The Wilson vs Luck debate

[Overseasfan]

Luck was the golden boy of the NFL going into the season. He was supposed to be the number three QB behind only Rodgers and Brady. Wilson on the other hand was seen as overrated and ranked outside of the top 5, sometimes not even in the top 10. Now Wilson was the week 12 NFC player of the week after recording his first 5 TD game, while Luck is being outplayed in Indy by our former QB who has already reached the age of 40.

This feels great.

 

[Cyrus12]

already posted below...

 

[Overseasfan]

Hmm well close it up then.

 

[Ramfan128]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

 

[Osprey]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

In the same way that Marino was better than Montana and Peyton is better than Brady? Results matter.

 

[Maulbert]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Funny, because Wilson has a better YPA, TD Pct., Int Pct., TD to Int Ratio, Passer Rating, and QBR, not to mention more wins, fewer losses, better win percentage, and more 4th Quarter Comebacks and Game Winning Drives than Luck. Also, Wilson has the second best passer rating in league history (minimum 1,500 attempts) behind only Aaron Rodgers.

 

[rideaducati]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Funny, because Wilson has a better YPA, TD Pct., Int Pct., TD to Int Ratio, Passer Rating, and QBR, not to mention more wins, fewer losses, better win percentage, and more 4th Quarter Comebacks and Game Winning Drives than Luck. Also, Wilson has the second best passer rating in league history (minimum 1,500 attempts) behind only Aaron Rodgers.

Like a ram fan would know what he is talking about when it comes to the QB position. :th2thumbs:

 

[drdiags]

Wilson vs Luck is an eye of the beholder type of deal. Wilson just doesn't fit some folk's definition of what a prime QB looks or plays like. Luck looks like a pure bred with his physical talents and his Stanford education along with his ex-NFL QB dad. Perfectly fits into the Manning story some people aspire their QBs to be.

Listening to the enemies Radio replay that Softy does, the color guy waxes how the Steelers are making a non-QB like Wilson look like Brady. Same as Tebow. Sounded just like that idiot for the Patriots when they lost here Russell's rookie season.

I was hoping that by now we would be past that type of dialog but to many, he is just a glorified Doug Flutie at best and a no-talent Tebow at worse.

He would do wonders for his image if he could continue to duplicate his performance from last week. As long as he is deemed a scrambling QB first he is never going to get much love outside the Seahawks fan base. And reading the vitriol posted here since his contract, he will be more of a fan base dividing line.

I respect Russell's accomplishment but I am probably one of those artificial guys who doesn't look past the nice hooters, sweet body and pretty face. I am shallow that way. I would want Luck because those types of QBs are the hot chick that Sir Shallow wants.

 

[Seanhawk]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Funny, because Wilson has a better YPA, TD Pct., Int Pct., TD to Int Ratio, Passer Rating, and QBR, not to mention more wins, fewer losses, better win percentage, and more 4th Quarter Comebacks and Game Winning Drives than Luck. Also, Wilson has the second best passer rating in league history (minimum 1,500 attempts) behind only Aaron Rodgers.

But Luck is asked to do soooo much. I've never understood that argument.

 

[kearly]

99.5 > 85.0

Passer rating isn't the end all be all, but I don't think I can make enough of an argument for Luck to overcome a 14.5 passer rating deficit.

 

[RichNhansom]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

In the same way that Marino was better than Montana and Peyton is better than Brady? Results matter.

That would be a good comparison if Lucks first four years didn't compete with Marino and Montana's back ups.

Not that you would know it listening to any NFL media. If you didn't know the reality you would likely believe Lucks first 4 years must have been way better.

 

[Popeyejones]

Passer rating isn't the end all be all, but I don't think I can make enough of an argument for Luck to overcome a 14.5 passer rating deficit.

Oh, I think an arguement for that can definitely be made. I'm gonna take Russell Wilson and Andrew Luck out of the equation just so the argument isn't as loaded. As a second caveat my point here isn't that the conclusion is that Luck > Wilson. Like everyone else who isn't a Hawks fans I don't actually think "Luck v. Wilson" is really a thing that people talk about or care about.

In any case, let's instead compare two people with pretty similar passer ratings over the last three or four years, Alex Smith and Drew Brees.

The basic story is that three of the four components of passer rating push up the rating for players like Alex Smith, and push down the rating for players like Drew Brees.

