The Wilson vs Luck debate

[kearly]

I don't love QB rating as a team to team measure.

But on the same team, Hass is 20 points higher than Luck. Same players, same talent, same scheme.

The thing is, I know, deep down, Luck is way more talented than Hasselbeck. And not Hasselbeck now, Hasselbeck in his prime.

I also know that Luck is more talented than Russell. He has the speed and size of Cam Newton with the arm talent of Dan Fouts.
But like Fouts, he hasn't turned that talent into post season success. Maybe he is the next Marino, the next Fouts, the next Kelly. Maybe Luck is the perpetual NFL bridesmaid.

Here is the problem I have with the way we apply 'talent' to QBs. We often put a huge emphasis on talent we can see or measure, and tend to forget about invisible talent. And by 'we' I don't mean you and me, but the NFL as a whole.

Luck has all the physical talent in the world, but is he really more talented than Hass in his prime? I would debate that. Physically, absolutely. But mentally, Hasselbeck was one of the savvier QBs in the league and played in Holmgren's incredibly demanding offense. I think the offense Hass ran in his prime (2002-2007) was more difficult than Luck's, and Hasselbeck produced better rate numbers in that offense, especially when adjusted for era. And as you point out, a 40 year old Hasselbeck is kicking Luck's ass on the exact same team right now.

Is it possible that while Luck is still a talented QB, we overvalue his talent simply because he has so much of the obvious variety?

Tom Brady or Andrew Luck. Who is the more 'talented' QB? If the answer is Luck, then we need to rethink how we define 'talent.'

 

[formido]

I still don't understand why Seahawk fans want Wilson to be considered better.

TBH I think it's a weird dangling chad from the Seattle Sports Fan Victim Complex. You basically have a fanbase that has been nurturing a victim complex for the last 30 years, looks up one day and has been the class of the NFL and gets every benefit of the doubt even when they do questionable things for the last 3 years, and those two things rub up against each other.

The Seahawks have deservedly (read that word again Hawks fans ) been deep throated by the national media for the past few years, so the lingering victim complex of the fanbase just gets applied to increasingly bizarre and petty stuff (like the imaginariy "Luck v Wilson" debate) that to everyone else just seems out of touch and whiny.

Psychoanalaysis is for losers. Spend more time debating the facts at hand.

 

[formido]

Mentally, Russ is not an super imaginative thrower. He leaves TDs on the field with a need to KNOW, not imagine, that a receiver is open.
[/quot]

This is needlessly pejorative. There's zero reason to assume Wilson can't "imagine" those players open. It happens to be a fact that trying those throws results in lot of INTs and losses, and Wilson wants to win, not look like a lot of peoples' fantasy of a QB. It does bespeak a schism in how people approach being a fan though. I couldn't care less about Wilson looking like a prototypical QB. I want him to use his personal gifts to the best of his ability to optimize winning football games.

 

[formido]

I don't love QB rating as a team to team measure.

The thing is, I know, deep down, Luck is way more talented than Hasselbeck. And not Hasselbeck now, Hasselbeck in his prime.

I also know that Luck is more talented than Russell. He has the speed and size of Cam Newton with the arm talent of Dan Fouts.
But like Fouts, he hasn't turned that talent into post season success. Maybe he is the next Marino, the next Fouts, the next Kelly. Maybe Luck is the perpetual NFL bridesmaid.

Maybe it turns out that other traits are more important than the ones in your model. Wilson is more elusive than Luck, and that's been very useful.

I mean, you don't actually know Luck is more talented. You predict it based on a few clues, but the evidence is certainly mixed. The proof is in the pudding. There are a million athletic freaks in the US who are taller, faster, and have stronger arms than Wilson. There's a million guys who will throw a ton of interceptions by throwing to a guy before he makes his break. Talent is more than that, and you have to actually demonstrate that on the field by efficiency and winning games. If Luck never does, it's pretty hard to make the claim he's more talented.

Is Lebron James more talented than Steph Curry? He's taller, stronger, faster, can jump higher, and is the best player in a generation. A lot of people want to claim James is still the best player in the league, a big part of that being how he physically dwarfs Curry in every way. But Curry is pulling away from Lebron FAST, when it comes to his effect on winning and losing.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ste ... evolution/

Curry's effect on winning is overwhelming. Despite Lebron's tools, he could never ever do what Cury does. That gap is a real talent gap. Properly understood, a big part of talent is mental. And the brains part of talent is every bit as constraining as the physical part. If you don't have some of the many qualities it takes to make the best decisions and refine the winning skills, there's little you can do to fix it.

Luck might get better. But Wilson ain't standing still either.

 

[Maulbert]

Tom Brady or Andrew Luck. Who is the more 'talented' QB? If the answer is Luck, then we need to rethink how we define 'talent.'

Since when are underinflated balls categorized as talent?

