Just have to vent a bit

[monkey]

In order for you to believe that Andrew Luck should be ranked ahead of Russell Wilson, the following is what you need to believe:
1. That potential is greater than actual results, or Potential > Results
2. That Andrew Luck has more potential because he's taller and was drafted higher.
3. That having a great defense somehow improves a QB's performance. (Apparently the best performance enhancers are great defenses? Who knew...)
4. That a streak of 59 games since the last time that a Russell Wilson led football team has lost by more than 7 points, is somehow all due to the Seahawks defense...in spite of the fact that the streak dates back to college. (Apparently the Seahawks defense is so great that it affects the time stream?)
5. That having a crappy running game, a crappy defense, throwing the ball a bunch of times, while throwing several picks, at the cost of losing a playoff game makes Luck a BETTER QB than Wilson with a higher passer rating, more touchdowns, ZERO playoff INT's and a Super Bowl ring.
6. That Luck gets more credit for losing one weapon for much of the year (Reggie Wayne) than Wilson does for playing behind the leagues worst line, (ranked 32nd) while missing TWO weapons for much of the year, (Harvin and Rice).
???

At this point, anyone still arguing that Luck is better due to more upside, or against Wilson being the best QB of his class, is just being intellectually dishonest.

[obiken]

Sorry as far as a QB he is better, would I trade Wilson for Luck? NO. Luck can do more with less, he has much better arm, and his future improvement curve is much greater than RW's. However, now that RW has a ring, his confidence level will be much greater. When I knew that we would win the SB is when RW asked Terry Bradshaw, how do you handle the Super Bowl? I just about came out of my chair guys!! Is Kapper a better QB on paper than RW yes, would I trade him for Kapper? NO way. I have my Fran Tarkington, Jim Zorn clone, and he doesn't give away games. I will keep him till he retires.

obi

[kalibane]

I think you're feeding into the hype surrounding Luck Obi.

1. Luck does not in any way shape or form have a much stronger arm than Wilson. In fact if anything I think Wilson's arm is slightly stronger than Luck's.

2. Luck has only done more with less because he's had to. There are only a handful of plays that I've seen Luck make that I don't believe Wilson could (largely due to size). But there are also a handful of plays Wilson has made that Luck could never do (due to shiftiness).

The bottomline is that Kaepernick and Luck both look the part more than Wilson and that's why people keep saying that they are/will be better. But Luck has not been better than Wilson. In NBA terms Luck has been a volume scorer but his efficiency really hasn't been all that great. In their first two years Wilson has been the superior QB.

Now you want to play the futures market and bet that Luck will be better than Wilson when it's said and done? You have an argument. But Anyone saying Luck is a better QB right now is buying into the hype of media narratives, because it's not true. Just isn't. The only way Luck has been superior to Wilson is based on pure number of passing attempts that have led to bigger totals. If you let Wilson drop back 50 times per game though he'd match him easy.

[monkey]

Sorry as far as a QB he is better,...
Luck can do more with less, he has much better arm, and his future improvement curve is much greater than RW's.
obi

See, no offense Obi, but you just did the very thing I was complaining about!
What you said that I quoted, not a single word of it can be proven! You cannot prove one single word of that quote.
There is absolutely no way to prove that Luck can do more with less, or that his future improvement curve is greater.

I'll just go ahead and state the exact opposite, with also ZERO evidence or proof, and it would be equally as valid a statement.

In fact here: Wilson can do more with less, he has much better arm, and his future improvement curve is much greater than Luck's.

There you go.
Equally as valid a statement as yours.

[Hawktawk]

I think you're feeding into the hype surrounding Luck Obi.

1. Luck does not in any way shape or form have a much stronger arm than Wilson. In fact if anything I think Wilson's arm is slightly stronger than Luck's.

2. Luck has only done more with less because he's had to. There are only a handful of plays that I've seen Luck make that I don't believe Wilson could (largely due to size). But there are also a handful of plays Wilson has made that Luck could never do (due to shiftiness).

