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

[TXHawk]

The problem with drawing a clear distinction between the two is level of usage. Luck has thrown just under 50% more passes than Wilson has. He's asked to do a lot more. And in terms of numbers, one number that is significantly in Luck's favor is WPA (win probability added). Obviously he laps Wilson in gross yardage for the same reason. Luck's sample size makes his continued success a surer thing. Luck is asked to shoulder the whole load, while Wilson is asked to do a good, efficient job of commandeering a more talented offense who consistently gets left in better positions by a better defense.

If asked to do a lot more, to shoulder a Luck-level load, could he do it as well or even better? Sure, possibly. But he's extremely well-protected in our system right now, and the evidence is just incomplete at this point.

For what it's worth, I agree that Wilson has probably been the better one so far. However, I also think that it's a difficult comparison, and I think the question of which one is likely to be a bigger asset going forward is a far tougher one to call, and one that may actually tilt Luck's way.

It's not at all obvious that the Seahawks had a more talented offense in 2013 than the Colts. Most experts would have taken the Colts WR group with Reggie Wayne and TY Hilton over our "pedestrian" unit, and the Hawks' OL was a certified mess. Granted Lynch is far better than Trent Richardson but each team averaged the same yards per carry (4.3) with the Colts scoring one more rushing TD (15-14). The primary difference between the two teams' running game is that Carroll is much more committed to it than Pagano. You also claim that the Seahawks defense consistently left Wilson and the offense in a better position yet the Seahawks average drive started at the 31.0 compared to the 28.3 for the Colts. A 2.7 yard difference is a marginal advantage at best.

And as far as putting points on the board, which is where the rubber meets the road, the Colts offense has scored fewer points than the Seahawks offense in each of the past two years. The Colts finished 18th in the NFL in points per game in 2012 and 14th last year so if Luck has been shouldering a greater load he's only managed to carry it to the middle of the pack so far. The Colts defense only gave up 21.0 points per game (ranked 9th) so its not as if he was forced to put up big numbers to win the way the much-maligned Tony Romo was in Dallas, to provide an alternate example of a QB who actually was forced to carry a huge load to overcome a terrible defense.

And if your claim that Luck's larger sample size of passes thrown make him a surer bet going forward is true that should be worrisome to Colts' fans. His career completion pct (57.0), TD pct (3.8 ), Y/A (6.8 ), ANY/A (5.85), and QB rating (81.5) are all quite unremarkable and well below elite levels. They also lag well behind Wilson's numbers despite playing in a much weaker division.

I like Andrew Luck and do think he has enormous potential but his performance level up to this point has been grossly overhyped by the media, in my opinion.

 

[hgwellz12]

/thrizzead

 

[Tical21]

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.

 

[TXHawk]

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 the blind homerism is not coming from Wilson's supporters who generally use real world stats to make their case. 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.

 

[Tical21]

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

 

[TXHawk]

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

With the exception of rushing TDs those are all volume stats which are heavily tied to the number of times a QB drops back to pass. A QB who passes 35 times a game is naturally going to have more attempts, completions, and yards than one who attempts 25 passes a game. Those are important in fantasy football but what they don't do is measure the efficiency of the quarterback and that's where Wilson has clearly been better than Luck virtually across the board.

 

[camdawg]

Brady has literally no valid argument for being better than Manning, so I'm not sure that's the comparison that you want to draw.

Of course, if Wilson wins more rings than Luck then that is what will make me happiest anyway. I'd surely rather have more Super Bowls than have some illusory claim to having the best QB.

Well, Super Bowl wins IS valid.....but since you think that's unfair....

Super Bowl appearances: Tom 5, Peyton 3

Head to Head record: Tom 10 wins, Peyton 5 wins

Playoff record: Tom 18 wins, eight losses; Peyton 11 wins, 12 losses (really, shouldn't "the greatest QB of his generation" not have a losing playoff record?)

Peyton's great at throwing for a bunch of yards in the regular season.....he doesn't get it done when it counts.

 

[Hawkpower]

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.

Does Wilson go out and win games by throwing when he has too? Yep. So who cares about that, Wilson has the ability to play Luck's "style" just as well as Luck does.

And no one here is shorting Luck as one of the top young QB's, that's a strawman. Luck is great.

People here take issue with the notion that Luck is unquestionably better, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Wilson has statistics and proof on his side. Luck has good ole boy analysts and a tall body on his.

Unless you have something different? So far in pages and pages of argument, NO ONE has been able to provide proof that Luck is better than Wilson.

I will keep waiting patiently.

