Kapadia dropping some knowledge

[hawxfreak]

Do people not really remember when tjack was our qb
Wilson has been the biggest reason our offense has gotten a running game and not the other way around
Just f****** mystifies me
Kapadia takes apples and compares themto apples and it will never be enough
Hopefully 3 more super bowls will do it

 

[hawxfreak]

Ask Capt. neckbeard to do what he does behind Wilson's oline and we'd really have some fun
Probably 10 td's and 30 int's

 

[Anthony!]

While I think RW and Luck are top QBs in the NFL, I always see the Russell Wilson supporters only using ratios when judging Luck and Wilson.

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

ahh the only cumulative stat Luck has over wilson ins passing yards. Other than that Wilson has the rest. oh and INTs Luck ahs more of those too.

 

[Anthony!]

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Agree to disagree.

I'll take the QB who throws for 40 TDs and 20 INTs over the QB who throws for 10 TD and 4 INTs.

I'll take the QB who throws for 5,000 yards at 63% completion vs the QB throwing for 3,800 and 68% completion.

You have to take the whole picture into account which the Luck vs Wilson arguments rarely do and in this case it is no different. The Seahawks beat writer is using ratios in a bias manner to prove his conclusion rather than trying to take everything into account.

Even if you take it all into account it is obvious Wilson has been better. I mean simply look at the career totals
Luck 14838 yards, 7.05 ypa, 101 tds, 55 ints, 1.84 td/int ratio, 58 complt%, and 85 qb rating and 1101 rushing yards, 12 tds, and 15939 total yards and 113 total tds

Wilson 13974 yards, 8.05 ypa, 106 tds, 34 ints, 3.12 td/int ratio, 64.7 complt%, and 101.8 qb rating and 2430 rushing yards, 12 tds and 16404 total yards and 118 total tds

Seems pretty cut and dry here so even cumulative stats Wilson is better.

 

[Anthony!]

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Agree to disagree.

I'll take the QB who throws for 40 TDs and 20 INTs over the QB who throws for 10 TD and 4 INTs.

I'll take the QB who throws for 5,000 yards at 63% completion vs the QB throwing for 3,800 and 68% completion.

You have to take the whole picture into account which the Luck vs Wilson arguments rarely do and in this case it is no different. The Seahawks beat writer is using ratios in a bias manner to prove his conclusion rather than trying to take everything into account.

Why? Because he attempts more passes for meaningless yards while throwing too many interceptions which put his team behind so he just has to attempt even more passes? Nice for the fantasy football types but not for winning actual games.

That's not quite it. Luck is in now way as good as Wilson right now, but if Luck were to went to Seattle and Wilson would have went to Indy, it could very well be the other way around. Honestly, outside of Brady and a handfull of other superbowls, having your QB and passing game alone just don't get it done. A half of a second is a football-play-age in it's lifetime and some measure of having the defense read whether it's run or pass buys you that half second right off the snap. It has a gross effect on the effectiveness of a pass play much more so than the running game, which can force it's own indecision all its own, such as a read option. When people play Indy, they're playing Luck and the pretty average defenses he's had. When you played Seattle, you were playing Beast Mode and the LOB with Wilson and his efficiency at the helm. Now to a point where it's more Wilson and the Defense with a continued commitment to the running game.

It's completely different.

The running game is and always will be a QBs best friend.

Yes perhaps but given here in seattle he would have gotten less attempts he might also have been to throwing more Ints., Y9o use the what if game works both ways. Meanwhile Wilson would have faced much inferior defenses compared to the NFC west and might have killed it

Wilson is the better player now for sure. There's no question about that. Their path has just been drastically different from their NFL infancy to now.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Ask Capt. neckbeard to do what he does behind Wilson's oline and we'd really have some fun
Probably 10 td's and 30 int's

Hilarious considering the Colts OL is just as terrible.

Guess what Luck doesn't have though? Didn't have Marshawn Lynch in his prime. Hell he didn't even have someone that could hold a candle to Thomas Rawls.

He had a couple really good WR's in T.Y. Hilton and Reggie Wayne before age caught up to him.

And.. that's it. He's never had a defense anywhere near ours. Never had the coaching.

The context behind this argument is always lost from Seahawk fans because most Seahawk fans feel like they are calling Russell Wilson garbage for having a great team around him, and it's such a stupid stance to have. Tom Brady was on the best team many years and no one knocks him down for it.

