the NFL in 2013. Hmm....

Obviously Luck is awesome but I like the players ranking of top 5.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Watched the Colts-Chiefs playoff game again last night.. and I have to say I stand corrected. If you overlook the fact the Colts defense gave up more points in one game than the Seahawks did the entire postseason, and overlook the fact Andrew Luck needed only 11 more yards rushing to lead the Colts in that statistic too.. you can totally see how the Colts supporting cast is identical to the Seahawks.

:lol:

Andrew Luck is a good QB, that will be great very soon - on a team that would struggle to win 6 games without him.

Russell Wilson is a good QB that will be great very soon - on an already great team. Hence why he's wearing a Super Bowl ring right now and Luck isn't.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Huh? All by himself? WTF? Let's look at their records. With the Suck for Luck year, they were 2-14,while 10-6, 14-2, 12-4, 14-2 before that making the playoffs nine straight years! He took a perrenial playoff team that had one bad year without a QB to the playoffs again. They had plenty of talent but no QB.

That's how great Peyton Manning was, that Colts team had major holes that Peyton masked. Very similarly to Luck right now.

I agree, the Colts cupboard isn't completely bare. Reggie Wayne, when healthy, still plays at an elite level and TY Hilton is a very good wideout as well. Then they of course have guys like Robert Mathis on defense.. but if you look at their roster and compare it to the Seahawks roster, where the teams lone weakness is continuity/talent on the offensive line.. there really is no comparison. The Seahawks have more talent than anyone in football right now, and that includes the quarterback.

Again.. I do agree that Wilson is slighted by many, in large part because his supporting cast is SO good in comparison to other situations.. but the people trying to spin the statistics to make it seem like the Colts and Seahawks are mirror images of each other are out of their minds.