Who would you take if you knew what you know now? We always hear about the other two I dont think they give this man enough credit. I was jumping for joy the day we drafted him. I would still go with Wilson what about you?

_________________
The office of Thomas and Chancellor specializing in Defense.

Especially considering we stole him in the third round. I think he has the biggest upside outside RG3.

_________________

Can't go wrong with any of those picks. They're all playing outstanding football. That said, I'd still take Wilson and be perfectly happy with it. And if you factor in the cost - i.e., draft position/picks given up for the player - it's Wilson in a landslide.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

We as Hawk fans have been waiting a long long time for a guy like this. Love his game.

_________________
The office of Thomas and Chancellor specializing in Defense.

Just filed under NO SHIT

_________________
Why is it when I try to come off as a smart ass, the opposite happens? :-(

Seriously though, name one thing those other two QB's do better than Wilson? Other than being tall.

_________________
Legal Notice: Any references made by the online entity know as SacHawk 2.0 or "Sac" in regards to "Currystopstheruns" being a pre-op tranny with an anal tampon fetish are entirely accurate.

I LOVE Wilson, but what the other two are doing is absolutely ridiculous. I think we'd be about 10-2 with either one of them. Have you watched any of them play? RGIII on Thanksgiving? My goodness. Wow.

_________________
Ummm, no sig to see here, especially not a sig referring to Tarvaris Jackson in any way.

You could win a lot of games with all three of them but I am thankful we have Wilson. I really, really am.

_________________


"WE ALL WE GOT! WE ALL WE NEED!"

Yeah I have watch them all play alot still doesnt change my mind tho. I dont know if Rg3 can hold up dudes a string bean. He is good tho but I dont think he is miles above Luck or Wilson like a lot of people say that he is.

_________________
The office of Thomas and Chancellor specializing in Defense.

All 3 are great but RW is magic.

_________________
Wolf grey all day every day.

I don't understand how anyone considers Luck better than Wilson at this point. The Colts weren't THAT bad last year.

_________________

Russell Wilson led TWO game winning drives today. It's not his fault the defense shit the bed.

_________________
Joe Vellano, DT, 6'1", 300lbs, 61 tkls 14 TFL, 6 sacks" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc_yzeVi-eU, Mike Catapano 6'4" 271
QB Jordan Rodgers 6'1" 212# 2539 Yards, 60% completion 15td/5int

I would take Wilson in a heart beat. I wasn't sure when we drafted him, I thought awesome, he'll be a back-up until Flynn leaves or until we trade him for draft picks. When Carroll opened up competition, I thought that was Carroll being Carroll and doing his whole comPete thing, I never thought Wilson had a shot. Watching him in pre-season, I liked what I saw and quickly admitted he could take the starting job, but didn't think he actually would. When he was goven the starting job, I thought great, another year of struggling to win games and another year of missing the playoffs. I have been surprised. I LOVE with a capital LOVE this kid. He is the future here. This offense with anyone else as quarterback just would seem odd.

If this was privileged knowledge, I would take Luck in the first, then Wilson in the second and have a quarterback controversy.

well lets see who gets a ring first that should end it

Meh. Turn on the TV and watch how great Nick Foles looks against Dallas right now. RGIII won't hold up and can't will his teams to wins like Russ...and Luck needs 1000 attempts a game to look decent.

10-2 is a stretch pal. I'd say our record would be worse with those other two.

_________________

I think all have shown very capable QB skills. All have had signature wins and have shown the ability to lead a team in hostile environments. All that said, I take Luck. I like to have players who fit the physical measurements (Lofa was great, but his size cost him an extended career). Having a good football IQ is also part of the makeup, we all remember Aaron Curry.

It seems this will be an ongoing theme as long as these 3 are starting in the NFL. No one will remember when it is all said and done.

_________________

"Pray to the LORD now...Seattle are a bunch of heathen atheist Canadians."

Wilson hands down, his TD/int ratio is better than either Luck or RG3's also.

_________________

"Tracy Porter lost his manhood when Marshawn stiff armed him" some dude on youtube.

I voted for Luck. He's really overachieved but the team has had a lot of reasons to do so. I'd expect a sophomore slump from him just because of the personnel around him. RW has the benefit of a punishing runner and an equally punishing defense. Even though they gave up some passes to BM (remember his 20 catch performance back in Denver?? - He's really good) - they hit the snot out of some players and knocked them silly. If we had Luck, we'd nurture him the same as RW. All things being equal, I'd take Luck, but closely followed (microhairs) by RW.

_________________

I don't know about 10-2 with those other two. I very much doubt that. But I can say that of the top 40 ESPN QBR performances this year, only FOUR resulted in losses and TWO of them were Russell Wilson. So, Russell Wilson should probably be sitting on 9-3 right now. Moreover, last I heard, Football Outsiders had Indy's offensive line and receivers as better than Seattle's, so the claim that Luck is doing it all on his own is arguable. Frankly, I don't buy for a single second that Wilson couldn't do the same things Luck is doing if he were in that situation and throwing the ball 50 times a game, too. Actually, I think he'd do better. Objective pre-draft analysis suggested he could be better. Someone posted this in another thread. It's mind-blowing. Check the rationalizations for why that evidence should be ignored:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-dr ... ecast-2012

The rationalizations about why the analysis should be ignored in Wilson's case sound so hollow.