Kapadia dropping some knowledge

http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-sea...lson-versus-andrew-luck-breaking-down-numbers

Excellent break down by Sheil. I hope he's making 10x the salary Blount was.

People see what they want to see. They are all staring at Luck and can't see Russell because he's too short. In the end though, Russell will have a great career and only time will tell where they finish.

While I think RW and Luck are top QBs in the NFL, I always see the Russell Wilson supporters only using ratios when judging Luck and Wilson.

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

fridayfrenzy":3w2j4f7h said:

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

Click to expand...

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

RolandDeschain":1f0e78s5 said:

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Click to expand...

That's funny.

RolandDeschain":1kt0kfpj said:

fridayfrenzy":1kt0kfpj said:

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

Click to expand...

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

I'll take the QB who throws for 40 TDs and 20 INTs over the QB who throws for 10 TD and 4 INTs.

I'll take the QB who throws for 5,000 yards at 63% completion vs the QB throwing for 3,800 and 68% completion.

You have to take the whole picture into account which the Luck vs Wilson arguments rarely do and in this case it is no different. The Seahawks beat writer is using ratios in a bias manner to prove his conclusion rather than trying to take everything into account.

Cumulative stats is how people like Art Monk end up in the HOF. Good receiver, not a HOF, but he caught 100 9-yard digs a year for few years so he MUST be HOFer. sigh. Until he actually accomplishes more, Luck is just Stafford with better wheels.

Seems to me that people are a little too over the top with both players.

Luck has been kind of Jake Plummerish in the early part of his career. Can really put on a show and take over games, but has consistency issues and tends to play his worst in playoff games, for reasons that could possibly not even be his own. I tend to think he's relied on too much and the emphasis on their passing game goes up in the playoffs even more than what they usually do and they become one dimensional to the point that their pass rushers no longer even worry about playing the run. They don't have to. They aren't going to get beat with an Indy run game.

Like it or not, RW has been in a dream scenario for a QB and has benefited from it, both in wins and statistics yes, but more importantly; his developement has been on an extreme fast track to the point where he's probably at about a young Steve Young type of level right before everybody started jockin' him. That said, I still think there is room for improvement. Last year was the first year where he was making protection calls from game 1. It showed. As bad as the OL was in the actual blocking aspect, they were even worse in identification of what any given DL was trying to do in those first games and it wasn't helping that you could almost bet that RW would hold the ball for a good 5 seconds. Changes where made in one position along the OL, but a good portion of the real change was more crisp execution of what a given play was supposed to accomplish. Decisions were made faster and better due to that level of understanding.

I expect that to continue, but if I'm being honest, I still say that was only 8 or 9 games that production and efficiency went through the roof before it ended with ishing the bed in the first half of the Panthers game.

As for the original question that was asked, a conversation of Luck vs Wilson isn't much of a conversation right now. RW is just a shade below the really elite and Luck is in a group a little farther back.

FlyHawksFly":1xo8yxhe said:

fridayfrenzy":1xo8yxhe said:

RolandDeschain":1xo8yxhe said:

fridayfrenzy":1xo8yxhe said:

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

Click to expand...

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

I'll take the QB who throws for 40 TDs and 20 INTs over the QB who throws for 10 TD and 4 INTs.

I'll take the QB who throws for 5,000 yards at 63% completion vs the QB throwing for 3,800 and 68% completion.

You have to take the whole picture into account which the Luck vs Wilson arguments rarely do and in this case it is no different. The Seahawks beat writer is using ratios in a bias manner to prove his conclusion rather than trying to take everything into account.

Click to expand...

If you are looking at the whole picture, why not take turnovers into account? You are acting like everything else is equal, when it isn't. The ONLY stats that are in Luck's favor are the ones you are using.

Click to expand...

I am not sure why you are assuming I think Luck is better. I don't. I actually think Wilson is a better QB. Those stats were just made up examples of how a better ratio doesn't tell the whole picture.

Just pointing out how the Luck vs Wilson arguments always end up (i.e. Ratios vs Cumulative) and that Kapadia is no different than all the Luck supporters in that he formulated his answer and then presents the ratios in a bias manner to back it up.

fridayfrenzy":3nmor8fm said:

RolandDeschain":3nmor8fm said:

fridayfrenzy":3nmor8fm said:

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

Click to expand...

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

I'll take the QB who throws for 40 TDs and 20 INTs over the QB who throws for 10 TD and 4 INTs.

I'll take the QB who throws for 5,000 yards at 63% completion vs the QB throwing for 3,800 and 68% completion.

You have to take the whole picture into account which the Luck vs Wilson arguments rarely do and in this case it is no different. The Seahawks beat writer is using ratios in a bias manner to prove his conclusion rather than trying to take everything into account.

Click to expand...

Why? Because he attempts more passes for meaningless yards while throwing too many interceptions which put his team behind so he just has to attempt even more passes? Nice for the fantasy football types but not for winning actual games.

MizzouHawkGal":qo2k700a said:

fridayfrenzy":qo2k700a said:

RolandDeschain":qo2k700a said:

fridayfrenzy":qo2k700a said:

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

Click to expand...

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

I'll take the QB who throws for 40 TDs and 20 INTs over the QB who throws for 10 TD and 4 INTs.