 

[MrCarey]

As long as Luck is tall and white, and Russ is short and black.

 

[Anthony!]

The problem with drawing a clear distinction between the two is level of usage. Luck has thrown just under 50% more passes than Wilson has. He's asked to do a lot more. And in terms of numbers, one number that is significantly in Luck's favor is WPA (win probability added). Obviously he laps Wilson in gross yardage for the same reason. Luck's sample size makes his continued success a surer thing. Luck is asked to shoulder the whole load, while Wilson is asked to do a good, efficient job of commandeering a more talented offense who consistently gets left in better positions by a better defense.

If asked to do a lot more, to shoulder a Luck-level load, could he do it as well or even better? Sure, possibly. But he's extremely well-protected in our system right now, and the evidence is just incomplete at this point.

For what it's worth, I agree that Wilson has probably been the better one so far. However, I also think that it's a difficult comparison, and I think the question of which one is likely to be a bigger asset going forward is a far tougher one to call, and one that may actually tilt Luck's way.

It's not at all obvious that the Seahawks had a more talented offense in 2013 than the Colts. Most experts would have taken the Colts WR group with Reggie Wayne and TY Hilton over our "pedestrian" unit, and the Hawks' OL was a certified mess. Granted Lynch is far better than Trent Richardson but each team averaged the same yards per carry (4.3) with the Colts scoring one more rushing TD (15-14). The primary difference between the two teams' running game is that Carroll is much more committed to it than Pagano. You also claim that the Seahawks defense consistently left Wilson and the offense in a better position yet the Seahawks average drive started at the 31.0 compared to the 28.3 for the Colts. A 2.7 yard difference is a marginal advantage at best.

And as far as putting points on the board, which is where the rubber meets the road, the Colts offense has scored fewer points than the Seahawks offense in each of the past two years. The Colts finished 18th in the NFL in points per game in 2012 and 14th last year so if Luck has been shouldering a greater load he's only managed to carry it to the middle of the pack so far. The Colts defense only gave up 21.0 points per game (ranked 9th) so its not as if he was forced to put up big numbers to win the way the much-maligned Tony Romo was in Dallas, to provide an alternate example of a QB who actually was forced to carry a huge load to overcome a terrible defense.

And if your claim that Luck's larger sample size of passes thrown make him a surer bet going forward is true that should be worrisome to Colts' fans. His career completion pct (57.0), TD pct (3.8 ), Y/A (6.8 ), ANY/A (5.85), and QB rating (81.5) are all quite unremarkable and well below elite levels. They also lag well behind Wilson's numbers despite playing in a much weaker division.

I like Andrew Luck and do think he has enormous potential but his performance level up to this point has been grossly overhyped by the media, in my opinion.

Greta post, just spot on

 

[Anthony!]

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.

Dude he players voted him top 10, and their wr corps is ranked 7th while ours if Harvin plays all year is ranked well below that. Stop with the excuses. There is no blind homerism, the facts and stats speak for themselves RW is better right now than Luck, its a fact. As to you cannot compare them yeah you can, and if Luck was on the upperhand of that comparison you would be all over it. But he is not.

 

[Anthony!]

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

that's great now lets look further at the stats that really matter

QB rating
Rw 100.2 Luck 78 (in the playoffs RW 102 Luck 70)

COMplt%
Rw 63.6 Luck 57 (in playoffs RW 63% Luck 54%)

pass TDs
RW 52 Luck 46 (in playoffs RW 6 Luck 6)

Ints
Rw 19 Luck 27 (oh and Rw has 1 in the playoffs Luck 8)

YPA
RW 8 Luck 6 (inplayoffs Rw 8.5 Luck 7)

Rushing yards
RW 1028 Luck 632 (in playoffs Rw 169 Luck 85)

Rushing Fds
Rw 61 Luck 46 (In Playoffs RW 8 Luck 6)

So basically Luck has more yards because the throws more but loosed in everything else. Heck Tannehill had more throwing yards than Luck I guess that make shim better than luck too. Yards alone are not eh measure of a great QB you need to take into account the other stats and in everything else Rw wins easy, and unlike Luck Rw steps it up in the playoffs. enough said

 

[Hawkpower]

I think the definition of "Blind Homerism" needs to be addressed here since Tical21 thinks its being used.

I think that coming to the conclusion that QB "A" is better than QB "B" because he has better statistics, a Super Bowl win, etc. is rational.

I believe coming to the conclusion that QB "B" is better than QB "A" because he is tall, he throws it a lot and because the crusty old media guys tell me to think that, is more indicative of "Blind Homerism" myself.

