NFL coaches on Wilson, according to Cossell

[randomation]

In 2011 while Andrew Luck was being billed and positioned to win a Heisman there was a transfer player at Wisconsin who was met with way less fanfare. National pundits who don't follow him closely didn't understand his success and attribute it to the team's running game and stout defense. Luck was valiantly leading comebacks and game-winners but so was this player hidden in Wisconsin.
Funny how history tends to repeat itself. While Luck continues to be groomed as THE SUCCESSOR a guy name Wilson in the PNW continues to excel like an elite player without national fanfare. Luck will continue to have all the media's love because he has NFL 'bloodline' and the backing of big name connections. For RW there is no better compliment than the respect of your opponents. Check out this article from 2011.
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2011/10/spartans_pat_narduzzi_knows_ba.html

Yup and as soon as Wisconsin lost 2 in a row on hail marys by no fault of Russ or Ball for that matter they were basically dropped out of the race Ball only being invited to new york basically as a courtesy after tying Barry freaking Sanders; and finishing in votes behind Richardson /slams head into desk. Sorry but that still pisses me off I hope the niners pick up Dez and Russ throw a hail mary on him to win, then I might feel better freaking Southward.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Yup and as soon as Wisconsin lost 2 in a row on hail marys by no fault of Russ or Ball for that matter they were basically dropped out of the race Ball only being invited to new york basically as a courtesy after tying Barry freaking Sanders; and finishing in votes behind Richardson /slams head into desk. Sorry but that still pisses me off I hope the niners pick up Dez and Russ throw a hail mary on him to win, then I might feel better freaking Southward.

It was unfortunate how UW Badgers defense and at times the running game was so inept.
I always felt that RW and Ball were NFL quality performers because of their talent, instincts and heart. They continue to have detractors especially RW. The Johnny Manzeil story is intriguing because he was hyped up as much as Luck was to start his freshman year and Manzeil even got his Heisman with lesser numbers than RW. Johnny football was projected to be great even before RW was established in the NFL therefore you can't attribute Manzeil's hype and draft status to RW's success. When NFL bigots continued to knock RW and promote Manzeil as much as they do for unproven reasons it says to me that there has always been a prejudice involved. You look at the numbers. You look at how ineffective the UW badgers passing game was before him and how bad it has been after he left. You look at his production in the NFL despite his opportunities. You look at his elite level leadership and how he can command attention of NFL players from day one. You hear glowing reviews from his long line of coaches. There is nothing left to doubt and yet people find reasons to make him an above average quarterback while Luck is elite. That there is unfair.

 

[v1rotv2]

I look at it like this. These coaches probably have a QB that they are saddled with and will be for awhile with no hope of getting better. Couple that with their previous mantra of "he's too short" you get denial. So what do most people do in that situation? You down play what you don't have. Especially to an owner that has your job in your hands.

RW just killed the Denver secondary and he did not allow the so called very good Denver defense one sack. His game was nearly flawless in the biggest game in the NFL in only his second year. By the way he lead an offense that out scored the "greatest offense in the history of the NFL" by about 4 to 1. (the defense and special teams did the rest)

So yeah denial and envy about sums it up. By the way I bet that RW would be the starter on any of their teams.

 

[randomation]

Yup and as soon as Wisconsin lost 2 in a row on hail marys by no fault of Russ or Ball for that matter they were basically dropped out of the race Ball only being invited to new york basically as a courtesy after tying Barry freaking Sanders; and finishing in votes behind Richardson /slams head into desk. Sorry but that still pisses me off I hope the niners pick up Dez and Russ throw a hail mary on him to win, then I might feel better freaking Southward.