I'll take the QB who throws for 5,000 yards at 63% completion vs the QB throwing for 3,800 and 68% completion.

You have to take the whole picture into account which the Luck vs Wilson arguments rarely do and in this case it is no different. The Seahawks beat writer is using ratios in a bias manner to prove his conclusion rather than trying to take everything into account.

Click to expand...

Why? Because he attempts more passes for meaningless yards while throwing too many interceptions which put his team behind so he just has to attempt even more passes? Nice for the fantasy football types but not for winning actual games.

Click to expand...

That's not quite it. Luck is in now way as good as Wilson right now, but if Luck were to went to Seattle and Wilson would have went to Indy, it could very well be the other way around. Honestly, outside of Brady and a handfull of other superbowls, having your QB and passing game alone just don't get it done. A half of a second is a football-play-age in it's lifetime and some measure of having the defense read whether it's run or pass buys you that half second right off the snap. It has a gross effect on the effectiveness of a pass play much more so than the running game, which can force it's own indecision all its own, such as a read option. When people play Indy, they're playing Luck and the pretty average defenses he's had. When you played Seattle, you were playing Beast Mode and the LOB with Wilson and his efficiency at the helm. Now to a point where it's more Wilson and the Defense with a continued commitment to the running game.

It's completely different.

The running game is and always will be a QBs best friend.

Wilson is the better player now for sure. There's no question about that. Their path has just been drastically different from their NFL infancy to now.

Not a single thing you said accounts for why Luck is definitely 2nd tier currently and might always be. His tendency to throw interceptions and some of that is on his coaches and what they are teaching or more likely not teaching him.

Wilson is a HUGE reason the running game is good. Sick of people neglecting that fact.

Beast Mode became waaaay more effective with RW at qb than anybody else he played with. Rawls was leading the league in yards per carry and the running game got better with him. Not to mention Wilson's numbers went through the roof.

MizzouHawkGal":2qy3975l said:

Not a single thing you said accounts for why Luck is definitely 2nd tier currently and might always be. His tendency to throw interceptions and some of that is on his coaches and what they are teaching or more likely not teaching him.

Click to expand...

It's not necessarily teaching rather than cause and effect.

I will say that I can't discount that Luck might not ever be elite and will always follow Wilson and possibly others who attain said elite status, but we're talking about nearly the equivalent of a kid growing up poor vs having all the best opportunities in some sort of distorted football terms. That's not a slight to Wilson at all. I'm not sure that Luck would ever be a better QB than Wilson in any scenario. It's possible, but I can't rightly say. I think the single greatest aspect to Wilson, the football player, is his desire to be great. He can throw for 70 in the air, run a 4.5 40, make good decisions or have the toughness to eat it if he can't make one, but none of that hold a candle to his aspirations. He'll go down as a historic QB.

I'll take efficiency over cumulative stats any day . That's really what we're talking about, ratios indicate efficiency. The fact is RW has done more with less chances than Luck. As mentioned above a running game is a QB'S best friend. But It's no coincidence that Marshawns production shot through the roof, when RW became the QB

fridayfrenzy":tz4x6n4q said:

RolandDeschain":tz4x6n4q said:

fridayfrenzy":tz4x6n4q said:

Ratios should be factored in but so should cumulative stats. When Luck supporters want to argue they only use cumulative stats, when Wilson supporters want to argue they only use ratios.

Click to expand...

That's because ratios are a far more accurate overall indicator...Cumulative statistics are largely pretty meaningless in the NFL.

Here, I'll prove my case to all the Luck knob-slobbering types right now; look at the top 25% of QBs based on total cumulative passing attempts and completions, then look at the top 25% of QBs on passing attempt-to-completion ratio.

Big difference in the list of names, and the better one isn't the cumulative list.

Gotta love the "my Ford Taurus is better than your Porsche 911 Turbo because I drive it more miles" crowd. :roll:

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

I'll take the QB who throws for 40 TDs and 20 INTs over the QB who throws for 10 TD and 4 INTs.

I'll take the QB who throws for 5,000 yards at 63% completion vs the QB throwing for 3,800 and 68% completion.

You have to take the whole picture into account which the Luck vs Wilson arguments rarely do and in this case it is no different. The Seahawks beat writer is using ratios in a bias manner to prove his conclusion rather than trying to take everything into account.

Click to expand...

Taking everything into account as you suggest, Wilson is still the better QB and by a nice margain.

You talk about Wilson right now....in the NFL...in the year 2016, you don't trade Wilson for anyone in the NFL. If they aren't about to retire soon or are on the downside, they are clearly not worth anything in a trade for Wilson.

There.....true statement, yer frickin honor...

There are plenty of Tall QB's out there people wanted here.

Their respective situations certainly have been different, and offer endless factors that muck up a fair comparison. I'll take what Wilson has done any day. And as far as efficiency vs volume are concerned, keep in mind that no NFL team that led in passing yards has won a SB that year.

Not. One. Ever.

Wow, interesting timing.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/seattle-seahawks

I don't necessarily agree that it's just the OL, but what I think is really the root of it is that there is a loss of perspective of balance because you have that player and obviously defense applies as well. The emphasis changes and thus the outcome changes. I said a young Steve Young, but Rodgers works as well. There is an inherent danger that lies there none the less.