NFL coaches on Wilson, according to Cossell

[chris98251]

I look at Wilson and see a QB that lead a NC team and won, a Wisconsin team and won, a Seahwk team and won, collected a Rose Bowl Victory and a Super Bowl Trophy. Wilson has done it in a Running leage with Wisconsin, a Passing team with NC, and a Run Pass team in Seattle, multiple coaches and a multiple cast of characters and strengths on each team.

Career Overall 907 1489 60.9 11720 7.9 8.4 109 30 147.2
North Carolina State 682 1180 57.8 8545 7.2 7.5 76 26 135.5
Wisconsin 225 309 72.8 3175 10.3 11.8 33 4 191.8

I also will say that Wilsons road and success has never been one of ease, Luck had a benefit of a father that had been a NFL QB and had the best of everything laid before him and access far beyond what Wilson had. Wilson has always had his detractors, and had to prove everything to everyone. Luck nothing but a list of references and support.

 

[davidonmi]

How about we compare their stats at Wisconsin and Stanford? I mean, would anyone seriously argue that Luck had to "shoulder a bigger load" at Stanford where he had a power-run game and an elite line? Both programs ran a pro-style offense and featured the run heavily. Seems like a fair comparison to me.

Final years:

Wilson @ Wisconsin: 72.8% completion, 10.3 YPA, 33/4 TD/INT, 191.8 rating (NCAA RECORD).
Luck @ Stanford: 71.3% completion, 8.7 YPA, 37/10 TD/INT, 169.7 rating.

Give me your excuses.

But, but, but...Wilson had better WR's :roll:
I don't think anyone would argue who the better college qb was, and if they do they need to just stop talking football.
As a pro prospect I favor luck, but as a pro qb it could go either way

 

[randomation]

How about we compare their stats at Wisconsin and Stanford? I mean, would anyone seriously argue that Luck had to "shoulder a bigger load" at Stanford where he had a power-run game and an elite line? Both programs ran a pro-style offense and featured the run heavily. Seems like a fair comparison to me.

Final years:

Wilson @ Wisconsin: 72.8% completion, 10.3 YPA, 33/4 TD/INT, 191.8 rating (NCAA RECORD).
Luck @ Stanford: 71.3% completion, 8.7 YPA, 37/10 TD/INT, 169.7 rating.

Give me your excuses.

But but Luck was runner up in the biggest travesty of a heisman ever there certainly wasn't anyone who wasn't even invited to new york more deserving of it then rg3 who got screwed by Dez Southward sucking at all nope not at all :sarcasm_off:

 

[TXHawkFan]

Pay no attention to Russell Wilson's better stats in both college and the NFL. Andrew Luck is the better quarterback. It is self-evident.

As best I can tell that's the gist of the argument in his favor anyway. And he's better than Russell Wilson in a parallel universe where their teams are reversed.

 

[JMR]

No one is saying that stats are EVERYTHING but surely they are something. The problem people are having with luck is that the luck fans do not have any evidence to back up their stance. You say luck is in a worse team. Sure, so is the QB for the browns, it doesn't mean that he is better than Wilson.

LOL come on. On the other side of that, Russell Wilson is on the best team but that doesn't make him the best QB in the league, right? The assertion is not Luck is better BECAUSE he's on a worse team. Never has been. You have to factor that though if you're so focused on stats. If you put RW on the Jags or Raiders, his performance will suffer, right? If you replace the LOB with 6th graders, our D is not #1 multiple stat categories, right? At least be realistic here. Regardless of who you think is better between Luck and Wilson, Luck walked into a tougher situation than Wilson did.

This far luck has not show much. Throwing four INTs against a horrible defense like the patriots in the most important game of his career was not a bright spot. If you think luck is better than Wilson it would be nice to have a cogent argument with some facts behind it.

Luck hasn't shown much? You mean other than leading a 2-14 team to the playoffs as a rookie and then doing it again this year as a 1 man offense, including getting the best of the LOB? I've never said Luck is better, but even if he isn't, he's still shown why he was the unanimous #1 overall pick in 2012. Has he played better than RW? Good question. Luck certainly didn't play well vs NE in the playoffs, no argument there. Talent evaluation is about a lot more than just stats. Most of it is subjective, which is why JS says the interviews are more important than 40 times & bench presses at the combine. Teams certainly don't just line up college stats and leave it at that. Stats should confirm what your eyeballs tell you. If they conflict, then you need to dig deeper to understand why.