To put it another way.. I look at Andrew Luck like LeBron James pre-Heat days. Lot of hype, lot of scrutiny for failure. A team that would only truly be successful when they were on their game. Russell Wilson is a lot like Tim Duncan from that same time period.. great player, one of the best in the league .. but equally important is their teams and coaching were stocked with talent.

It's ok to admit Andrew Luck isn't in the same situation as any of the elite QB's in this league, or really any of the really good ones. They are all in better situations than him. Saying that doesn't make Russell Wilson a crap QB. Put it in perspective.

 

[JPatera76]

Great article thank you for the share.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Why? Because he attempts more passes for meaningless yards while throwing too many interceptions which put his team behind so he just has to attempt even more passes? Nice for the fantasy football types but not for winning actual games.

I hate myself for willingly going back into this rabbit hole but LOL at this.

In his career Andrew Luck has trailed by double digits 24 times. In HALF of those games, he was down double digits after having the ball 1-2 times. He's thrown a total of 6 interceptions in those games.

The only time I can recall Russell Wilson being down 2 scores after having the ball once was against Carolina in the playoffs. For Andrew Luck its a regular occurrence.

 

[Popeyejones]

While I think RW and Luck are top QBs in the NFL, I always see the Russell Wilson supporters only using ratios when judging Luck and Wilson.

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

Ooooh, a Wilson and Luck comparison, eh?

That always ends well around these parts. :lol:

 

[Sterling Archer]

Hilarious considering the Colts OL is just as terrible.

Guess what Luck doesn't have though? Didn't have Marshawn Lynch in his prime. Hell he didn't even have someone that could hold a candle to Thomas Rawls.

He had a couple really good WR's in T.Y. Hilton and Reggie Wayne before age caught up to him.

And.. that's it. He's never had a defense anywhere near ours. Never had the coaching.

The context behind this argument is always lost from Seahawk fans because most Seahawk fans feel like they are calling Russell Wilson garbage for having a great team around him, and it's such a stupid stance to have. Tom Brady was on the best team many years and no one knocks him down for it.

To put it another way.. I look at Andrew Luck like LeBron James pre-Heat days. Lot of hype, lot of scrutiny for failure. A team that would only truly be successful when they were on their game. Russell Wilson is a lot like Tim Duncan from that same time period.. great player, one of the best in the league .. but equally important is their teams and coaching were stocked with talent.

It's ok to admit Andrew Luck isn't in the same situation as any of the elite QB's in this league, or really any of the really good ones. They are all in better situations than him. Saying that doesn't make Russell Wilson a crap QB. Put it in perspective.

Brees has had a complete garbage team the last few years as well, still putting up some of the best stats in football.

Manning always had a crappy colts team and he will go down as the best regular season QB ever.

Hasselbeck last year played with the same Indy squad and outperformed Luck.

Do I think Luck is better than he has shown because of circumstances? Yes, definitely.

Do I think he's as good as he was advertised coming out (ala the next Peyton Manning)? Not even close. He has failed to live up to the hype. I believe he will continue to improve and ultimately be a top QB in the league, but he has a long way to go to catch up to Wilson. I do think part of Luck's problem is that he tries too hard. That causes him to make mistakes and throw INTs that he then has to dig out of. If he can learn not to push it so much, maybe he wouldn't have to throw 3 tds in the 4th quarter to bring his team back.

 

[Willyeye]

Ask Capt. neckbeard to do what he does behind Wilson's oline and we'd really have some fun
Probably 10 td's and 30 int's

Hilarious considering the Colts OL is just as terrible.

Guess what Luck doesn't have though? Didn't have Marshawn Lynch in his prime. Hell he didn't even have someone that could hold a candle to Thomas Rawls.

He had a couple really good WR's in T.Y. Hilton and Reggie Wayne before age caught up to him.

And.. that's it. He's never had a defense anywhere near ours. Never had the coaching.

The context behind this argument is always lost from Seahawk fans because most Seahawk fans feel like they are calling Russell Wilson garbage for having a great team around him, and it's such a stupid stance to have. Tom Brady was on the best team many years and no one knocks him down for it.

To put it another way.. I look at Andrew Luck like LeBron James pre-Heat days. Lot of hype, lot of scrutiny for failure. A team that would only truly be successful when they were on their game. Russell Wilson is a lot like Tim Duncan from that same time period.. great player, one of the best in the league .. but equally important is their teams and coaching were stocked with talent.