 

[chris98251]

Going off physical attributes Rob Johnson should have been in the Hall of fame as well, many QB's should, it's what is between the ears and in the heart that makes a difference, that and knowing that you can't throw a ball into a mouse whole every play, so many strong and powerfully armed QB think they can throw a ball into anything, habit that can be hard to break.

Luck seems like a good guy and person, I think he is very talented as well and didn't have these issues at Stanford, pressure to win and the system and what he is being told like Russell Wilson can have a lot to do with what we see on the field.

 

[Popeyejones]

it's what is between the ears and in the heart that makes a difference, that and knowing that you can't throw a ball into a mouse whole every play

Yep. That's definitely part of it. But other parts of it are stuff like learning how to climb and manipulate the pocket, how to stare off safeties and work through your progressions by watching what the defense is doing instead of staring down receivers, getting good enough at that to start making anticipation throws rather than just throwing when you see people open, and how to take enough control of the offense to be making your own line adjustments and route adjustments pre-snap.

100% agreed that Luck still has a lot of developing to do around not throwing into mouse holes so frequently if he wants to be more than the next Brett Favre, but all this other stuff he started out at really good at for a rookie and has gotten much better at too as he's had more pro experience.

What you're talking about could still be his downfall, but he's shown an impressive ability to improve in a lot of other ways, and much more quickly than practically anyone else.

 

[Happybelly]

I think one of the issues with Luck is that he sometimes tries to force things like Favre, but without Favre's arm. Luck's arm is above average at best IMO. He has a good deep ball, but as far as putting zip on the ball in intermediate routes it's just not that special, which gets him into trouble sometimes. If Russell has one clear advantage over Luck it's that he can put very good zip on the ball when he needs to.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Ferragamo was not good, neither was Everette. Roman Gabriel was like Jim Plunkett to me but less successful.

I don't think the Wilson vs Luck debate is worth the effort. If you are a non-Seahawks fan, Wilson is not getting much love from you. Seahawks fans just have to accept it. The folks that are voting HOF (Peter King) is going to always rank Luck above Wilson. There is just a deep bias against the type of football Wilson is now playing. If he becomes the next generation Drew Brees, the bias will change but not until then.

The good doctor nails it. :th2thumbs:

 

[Palmegranite]

Mentally, Russ is not an super imaginative thrower. .

I couldn't disagree more. Russel Wilson is the most imaginative quarterback of this generation. No-one else even close. In my opinion he is the main factor responsible for Seattle's two Superbowl trips. I don't know if Andrew Luck will ever sniff a SuperBowl.

 

[RichNhansom]

it's what is between the ears and in the heart that makes a difference, that and knowing that you can't throw a ball into a mouse whole every play

Yep. That's definitely part of it. But other parts of it are stuff like learning how to climb and manipulate the pocket, how to stare off safeties and work through your progressions by watching what the defense is doing instead of staring down receivers, getting good enough at that to start making anticipation throws rather than just throwing when you see people open, and how to take enough control of the offense to be making your own line adjustments and route adjustments pre-snap.

100% agreed that Luck still has a lot of developing to do around not throwing into mouse holes so frequently if he wants to be more than the next Brett Favre, but all this other stuff he started out at really good at for a rookie and has gotten much better at too as he's had more pro experience.

What you're talking about could still be his downfall, but he's shown an impressive ability to improve in a lot of other ways, and much more quickly than practically anyone else.

That all sounds good but obviously he is not progressing like you think. He has had the benefit of a better O-line and receiving corp while playing much weaker defenses and getting gifted 1st downs on penalties. They have 26 free first downs this year so far and I wish I could find a breakdown of how many of those were when Luck was on the field vs when Matt is. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that 90+% of those were when Luck was the QB.

Luck has been dealing with more time to survey the field and less pressure since coming in and it hasn't produced great results.

I guess some are going to see whatever they want to see though. You have the prefect situation to honestly evaluate Luck right now with Hasselbeck at 40 years old replacing him and grossly out performing him. Argue the Luck Wilson debate all you want but the reality is the systems are different enough that you will always be able to hide behind that but you absolutely can not ignore that he is being out performed by his back up. You just can't and if that isn't enough evidence then obviously nothing ever will be.

Or maybe its just a 9er thing. Betting on potential is what they've been doing with Keap for three years and it took a colossal collapse to see that he is a garbage QB with nothing between the ears. All the talent and potential but zero football IQ. Maybe you should be listening to the Seahawks fans Popeye, we warned you about Kaep since day one.

 

[chris98251]

Luck/ Elway, really John had great some games, had a cannon of a arm, would try to throw it a mile or down a mouse hole, come from behind wins adding to his legend, much like Luck. it's when Shanahan came aboard he got the WCO going and started to learn to throw with some touch and read things better as well, Elway took a beating early on.