If I'm ranking QBs right now, I think you still have Brady/Manning/Brees/Rodgers at the top, with Rodgers probably #1 for me. Then you have that next group that could be ordered in a number of ways. I think based on performance up to this point, RW would be my #5. I think it will be either him or Luck who is the first to break into that top 4 and bump one of the older guys out.

 

[randomation]

Luck has the number 9 scoring D stop going on about 2-14 there is maybe 30% of that team left if that they purposely tanked that year to get Luck in all honesty.

 

[HawkFan72]

I don't care what those coaches think. Wilson is good enough to win the Super Bowl and they can't have him.

We're prefectly happy with "sightly above average."

 

[brimsalabim]

If the colts and the Hawks were to have swapped QB's I have little doubt that RW couldn't have helmed them to the same record. On the other hand I have serious doubts that Seattle would now be home to a Lombardi. Before you laugh I would caution you that there is at least more evidence to support my possition than yours. Back to the premise of this thread though it is an insult to Russell Wilson to laugh at the notion of him being comparable to Luck. If there are in fact NFL GMs and HCs that do so, I would bet the house that Russell will hold his job longer than they will hold theirs.

 

[TXHawkFan]

Luck has the number 9 scoring D stop going on about 2-14 there is maybe 30% of that team left if that they purposely tanked that year to get Luck in all honesty.

I don't think they intentionally tanked but with the triumvirate of Kerry Collins, Dan Orlovsky, and Curtis Painter playing quarterback they might as well have.

And it can't be true that there was a large turnover in personnel because Luck gets all the credit for the improved Colts record. He must have been the only change from the 2-14 team.

 

[Ozzy]

I haven't read through all the pages but is someone actually arguing Luck has been better than Wilson to this point in their careers? That is laughable. Luck has all the talent/potential in the world but he hasn't played as well as Wilson. Every advanced stat, eye ball test, conventional stats etc bear that out. Luck may end up being an all time great but to this point Wilson is just flat out better. Honestly if Luck has another year filled with sub 60% completion percentage and near the league lead in turnovers for the third straight year people need to be honest about him.

I tweeted Cossell asking him if Wilson was an average QB and he said I was reading into his comments and thats not what he meant, lol. A quick google search will tell you that Cossell doesn't know what he's talking about. Numerous scouts around the league call him a top 3-5 QB in the league right now.

 

[pocketprotector]

Luck hasn't shown much? You mean other than leading a 2-14 team to the playoffs as a rookie and then doing it again this year as a 1 man offense, including getting the best of the LOB? I've never said Luck is better, but even if he isn't, he's still shown why he was the unanimous #1 overall pick in 2012.

The Colts went 2-14 with Curtis Painter at QB. The 2011 Seahawks very likely would have won no more than 2 games with that clown at quarterback. The Seahawks had four straight losing seasons before drafting Russell.

Luck plays on a 1 man offense? The Seahawks and Colts both rushed for the same yards per attempt.

 

[JMR]

Luck hasn't shown much? You mean other than leading a 2-14 team to the playoffs as a rookie and then doing it again this year as a 1 man offense, including getting the best of the LOB? I've never said Luck is better, but even if he isn't, he's still shown why he was the unanimous #1 overall pick in 2012.

The Colts went 2-14 with Curtis Painter at QB. The 2011 Seahawks very likely would have won no more than 2 games with that clown at quarterback. The Seahawks had four straight losing seasons before drafting Russell.

Actually the Colts went 0-8 with Painter as their starter that year. But I agree: bad QB play resulted in a bad record, then Luck came in and they improved to 11-5. Luck gets some credit for that, and it has nothing to do with RW. RW gets some credit for our turnaround as well, and I think it's fair to say he had better parts around him as a starting point. Don't you?

Luck plays on a 1 man offense? The Seahawks and Colts both rushed for the same yards per attempt.

So there you have it: equally good running games! That stat proves it, right?

 

[pocketprotector]

Luck plays on a 1 man offense? The Seahawks and Colts both rushed for the same yards per attempt.

So there you have it: equally good running games! That stat proves it, right?

There is a lot of distance between, Luck plays on a 1 man offense and the way you interpreted that. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to pick up on such nuances.

 

[JMR]

Luck plays on a 1 man offense? The Seahawks and Colts both rushed for the same yards per attempt.

So there you have it: equally good running games! That stat proves it, right?

There is a lot of distance between, Luck plays on a 1 man offense and the way you interpreted that. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to pick up on such nuances.

LOL ok, why is that? I'm not smart? I actually think there are more than 53 good players in the NFL? Too funny.