But hey, keep fighting the fight for Andrew. Lord knows he needs more guys in his corner lol

 

[Anthony!]

I think the definition of "Blind Homerism" needs to be addressed here since Tical21 thinks its being used.

I think that coming to the conclusion that QB "A" is better than QB "B" because he has better statistics, a Super Bowl win, etc. is rational.

I believe coming to the conclusion that QB "B" is better than QB "A" because he is tall, he throws it a lot and because the crusty old media guys tell me to think that, is more indicative of "Blind Homerism" myself.

But hey, keep fighting the fight for Andrew. Lord knows he needs more guys in his corner lol

Yeah he does even the guys on NFL TV are starting to see it, Sapp and a few others were saying how Indys defense was better than people think and how Indys Wr corps was better than the Hawks, even some of the Luck jock sniffers agreed but always came back top yards, and how he is a prototypical QB ie over 6 foot, since Sapp brought up Rw had better number sin the pocket.

People are starting to catch on in the end all anyone has as of now is his draft position, height and white, nothing else.

 

[Tical21]

By showing those stats, I was not placing any importance on yards or volume stats, simply showing that Luck is asked to do about 1/3 more than Russell is. Russell has probably the easiest job of any QB in the NFL. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare him to any other QB in more average situations, it just is. Would we all think Russell would be great if he had to be a completely different player? Sure we do, he hasn't shown us any reason to think he wouldn't. But I don't think it is fair to give him credit for being that type of player when he hasn't had to do it. Luck has had to pass for 300 yards in a game 9 times or his team had no chance to win those games. Russell just isn't put in that situation very often. They also both have just about identical interception percentages.

The sad part about this debate is that it creates a lot of attacks against Andrew Luck. If this thread was along the lines of "Andrew Luck is one of the best young QB's to ever play the game, but Russell is even a little better", that's super to easy to buy. I can get on board. Fine. But implying that Andrew Luck is anything short of sensational is horribly inaccurate and makes us look like a bad group of fans. I do acknowledge that some here aren't taking that angle. But many here are, and I will fight for the kid. The job he is asked to do is ridiculously more difficult than the job that Russell is asked to do, and he deserves a lot of credit for what he has done.

 

[Tical21]

I think the definition of "Blind Homerism" needs to be addressed here since Tical21 thinks its being used.

I think that coming to the conclusion that QB "A" is better than QB "B" because he has better statistics, a Super Bowl win, etc. is rational.

I believe coming to the conclusion that QB "B" is better than QB "A" because he is tall, he throws it a lot and because the crusty old media guys tell me to think that, is more indicative of "Blind Homerism" myself.

But hey, keep fighting the fight for Andrew. Lord knows he needs more guys in his corner lol

Yeah he does even the guys on NFL TV are starting to see it, Sapp and a few others were saying how Indys defense was better than people think and how Indys Wr corps was better than the Hawks, even some of the Luck jock sniffers agreed but always came back top yards, and how he is a prototypical QB ie over 6 foot, since Sapp brought up Rw had better number sin the pocket.

People are starting to catch on in the end all anyone has as of now is his draft position, height and white, nothing else.

LOL did you really see you've seen every game Andrew Luck has played? While having the time to chart every Seahawks play from the stands?

 

[Smellyman]

By showing those stats, I was not placing any importance on yards or volume stats, simply showing that Luck is asked to do about 1/3 more than Russell is. Russell has probably the easiest job of any QB in the NFL. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare him to any other QB in more average situations, it just is. Would we all think Russell would be great if he had to be a completely different player? Sure we do, he hasn't shown us any reason to think he wouldn't. But I don't think it is fair to give him credit for being that type of player when he hasn't had to do it. Luck has had to pass for 300 yards in a game 9 times or his team had no chance to win those games. Russell just isn't put in that situation very often. They also both have just about identical interception percentages.

The sad part about this debate is that it creates a lot of attacks against Andrew Luck. If this thread was along the lines of "Andrew Luck is one of the best young QB's to ever play the game, but Russell is even a little better", that's super to easy to buy. I can get on board. Fine. But implying that Andrew Luck is anything short of sensational is horribly inaccurate and makes us look like a bad group of fans. I do acknowledge that some here aren't taking that angle. But many here are, and I will fight for the kid. The job he is asked to do is ridiculously more difficult than the job that Russell is asked to do, and he deserves a lot of credit for what he has done.

Easy? OL was so bad he was running for his life. Don't know if a qb other than RW would've survived the year.