 

[Vetamur]

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.

Now youre just being delusional. Waterfield and Van Brocklin? Yes. Awesome. Ferragamo??? He had 91 career INTs, vs. 76 career TDs. He literally had one really good season plus perhaps the coolest quarterback NAME of all time. Jim Everett? He was an average guy. His stats across the board are worse than our QB of the same era, David Krieg.

Your bias is showing because youve only seen the HIGHLIGHTs. If I only watch freaking Rick Mirer highlights Im sure I would think he is awesome.

 

[Maulbert]

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.

Now youre just being delusional. Waterfield and Van Brocklin? Yes. Awesome. Ferragamo??? He had 91 career INTs, vs. 76 career TDs. He literally had one really good season plus perhaps the coolest quarterback NAME of all time. Jim Everett? He was an average guy. His stats across the board are worse than our QB of the same era, David Krieg.

Your bias is showing because youve only seen the HIGHLIGHTs. If I only watch freaking Rick Mirer highlights Im sure I would think he is awesome.

To back that up, a comparison of Dave Krieg, Matt Hasselbeck, and Jim Everett's numbers:

Completion Pct.:
Hasselbeck: 60.5
Krieg: 58.5
Everett: 57.7

Passing Yards:
Krieg: 38,147
Hasselbeck: 35,971
Everett: 34,837

TD Passes:
Krieg: 261
Hasselbeck: 210
Everett: 203

Passer Rating:
Hasselbeck: 82.7
Krieg: 81.5
Everett: 78.6

Starting Record:
Krieg: 98-77
Hasselbeck: 84-72
Everett: 64-89

The most consistent thing is Everett being at the bottom.

Don't dis Mudbone.

 

[Scottemojo]

Mentally, Russ is not an super imaginative thrower. He leaves TDs on the field with a need to KNOW, not imagine, that a receiver is open.
[/quot]

This is needlessly pejorative. There's zero reason to assume Wilson can't "imagine" those players open. It happens to be a fact that trying those throws results in lot of INTs and losses, and Wilson wants to win, not look like a lot of peoples' fantasy of a QB. It does bespeak a schism in how people approach being a fan though. I couldn't care less about Wilson looking like a prototypical QB. I want him to use his personal gifts to the best of his ability to optimize winning football games.

I didn't say he had no imagination. I said he wasn't super imaginative. this isn't a all or nothing choice.

It isn't the insult any of you are taking it for, the guys who excel at throwing players open are prone to lots of interceptions when the offense is breaking down. Drew Brees and Luck are perfect examples of guys who excel at throwing players open, but when it fails they get picked too much. and zero reason? i have seen Russ be late seeing a guy about to come open enough times to know that we have different definitions of zero.

As far as any of you bristling at the talent coments about Luck, he is huge, strong, and fast, and can make every single throw, and he does it all with a quick release. He doesn't need throwing lanes. I guess I would call that talent.

As far as the rest, I would avoid bringing fandom into this. you don't know me well enough to super fan me because you think I want Russell to be taller. I love that Russ has succeeded against the traditional NFL model.

 

[TXHawk]

Both quarterbacks have been in the league nearly four years now and Wilson has been better than Luck in virtually every metric used to measure quarterback play, and Wilson has done it playing in a much tougher division against better defenses. This is why Luck defenders continually have to resort to abstract arguments to explain why Luck is really better.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Ferragamo was not good, neither was Everette. Roman Gabriel was like Jim Plunkett to me but less successful.

I don't think the Wilson vs Luck debate is worth the effort. If you are a non-Seahawks fan, Wilson is not getting much love from you. Seahawks fans just have to accept it. The folks that are voting HOF (Peter King) is going to always rank Luck above Wilson. There is just a deep bias against the type of football Wilson is now playing. If he becomes the next generation Drew Brees, the bias will change but not until then.

The good doctor nails it. :th2thumbs:

Oh,,I don't know. Media sure loves them some Cam Newton. Not even counting this year. Was the same with Vick as well.

 

[rideaducati]

Ferragamo was not good, neither was Everette. Roman Gabriel was like Jim Plunkett to me but less successful.

I don't think the Wilson vs Luck debate is worth the effort. If you are a non-Seahawks fan, Wilson is not getting much love from you. Seahawks fans just have to accept it. The folks that are voting HOF (Peter King) is going to always rank Luck above Wilson. There is just a deep bias against the type of football Wilson is now playing. If he becomes the next generation Drew Brees, the bias will change but not until then.

The good doctor nails it. :th2thumbs:

Oh,,I don't know. Media sure loves them some Cam Newton. Not even counting this year. Was the same with Vick as well.

It's funny how Newton has the worst stats of his career that were on par with Keeporpick and he is being considered for the MVP.

I bet Russell works his way into the MVP conversation before the year is through.