It's ok to admit Andrew Luck isn't in the same situation as any of the elite QB's in this league, or really any of the really good ones. They are all in better situations than him. Saying that doesn't make Russell Wilson a crap QB. Put it in perspective.

To be fair, the defense never throws passes for Russell, and the defense is made better by a Hawks running game which Russell is a HUGE part of...all because the staff doesn't care about padding Wilson's volume stats...they firmly believe in chewing up the clock with the run game. The Hawks coaches appear to have made the decision to bring Russell along slowly when it comes to passing. I guess this does prove your point about coaching.

I know it's PFF, but I don't think there's any bias there when they're assessing the O-Lines of the Colts and the Hawks. Here are the PFF pass block rankings for the Colts and Hawks for the last 4 years: in 2012, Colts- #17, Hawks #27. 2013- Colts 28, Hawks #25. 2014- Colts #21, Hawks #18. 2015- Colts #12, Hawks #27. Average for 4 years: 19.5 for the Colts and 24.25 for the Hawks. I know for a fact Wilson has been pressured a LOT MORE than Luck ever has.

Probably also fair to consider the fact that the Colts play in the AFCS and the Hawks in the NFCW. Many "experts" consider the Rams to have the best DL in the NFL. In the last 4 seasons, the Hawks have had to play the Rams 8 times...the Colts faced them once (the Rams won that game 38-8; Luck threw 3 INT and lost a fumble). In those 4 seasons, the Hawks also faced a tough 49ers team for a couple of years and then the Cards for two. There is truly no comparison as to difficulty of schedule between the Colts and the Hawks over these past 4 seasons.

Overall, I don't think the defense has that much of an effect on QB passing stats...more so the D affects the win-loss record.

 

[vin.couve12]

The defense affects all of it because you only have to score 17 points to win on average over the last 4 years. You dont have to push anything. At least not until crunch time.

It's probably less than 17, but whatever.

 

[Willyeye]

The defense affects all of it because you only have to score 17 points to win on average over the last 4 years. You dont have to push anything. At least not until crunch time.

It's probably less than 17, but whatever.

The Seahawks scored an average of 24.6 ppg (10th in the NFL) last year, and yet they still had only a 10-6 record. Saying that they only have to score 17 points to win is completely disingenuous. The Hawks scored an average of 24 points in their 6 losses, and an average of 27.9 in their 10 wins. They also averaged 32 points per game in the second half of the season.

The Hawks an extremely tough schedule the first half of the season...a seemingly endless parade of incredible defenses. Also, anyone who's a Hawks fan knows that for the last 3 seasons, the Hawks don't pad their offensive stats. Right or wrong, they have consistently SAT on 10-point leads. They get any lead of 10+ points, and the play-calling gets all conservative. So in a sense, having a defense they think they can rely on isn't always the best scenario for the offense. In 2013 and 2014, that strategy worked for the most part...obviously, it didn't work in SB49 nor in the first half of last season.

There's a reason why Wilson leads all QB's in 4th quarter comebacks and game-winning drives over the last 4 seasons. His defense doesn't always hold those 10-point leads. Either way, saying that the offense only needs to score 17 points is ridiculous.

 

[SeahawksFanForever]

Wilson's coaches are much better than Luck's. Protecting the Football is very important to Carroll. If Luck played under Pete, he'd be much more efficient. Totally different situations and pretty hard to compare.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

God I hate list season.

I don't care who's better. You say you'd take the 5,000 yard passer over a ratio guy. I think every Seahawks fan would say 'Great, you can keep him'.

I'm pretty sure every Seahawk fan would rather Indy keeps Luck and the fan experience they've had and will have with him. We'll keep enjoying the results of not having Luck and all that goes with it. I wouldn't advocate trading Wilson for Luck and the Colt's second best player straight up. Luck doesn't do what we require. If you can't be efficient for our team, you won't get 33% more pass attempts in order to make up for your inefficiency.

I kind of enjoy understanding the inside joke that is on cumulative stats admirers. If over half the league and their fans don't get it -- it just means we have fewer real competitors in this league for championships.

We'd be best served to just nod quietly with a sly grin and say, "Yeah, you're probably right".