It was unfortunate how UW Badgers defense and at times the running game was so inept.
I always felt that RW and Ball were NFL quality performers because of their talent, instincts and heart. They continue to have detractors especially RW. The Johnny Manzeil story is intriguing because he was hyped up as much as Luck was to start his freshman year and Manzeil even got his Heisman with lesser numbers than RW. Johnny football was projected to be great even before RW was established in the NFL therefore you can't attribute Manzeil's hype and draft status to RW's success. When NFL bigots continued to knock RW and promote Manzeil as much as they do for unproven reasons it says to me that there has always been a prejudice involved. You look at the numbers. You look at how ineffective the UW badgers passing game was before him and how bad it has been after he left. You look at his production in the NFL despite his opportunities. You look at his elite level leadership and how he can command attention of NFL players from day one. You hear glowing reviews from his long line of coaches. There is nothing left to doubt and yet people find reasons to make him an above average quarterback while Luck is elite. That there is unfair.

To be fair Stave is AWFUL so its hard to compare but Tolzien before him won the Unitas award as top senior QB and it was still a night and day difference between him and Russ, if we had Russ and Watt had stayed one more year I still think we go to the ncg because they wouldn't have time to throw those bloody Hail Marys with JJ in their face.

 

[TJH]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Oh, Cosell. I enjoy your work, but stick to breaking down plays after the fact and stop evaluating players because you are awesome at the former and suck at the latter.

 

[brimsalabim]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

Your being sarcastic right? I 'm asking because Luck won at least two games that way this season.

 

[TJH]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

Your being sarcastic right? I 'm asking because Luck won at least two games that way this season.

When? He had a few complete blowouts that he didn't need to pass much after the first quarter but he certainly didn't win any competitive games with less than 150 yards.

 

[Coug_Hawk08]

Did they ask Cris Carter?

Empirical evidence says otherwise. Old and egotistical men will say what they will.

 

[formido]

I'm far from a Luck fan, but holy cow we at least need to try to be fair and objective.

Let's try it this way. The center of gravity for Indy's offense has been Andrew Luck since week 1 of 2012. He was handed the keys and essentially asked to make it all work. He has no running game. He has only "ok" WRs to throw to (especially with Wayne injured). It's more or less impossible for that offense to do well without Andrew Luck being the main reason.

It's not really that way on our team. This offense has been run-first the last 2 years. Its center of gravity has been the running game, and that's backed up frequently by just about anything coming out of PC's mouth when he's talking offense. RW has indeed played very well in the context of our offensive scheme, but it doesn't start and end with him like in Indy. He has help, and we can be effective on offense and win consistently without him putting up big #s. In fact, often times we have won simply on the strength of tough defense and solid running with minimal offensive mistakes. Nothing at all wrong with that, and it's not all that far from what Brady did early on as a starter, but we have to at least acknowledge the truth here.....and we can do that and still be huge Seahawks/Wilson fans.

I agree 100%. Why do we have to beat down a very good young QB to make our own look better? Give Luck a defense as effective as ours and I'd venture to say we would have faced the Colts Super Bowl. As I've said before, Luck is a much smarter, more mobile and more elusive version of Rapelessburger. He's on the path to greatness, IMO. That said, I wholeheartedly disagree with Cosell's assessment of Russell Wilson. 'Slightly above average" is well below the mark for Russell Wilson and reeks of bias, IMO. I envision both Wilson and Luck as future HOFers given their current trajectory. How cool would it be to see a Hawks vs Colts Super Bowl? Another anointed vs under-rated QB, but the contest would be much closer. I'd really like to see is our 'Nerd Nation' guys stop being in such awe of Luck. Saying that he has no tendencies is utter BS (Sherman). That mindset mostly likely factored into our loss in Indy. Treat him like any other QB in the league... Do you film study, then go for the jugular.

Luck had the number 9 scoring D, if he didn't throw 4 picks against the patriots to put his D in a massive hole its quite possible we would be facing them but he threw 7 picks in 2 playoff games sorry but that doesn't say amazing QB to me.

I agree: Luck played poorly for most of the playoffs. And overall, I think he gets too much credit for "comebacks" when his early mistakes contributed to his team getting behind.

Taking the situations into account, I think Luck is in a tougher spot to succeed (so far) and I'm impressed overall by his performance given what's being asked of him and what he has for a supporting cast.