Alex Smith, by virtue of playing with a good defense and the playcalling tilting toward the running game, should reasonably have a higher comp %, higher YPA (soooo stupid they do YPA and not YPC as the later isn't dependent on completion % to begin with) and lower int % than the average QB. His team is simply leaning on him less, meaning:

1) defensive gameplans aren't solely oriented toward stopping him, creating more space for him to work.
2) because his offense relies on the run game he's making a lot of short, high percentage throws.
3) he rarely finds himself in the types of situations which kill passer rating (down by more than a scoret, everyone knows you're passing, and to try to fight your way back you're going to need to deal with a lot of incompletions and interceptions while going for your shot plays and trying to get chunk yardage back).

Drew Brees, on the other hand, doesn't get any of these benefits. He also, much more than Alex Smith, is playing in pass-first offense that takes a lot of downfield shots. Downfield shots, no matter how good you are, are going to decrease your completion % and and increase your interception % over time. They help a lot for your YPC, but actually hurt for your YPA (why it's dumb for passer rating to use YPA and not YPC).

So despite having roughly equivalent passer ratings, this is why basically everyone rightly agrees that over the last four years or so Drew Brees has been a much more dominant QB than Alex Smith, and is a more talented QB than Alex Smith to boot.

 

[Ramfan128]

Passer rating isn't the end all be all, but I don't think I can make enough of an argument for Luck to overcome a 14.5 passer rating deficit.

Oh, I think an arguement for that can definitely be made. I'm gonna take Russell Wilson and Andrew Luck out of the equation just so the argument isn't as loaded. As a second caveat my point here isn't that the conclusion is that Luck > Wilson. Like everyone else who isn't a Hawks fans I don't actually think "Luck v. Wilson" is really a thing that people talk about or care about.

In any case, let's instead compare two people with pretty similar passer ratings over the last three or four years, Alex Smith and Drew Brees.

The basic story is that three of the four components of passer rating push up the rating for players like Alex Smith, and push down the rating for players like Drew Brees.

Alex Smith, by virtue of playing with a good defense and the playcalling tilting toward the running game, should reasonably have a higher comp %, higher YPA (soooo stupid they do YPA and not YPC as the later isn't dependent on completion % to begin with) and lower int % than the average QB. His team is simply leaning on him less, meaning:

1) defensive gameplans aren't solely oriented toward stopping him, creating more space for him to work.
2) because his offense relies on the run game he's making a lot of short, high percentage throws.
3) he rarely finds himself in the types of situations which kill passer rating (down by more than a scoret, everyone knows you're passing, and to try to fight your way back you're going to need to deal with a lot of incompletions and interceptions while going for your shot plays and trying to get chunk yardage back).

Drew Brees, on the other hand, doesn't get any of these benefits. He also, much more than Alex Smith, is playing in pass-first offense that takes a lot of downfield shots. Downfield shots, no matter how good you are, are going to decrease your completion % and and increase your interception % over time. They help a lot for your YPC, but actually hurt for your YPA (why it's dumb for passer rating to use YPA and not YPC).

So despite having roughly equivalent passer ratings, this is why basically everyone rightly agrees that over the last four years or so Drew Brees has been a much more dominant QB than Alex Smith, and is a more talented QB than Alex Smith to boot.

This is perfect. Thanks.

I still don't understand why Seahawk fans want Wilson to be considered better. You have an above average QB who has proven you can win a super bowl with - what else matters? If you were starting a team from scratch and took Wilson over Luck with your first pick, your team would get DOMINATED by the team that took Luck.

All situations are different and statistics reflect that...scheme, personnel, coaching, schedule. Wilson isn't better and shouldn't be better. He shouldn't be paid like he is but that's life as an NFL QB. It's pretty clear to me that if Luck was the QB for Seattle the past few years and they asked him to do what Wilson was asked, they'd have 2 rings and less than 4 losses in the past two years. We'll never know for sure, but an overwhelming majority would agree that Luck is the better player.

And Peyton Manning was better than Brady pre-Moss. That argument was similar to this one actually...a QB asked to do less, with a great defense, but had much more success, vs. the guy that got drafted number 1 overall by a terrible team.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Popeye and Ramfan128: by the end of their careers, you'll have a different opinion, marker my words.

 

[Ramfan128]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Funny, because Wilson has a better YPA, TD Pct., Int Pct., TD to Int Ratio, Passer Rating, and QBR, not to mention more wins, fewer losses, better win percentage, and more 4th Quarter Comebacks and Game Winning Drives than Luck. Also, Wilson has the second best passer rating in league history (minimum 1,500 attempts) behind only Aaron Rodgers.

Like a ram fan would know what he is talking about when it comes to the QB position. :th2thumbs:

Such an odd comment considering the Rams QB history makes the Seahawks QB history look quite putrid. I'm only 29 but I've seen plenty of highlights of Waterfield, Van Brocklin, Ferragamo, Everett, and I obviously have lived through the Warner days...