 

[EastCoastHawksFan]

I feel like luck has wayy more interceptions then 27 .


We can't deny the facts - Luck is an incredible talent-
-plays with one of the worst defenses
-has the worst offensive line in all of football
- rushing attack in bottom 5 in the league
Luck carries the colts and they get wins

BUT

I would never ever trade Wilson for anybody in the world including luck. I'm sure many of you feel the same way .
Wilson is among the elite , we all see that. We see his superb decision making in crucial moments every Sunday .
If it takes the rest of the world a few more seasons to know what we all knew last year , it's fine with me

plays with one of the worst defenses wrong they were top 10 in scoring defenses
-has the worst offensive line in all of football wrong again they were top 10 in pass blocking
- rushing attack in bottom 5 in the league again a by product of attempts as they avg the same YPa as us but on 10 fewer attempts
Luck carries the colts and they get wins he also sinks them and he gets looses, and it helps he has a top 10 wr corps.

LOL OH Anthony !
how am I wrong ????
I said the Colts have one of the worst defenses ( not SCORING defense as you so kindly put it )
I said one of the worst offensive lines (not worst PASS blocking as you so kindly put it )
Then i said worst rushing attack ( and again you tried to miniscule it )

Of course you ignored the rest of my post , you just wanted to just say somebody was wrong.

since you wanted to compare rushing attempts between the Seahawks and the Colts , lets comparesome other statistics. Again keep in mind that I very much believe that Russell Wilson is better then Andrew Luck .


Seahawks Colts
Overall Defense - (1st) 276 ypg -14ppg (20th) 357 ypg - 21ppg
Rushing Defense - (7th) 101.6 ypg (25) 125 ypg
Takeaways (1st) 39 (15th) 27


Profootball focus ranked the Colts Offensive line 25th overall with the 28th worst pass blocking and 22 worst run blocking.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... -rankings/
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... -rankings/

 

[chris98251]

You want stats to expalin everything on only the QB's and it won't, situational play calling, ability to extend plays that really don't show up and the success in doing so.

Luck in a system that compliments him may have great numbers and accomplishments, so far it isn't and Russell Wilsons is.

Example: Take Jim Plunkett or Rich Gannon, both played for some time with other teams, Plunkett for the Pats and Gannon for the Cheifs,both could not get it done for a number of reasons in their original place of play, both went to the Raiders, different system and expectations and supporting players. Both happened to go to a Super Bowl. Plunkett was considered to be a franchise type QB when the Pats drafted him just like Luck, he got the hell beat out of him and everyone thought he was done except Al Davis.

Gannon was just in the mess that was considered the Cheifs at the time, again the competitive spirit and a better supporting cast and system helped him turn his career into something of note. Look at both before and you would have thought different based on the original teams performance.

Both had really good players on the teams they came from, just the staffs didn't maxamise what the players could do.

It all comes back to you can be a good player and not in a system that gets the most out it's players by design, play calling or support.


Knox here and in LA had great players and very good teams but was so locked into being one way he never would adapt, I think adapting to circumstances is one of Petes strengths and the players love the fact we do things to win and not cater to a certain system or philosophy on offens and or defense,we flex when needed. The only thing that we stick to is always compete and the best play regradless of where you came from or how much you make.

 

[Tical21]

By showing those stats, I was not placing any importance on yards or volume stats, simply showing that Luck is asked to do about 1/3 more than Russell is. Russell has probably the easiest job of any QB in the NFL. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare him to any other QB in more average situations, it just is. Would we all think Russell would be great if he had to be a completely different player? Sure we do, he hasn't shown us any reason to think he wouldn't. But I don't think it is fair to give him credit for being that type of player when he hasn't had to do it. Luck has had to pass for 300 yards in a game 9 times or his team had no chance to win those games. Russell just isn't put in that situation very often. They also both have just about identical interception percentages.

The sad part about this debate is that it creates a lot of attacks against Andrew Luck. If this thread was along the lines of "Andrew Luck is one of the best young QB's to ever play the game, but Russell is even a little better", that's super to easy to buy. I can get on board. Fine. But implying that Andrew Luck is anything short of sensational is horribly inaccurate and makes us look like a bad group of fans. I do acknowledge that some here aren't taking that angle. But many here are, and I will fight for the kid. The job he is asked to do is ridiculously more difficult than the job that Russell is asked to do, and he deserves a lot of credit for what he has done.

Easy? OL was so bad he was running for his life. Don't know if a qb other than RW would've survived the year.

None of them have "easy" jobs. I used it as a relative term. Should I have said he was asked to do less than any other QB in the league?