It's great that you're impressed by what Luck has done in a tougher spot to succeed. Many of us are. But even accounting for his tougher spot, he hasn't done as well as Wilson.

It's OK to like and be impressed by players on other teams, but it's also OK to think a player on your own team is better. You have a contrary point of view, but keep in mind that just being contrary isn't evidence you're right. Your case has to stand on its own.

It's true Wilson has a better team, so he's more likely to have a better won/loss record and go further in the play-offs. But that's not the only measure of a QB. Seattle's defense doesn't make Wilson's stats better than Luck's. Fact is, Luck's supporting cast on offense, the part of the team that can help a QB's stats, are at least comparable to Wilson's. In addition to the eye test, every independent rating system I've seen says Luck's pass blocking is much better than Wilson's. Indy's rush offense DVOA was higher than Seattle's this year. And regarding "Luck is asked to do more than Wilson": Luck was asked to do much less this year than last, and his efficiency was still significantly below Wilson's, just like last year.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Wilson, playing for Wisconsin--a team comparable in personnel and opponent quality to Stanford--broke the major college passer rating record, not Luck. Now in the NFL, it's again Wilson setting the passing efficiency records (first QB > 100 passer rating first two years, rookie play-off passer rating record, 2nd most TDs through first two seasons, etc.) At some point shouldn't Luck have to actually outperform Wilson to be considered better than him? For now the strongest claim for Luck is that there's still a chance he can be better than Wilson and he just hasn't shown it yet...but those chances are on life support.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

Only thing he isn't as good as Luck at doing is throwing INT. Be more specific please.

 

[brimsalabim]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

Your being sarcastic right? I 'm asking because Luck won at least two games that way this season.

When? He had a few complete blowouts that he didn't need to pass much after the first quarter but he certainly didn't win any competitive games with less than 150 yards.

ok not less than 150 but the colts won despite Luck only throwing for 178 vs Oakland , won vs San fran throwing for 159, won vs Houston throwing for 180.

 

[gonzhawk]

The colts averaged 8.7 wins per season the three years before acquiring Luck, and have averaged 11 wins per year since.
The seahawks averaged 6.3 wins per season the three years before acquiring Luck, and have averaged 12 wins per year since.

Russell Wilson has had 2 seasons with a passer rating over 100
Tom Brady has had 3 seasons with a passer rating over 100
Andrew Luck has yet to have a season passer rating over 90.

In the playoffs, Andrew luck has thrown interceptions at a rate 13 times greater per game than Russell Wilson.

Andrew Luck has yet to throw more touchdowns than Russell Wilson in a regular season. Yup, Andrew is really carrying that team on his back while Russell is just tagging along!

Russell Wilson has thrown for 8.1 yards per attempt
Andrew Luck has thrown for 6.8 yards per attempt

This year the Colts averaged 4.3 yards per rush attempt
This year the Seahawks averaged 4.3 yards per rush attempt

But wait.... the colts and the seahawks rushed for the same yardage per attempt? I thought Russell was being propped up by his amazing running game while Andrew is forced to carry his team? Or is it the fact that Russell's far superior passing efficiency props up the Seahawks running game?

I also find it amazing that the Seahawks had 4 straight seasons with a losing record before drafting Russell, and yet people say that he has the benefit of playing on a stacked team. What a coincidence! They went from a bunch of players who couldn't manage to pull out a winning season to world beaters... and it just so happened to coincide with the drafting of a quarterback who has put up all time great efficiency numbers for his first two seasons in the league. Wow, how lucky for a slightly above average qb like Russell.

Here is the bottom line, people don't like to admit when they are wrong. They all pegged Luck as an all time great and Russell as no better than a backup before either one of them stepped foot on an NFL field. There are some huge egos in the nfl and the networks that cover it, and they will hold on to that narrative for as long as they can. But it is undeniable that Russell has been the far superior quarterback his first two years on the league, and shame on any seahawks fan who is still to blind to recognize that.

