JMR":1eo90lfa said:
randomation":1eo90lfa said:
HawKnPeppa":1eo90lfa said:
JMR":1eo90lfa said:
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.