Indy chooses to not be a balanced team. They choose to be a soft team. Indy can't be a balanced team and run it 39% of the time. In 2014/15 Indy threw the ball 651 / 619 times respectively. Seattle won't do that ( 454 / 489 ). If we compare Luck's last full season with Wilson's, Luck won't have >33% more throws to produce 25% more yards and 14% more TDs. Not only will he have far fewer throws by percentage -- but his team will have far fewer plays ( more than 10% fewer).

Luck has only proven that he can do less with more. And that's without the intentional handicaps that Seattle burdens Wilson with (OL exclusively talented at run blocking and UDFA starting wide receivers). In the end, people/fans that believe cumulative stats are the better barometer of quality won't be convinced otherwise. Neither will ratio/efficiency advocates. The only real difference is that one barometer is massively more predictive of team success. One can still be competitive with a star wars passing model. But generally they fare poorly against good balanced teams. I'm just glad we went all in with the more successful model.

So yeah, you're probably right.

 

[Anthony!]

Ask Capt. neckbeard to do what he does behind Wilson's oline and we'd really have some fun
Probably 10 td's and 30 int's

Hilarious considering the Colts OL is just as terrible.

Guess what Luck doesn't have though? Didn't have Marshawn Lynch in his prime. Hell he didn't even have someone that could hold a candle to Thomas Rawls.

He had a couple really good WR's in T.Y. Hilton and Reggie Wayne before age caught up to him.

And.. that's it. He's never had a defense anywhere near ours. Never had the coaching.

The context behind this argument is always lost from Seahawk fans because most Seahawk fans feel like they are calling Russell Wilson garbage for having a great team around him, and it's such a stupid stance to have. Tom Brady was on the best team many years and no one knocks him down for it.

To put it another way.. I look at Andrew Luck like LeBron James pre-Heat days. Lot of hype, lot of scrutiny for failure. A team that would only truly be successful when they were on their game. Russell Wilson is a lot like Tim Duncan from that same time period.. great player, one of the best in the league .. but equally important is their teams and coaching were stocked with talent.

It's ok to admit Andrew Luck isn't in the same situation as any of the elite QB's in this league, or really any of the really good ones. They are all in better situations than him. Saying that doesn't make Russell Wilson a crap QB. Put it in perspective.

all good but the colts oline is not just as terrible, they were ranked 16th in pass blocking last year us 32nd not even close to just as bad. If you go line by line plus by plus minus by minus its pretty even with regards to their situations. Yes Wilson has better run game and defense, Luck had better Wrs, and easier schedule.

 

[formido]

Ask Capt. neckbeard to do what he does behind Wilson's oline and we'd really have some fun
Probably 10 td's and 30 int's

Hilarious considering the Colts OL is just as terrible.

Guess what Luck doesn't have though? Didn't have Marshawn Lynch in his prime. Hell he didn't even have someone that could hold a candle to Thomas Rawls.

Seattle's run game is elite because of Wilson. Seattle's run game was average before Wilson and Seattle's run game is still average when they aren't running zone read.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-wh ... mpaign=nfl

Seattle is so effective at the zone read because Wilson is the most efficient and most productive QB runner in the league and the best running decision maker at the QB position in the league.

So far from being a mark for Luck, the presence of Seattle's effective running game is a huge credit to Wilson, one bizarrely ignored by "fair-minded" people.

 

[ivotuk]

What no one ever mentions, is Russell's receiving corp vs Andrew's. The Colts drafted 2 Tight Ends just for Luck, Dwayne Allen and his College TE, Coby Fleener. Plus they have TY Hilton, Phillip Dorsett, Donte Moncrief and Reggie Wayne (retired) at receiver.

 

[Own The West]

Are we entertaining the notion that if you are a QB on a team that has to throw 40+ times a game that DCs will plan to shut down your passing game causing more interceptions and bad things to happen than a QB on a team that throws 25 times a game where DCs plan to shut down the run?

No? Well then, Luck must suck and Russell must be the GOAT.

 

[mrt144]

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Agree to disagree.

I'll take the QB who throws for 40 TDs and 20 INTs over the QB who throws for 10 TD and 4 INTs.

I'll take the QB who throws for 5,000 yards at 63% completion vs the QB throwing for 3,800 and 68% completion.

You have to take the whole picture into account which the Luck vs Wilson arguments rarely do and in this case it is no different. The Seahawks beat writer is using ratios in a bias manner to prove his conclusion rather than trying to take everything into account.

Explain why.