Now this is a great post! sums it all up. If these guys admit they are wrong to often, they can't get paid for a job where talking out of your ass pays the bills.

 

[TJH]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

Only thing he isn't as good as Luck at doing is throwing INT. Be more specific please.

Ok. He is further behind, in my opinion, at reading defenses and progressing through his reads. Accuracy can also be an issue as he overthrows a lot of balls. Luck also has better pocket presence as Wilson is too quick to escape the pocket left or right exposing his tackle, as opposed to stepping up into the pocket. The Cards really forced that last issue by forcing contain and Wilson struggled.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

So it's easy to throw off play-action. Luck does it as well as RW. And RW doesn't just throw off play-action as assumed. He has thrown from empty sets and broken plays just as much. It's his ability to extend plays and pass accurately on the run NOT the reliance on play-action pass that allows him to flourish on 3rd&long. RW is one of few who can complete passes with accuracy using just a wrist flick while falling and almost horizontal to the ground.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

Only thing he isn't as good as Luck at doing is throwing INT. Be more specific please.

Ok. He is further behind, in my opinion, at reading defenses and progressing through his reads. Accuracy can also be an issue as he overthrows a lot of balls. Luck also has better pocket presence as Wilson is too quick to escape the pocket left or right exposing his tackle, as opposed to stepping up into the pocket. The Cards really forced that last issue by forcing contain and Wilson struggled.

Luck does not compete against top defenses. He doesn't have to compete daily against this defense either. As for reading plays? Luck has had lapses in judgement when passing a simple out and gets picked twice. Corners read him better than he does the defense at times. LOL.

 

[brimsalabim]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

Only thing he isn't as good as Luck at doing is throwing INT. Be more specific please.

Ok. He is further behind, in my opinion, at reading defenses and progressing through his reads. Accuracy can also be an issue as he overthrows a lot of balls. Luck also has better pocket presence as Wilson is too quick to escape the pocket left or right exposing his tackle, as opposed to stepping up into the pocket. The Cards really forced that last issue by forcing contain and Wilson struggled.

yea Luck struggled against the Cards too. He had 163 in the loss.

 

[TJH]

Well, he's partly true. Luck would never be able to get away with winning games with with 100-150 yards like Wilson has many times. Also, it is far easier to run an offense predicated on play action. He isn't as good as Luck, but to say it's laughable to put him in the conversation is going a bit too far.

Your being sarcastic right? I 'm asking because Luck won at least two games that way this season.

When? He had a few complete blowouts that he didn't need to pass much after the first quarter but he certainly didn't win any competitive games with less than 150 yards.

ok not less than 150 but he won vs Oakland while throwing for 178, won vs San fran throwing for 159, won vs Houston throwing for 180.

The oakland game was nowhere near as close as the score shows, they were up 14-0 at the beginning of the second quarter and went into run mode, and Luck still had two TDs. SF and Houston were both total blowouts and there was no need to throw after a few series.

Again, there's really no way to defend only being able to put up 100 yards in completitive games, and only being able to put up 108 yards VS the Cardinals in a loss when HFA was on the line.

 

[TXHawkFan]

Here's a challenge: can anyone still claiming Luck is a better QB than Wilson provide any argument not involving unprovable hypothetical situations (if they reversed teams Luck would have had equal/more success), vague premises (Luck shoulders a greater burden), or appeals to authority (most GMs would still draft Luck higher) to support that claim? After two full seasons there has to be some statistical evidence that Luck is the better quarterback. Right?

So let's see it.

 

[TJH]

Here's a challenge: can anyone still claiming Luck is a better QB than Wilson provide any argument not involving unprovable hypothetical situations (if they reversed teams Luck would have had equal/more success), vague premises (Luck shoulders a greater burden), or appeals to authority (most GMs would still draft Luck higher) to support that claim? After two full seasons there has to be some statistical evidence that Luck is the better quarterback. Right?

So let's see it.

So compare the two with stats alone without any context to anything? That's an awful way to evaluate talent, especially at the QB position.