Jim Everett would probably be the 2nd best QB the Seahawks have ever had, after Hasselbeck.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Funny, because Wilson has a better YPA, TD Pct., Int Pct., TD to Int Ratio, Passer Rating, and QBR, not to mention more wins, fewer losses, better win percentage, and more 4th Quarter Comebacks and Game Winning Drives than Luck. Also, Wilson has the second best passer rating in league history (minimum 1,500 attempts) behind only Aaron Rodgers.

Like a ram fan would know what he is talking about when it comes to the QB position. :th2thumbs:

Such an odd comment considering the Rams QB history makes the Seahawks QB history look quite putrid. I'm only 29 but I've seen plenty of highlights of Waterfield, Van Brocklin, Ferragamo, Everett, and I obviously have lived through the Warner days...

Jim Everett would probably be the 2nd best QB the Seahawks have ever had, after Hasselbeck.

Not even 3rd after Wilson and Hass. I'd take Kreig over Chrissy anyday. Ferragamo? Meh. Now if you want to talk Roman Gabriel, that's another matter. Better than Vince and Chrissy. He was the Rapistberger of his day without the raping, big and strong though not as good at reading defenses. Still wouldn't take him over Wilson or Hass and probably not Kreig though.


BTW, the Rams franchise has existed 40 years longer than the Seahawks (1936 vs. 1976) so by sheer number of seasons your team is far more likely to have had more quality QBs.

 

[MrThortan]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

:evil: :thfight7: :evil:

 

[camdawg]

This is perfect. Thanks.

I still don't understand why Seahawk fans want Wilson to be considered better. You have an above average QB who has proven you can win a super bowl with - what else matters? If you were starting a team from scratch and took Wilson over Luck with your first pick, your team would get DOMINATED by the team that took Luck.

All situations are different and statistics reflect that...scheme, personnel, coaching, schedule. Wilson isn't better and shouldn't be better. He shouldn't be paid like he is but that's life as an NFL QB. It's pretty clear to me that if Luck was the QB for Seattle the past few years and they asked him to do what Wilson was asked, they'd have 2 rings and less than 4 losses in the past two years. We'll never know for sure, but an overwhelming majority would agree that Luck is the better player.

And Peyton Manning was better than Brady pre-Moss. That argument was similar to this one actually...a QB asked to do less, with a great defense, but had much more success, vs. the guy that got drafted number 1 overall by a terrible team.

So when you have a Matt Hasselbeck who has the same scheme, personnel, coaching, as Andy Luck....why is the 40 year old guy so much better?

Your remark about Peyton being better than Brady pre-Randy Moss further shows your lack of understanding about football. Peyton was NEVER a clutch player. Was Steve Spurrier's bitch in college. I don't even think he won the state titles that Cooper and Eli won in Louisiana.

 

[Maulbert]

This is perfect. Thanks.

I still don't understand why Seahawk fans want Wilson to be considered better. You have an above average QB who has proven you can win a super bowl with - what else matters? If you were starting a team from scratch and took Wilson over Luck with your first pick, your team would get DOMINATED by the team that took Luck.

All situations are different and statistics reflect that...scheme, personnel, coaching, schedule. Wilson isn't better and shouldn't be better. He shouldn't be paid like he is but that's life as an NFL QB. It's pretty clear to me that if Luck was the QB for Seattle the past few years and they asked him to do what Wilson was asked, they'd have 2 rings and less than 4 losses in the past two years. We'll never know for sure, but an overwhelming majority would agree that Luck is the better player.

And Peyton Manning was better than Brady pre-Moss. That argument was similar to this one actually...a QB asked to do less, with a great defense, but had much more success, vs. the guy that got drafted number 1 overall by a terrible team.

So when you have a Matt Hasselbeck who has the same scheme, personnel, coaching, as Andy Luck....why is the 40 year old guy so much better?

Your remark about Peyton being better than Brady pre-Randy Moss further shows your lack of understanding about football. Peyton was NEVER a clutch player. Was Steve Spurrier's bitch in college. I don't even think he won the state titles that Cooper and Eli won in Louisiana.

I looked it up. Cooper was a receiver and played 3 years with Peyton at QB. Neither them nor Eli ever won a state championship.

 

[Palmegranite]

The Colts' QB tandem of Hasselbeck/Luck is the 2015 version of the Bills Flutie/Rob Johnson duo. And yes, I'm comparing Luck's play this year to 'Robosack'.
Does that put this debate in perspective?