Long Time Fan wrote:HC,
Short on time, but I wanted to say that I totally get your earlier post on preferring Wilson's ring to AL's playoff performances. Strong argument. Small career sample size. Then we factor in all of the reason that we won. I rail at the idea that RW was a mere game manager; non-sense from the uninformed. But although winning is the ultimate dropping of the pants measurement, AL took over a team that while not cupboard bare, was not in position to compete at the highest level.
I would not be surprised if both RW and AL have multiple rings earned in the next ten years.
Fair enough, but I do think people get a little wrapped up in "what" he had versus Wilson, it isn't like Wilson walked into a team chock full of offensive ( and really defensive) superstars or anything, Seattle was a team at the time with a good RB, a questionable O-line, and a dearth of receiver talent ( Baldwin was the leading receiver as a rookie free agent the year before) in fact Mike Williams in his bloated glory was the #1 guy.... That defense while containing some of the talent currently residing or contributing to that season last year, were either backups ( Wright, Chancellor, Sherman, Maxwell) the year before, drafted after ( Wagner, Irvin) or signed to cheap FA contracts ( Avril, Bennett, Mcdonald etc) of the 11starters, only five had started all the games the year before his arrival ( Red, Clem, Mebane, Browner, Thomas) which is indeed less than half.
Luck on the other hand also had a transition, but though many want, in fact desperately cling to that 4-12 record for the colts the years before, they tend to ignore the players that WERE there on that team, and the importance of said players because of "the record". LOT of players were injured and returned, a LOT of talent was indeed there. They were running out guys like Orlovsky, an unretired Collins, and Painter that season. The Colts had a solid defense ( in fact ranked HIGHER than Seattle that year) and a solid receiver core, line all in place the minute Luck stepped on the field.
Seattle went 7-9 the season before Wilson's arrival, with a MUCH better QB than what Indy rolled out week to week, and did it two seasons in a row (7-9) with Haselbeck and Jackson ( two QB's with many starts between them, and numerous playoff appearances) meanwhile, the three headed monster of Painter, Orlovsky, and an unretired Collins managed a 4-12 record and there is some huge disparity in talent level? That same team without that three headed garbage, was a 12 to 13 win team, I like and respect Manning, but ANYONE saying he is the difference of eight to nine wins a season, doesn't know much about football. Does that mean Denver is a Sub .500 Team then? Sorry something doesn't wash.
The excuse of "look what he had to work with" is old, and something without much to back it up. An "average" starting QB that year in Indy, knocks them from the teams with the ability to draft Luck, I know it, you know it, their fans know it, and anyone with a little knowledge of football, knows it. QB's don't "save" teams anymore than a MLB "saves" a defense, it's a team game, and there was indeed plenty of talent on the Colts the year Luck came in. It's there and it's available information for anyone who wants to bother looking.
Ultimately, I think how much those around said QB have improved is a much better barometer. Lynch, Baldwin, Miller etc have ALL improved drastically with Wilson taking snaps, can the same be said for Wayne? Richardson? Hilton? I'm not so sure.