By 1 man offense, I mean he's the center of gravity and the focal point moreso than RW is on our team. Do you disagree?

 

[brimsalabim]

Pete Carol disagrees. He calls Russell our point guard and the center of our offense.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Pay no attention to Russell Wilson's better stats in both college and the NFL. Andrew Luck is the better quarterback. It is self-evident.

As best I can tell that's the gist of the argument in his favor anyway. And he's better than Russell Wilson in a parallel universe where their teams are reversed.

Not exactly.

Andrew Luck came out at 0.21 for win probably added/game (WPA/G, a stat kept by Advanced NFL Stats). Russell Wilson came out at 0.11. It's a pretty big disparity. One can argue that Russell simply did not get the volume in pass attempts to keep up with Luck in this stat, but that's an argument that cuts both ways; Luck's level of success is more verifiably sustainable because the high usage numbers make his numbers more statistically significant. With Wilson we're still left to fill in the blanks as to how he would or wouldn't do if asked to throw a ton of passes per game.

It's still a fair and open question between the two, even if a lot of people want to mock it.

 

[Laloosh]

Pay no attention to Russell Wilson's better stats in both college and the NFL. Andrew Luck is the better quarterback. It is self-evident.

As best I can tell that's the gist of the argument in his favor anyway. And he's better than Russell Wilson in a parallel universe where their teams are reversed.

Not exactly.

Andrew Luck came out at 0.21 for win probably added/game (WPA/G, a stat kept by Advanced NFL Stats). Russell Wilson came out at 0.11. It's a pretty big disparity. One can argue that Russell simply did not get the volume in pass attempts to keep up with Luck in this stat, but that's an argument that cuts both ways; Luck's level of success is more verifiably sustainable because the high usage numbers make his numbers more statistically significant. With Wilson we're still left to fill in the blanks as to how he would or wouldn't do if asked to throw a ton of passes per game.

It's still a fair and open question between the two, even if a lot of people want to mock it.

Snipers don't take a lot of shots in the field but they sure do make their shots count. Doesn't mean a rifleman is more reliably good because he's put more rounds down range in a fire fight. Skill, is skill.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Snipers don't take a lot of shots in the field but they sure do make their shots count. Doesn't mean a rifleman is more reliably good because he's put more rounds down range in a fire fight. Skill, is skill.

Not really a good analogy given the fact that to optimize your chances of success in football you need to score as many points as possible. A sniper can end his mission on one shot and a QB cannot (or should not); you want to keep pouring it on until your opponent is properly overwhelmed.

Now again it's not really Wilson's fault that Carroll/Bevell go with such a run-heavy game, but that fact still leaves this as an open question.

 

[chris98251]

Everyone goes back to attempts and that you have to throw a lot, bad bad bad, you throw a lot if you have no running game or if defenses suck badly in pass defense, you throw a lot if you play from behind, you don't throw if you have a lead, you convert 3rd downs to keep ball control at times with a pass and make surgical strikes to keep the feild long and wide.

What people are saying is that Luck is better because he can go 160 miles an hour, they don't say he has to stop every 100 miles to get gas as he watches Wilson drive past the station at 70 getting 300 miles to the gallon.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Everyone goes back to attempts and that you have to throw a lot, bad bad bad, you throw a lot if you have no running game or if defenses suck badly in pass defense, you throw a lot if you play from behind, you don't throw if you have a lead, you convert 3rd downs to keep ball control at times with a pass and make surgical strikes to keep the feild long and wide.

What people are saying is that Luck is better because he can go 160 miles an hour, they don't say he has to stop every 100 miles to get gas as he watches Wilson drive past the station at 70 getting 300 miles to the gallon.

More usage means more statistical significance on the numbers we do have. It really is as simple as that without any analogies needed. The fact is that with only 16 regular season games per year and a max of 20 total non-preseason games per year, statistical significance is not attained in two seasons, which is all either QB in question here has.

I don't want to get sidetracked by an argument of running vs. passing, but I'll just say that it's plain as day statistically that passing is a more efficient means of moving the ball than running is, and that the greatest utility of running SHOULD be (1) as a change of pace and (2) as a way of killing the clock when you have a late lead. Adjusted net yards per pass attempt is a stat that makes this super obvious. The fact that our coaches run a sub-optimal offense works out fine when given a historically elite defense to operate with but hardly makes a statement as to how offenses should be run.

Again, that last part isn't Wilson's fault; he can only do what he can with the attempts he's given. But it's what suppresses data on him so far and makes this question of Wilson vs. Luck an uncertain one.