The bottomline is that Kaepernick and Luck both look the part more than Wilson and that's why people keep saying that they are/will be better. But Luck has not been better than Wilson. In NBA terms Luck has been a volume scorer but his efficiency really hasn't been all that great. In their first two years Wilson has been the superior QB.

Now you want to play the futures market and bet that Luck will be better than Wilson when it's said and done? You have an argument. But Anyone saying Luck is a better QB right now is buying into the hype of media narratives, because it's not true. Just isn't. The only way Luck has been superior to Wilson is based on pure number of passing attempts that have led to bigger totals. If you let Wilson drop back 50 times per game though he'd match him easy.

Absolutely true Kal. I submit as exhibit A,B,and C the playoff game in Jan of 2013 vs Atlanta. The defense was bad and the Hawks got in a big hole, partly based on poor decisions by Carroll that took points off the board. All Wilson did was throw for 385 yards and break the rookie playoff record by 50 yards, a record set in 1937 by slinging Sammy Baugh. In the end the defense was brutal of course.
Luck is a stud but he reminds me a lot of Brett Favre. Hes a big mobile tough guy but hes feast or famine. His great comeback in the playoffs was only necessary because he played so poorly for 3 quarters of the game. Then he had what? 6 turnovers the next game? LMAO that's half a season or more for RW. All he does is win:-) I wouldn't trade RW for any QB over the last 20 years. And hes just getting the turbos revved up....

[RiverDog]

I don't worry too much about the pundits. I always like to hear what they have to say but truly, it doesn't bother me if they don't come down on my side. Andrew Luck is a fine young quarterback, a better pocket passing quarterback than Russell, has a decent arm (the rap on him coming out of college was that he wasn't real effective at the 30+ yard throws), is mobile and very fast for his size. I think he's going to be a lasting star in this league, perhaps not HOF material, but a solid starter for a decade or longer.

Is he better than Russell? No, not at this stage of their careers, and I will take Russell any day of the week and twice on Sundays. But we do have to mention some of the advantages RW has over Luck. RW has a solid running attack and the league's best defense on his side. Those are two extremely big advantages. Luck is called upon to win games with his arm, and his stats suffer because of it. Even so, I feel that Russell is a better quarterback, in the top 3 in the league. Luck isn't anywhere close to top 5 IMO.

But as the two get older and slower, they are going to have to adjust their game to compensate for their advancing age. Luck is perhaps a bit better of a pocket passing QB than is Russell, the obvious reason being his 7" size difference. Luck will have a much easier transition because of his height. As he gets older, will Russell be able to change his game to include more pocket passing and less dependence on his legs? I think he can, but we'll have to wait 5-7 years or so to find out.

[HumanCockroach]

IMO Wilson is the very best "young" QB, just don't get worked up when experts say otherwise... Perfectly OK with him being the Aikmen to the Kelly, or Elway or Marino that is RGIII, Luck, Newton Kaepernik, because ultimately, I want SB victories, and I really could care less if the pundits don't realise how good he is until after the fact.

When everything is said and done, I feel confident it will be Wilson with the most rings, not the others, and that will put him where he wants to be.

[Eaglehawk]

This thread is funny.

Two years ago when we picked Wilson, everyone would have agreed with OBI that Luck was the better QB.

Now everyone thinks that RW is the better qb. As of today, I agree. But closely. My only test is this:

Would Luck have been able to do what RW has done under PC's system?

If your answer is yes. Then they are both very good qbs and to be ranked closely.
Also note, who was one of the few teams to beat us last season? Luck.

Wilson is better as of today. But Luck is nipping at his heels and is no slacker. Unless he regresses he has a very bright future with the NFL.

[RiverDog]

IMO Wilson is the very best "young" QB, just don't get worked up when experts say otherwise... Perfectly OK with him being the Aikmen to the Kelly, or Elway or Marino that is RGIII, Luck, Newton Kaepernik, because ultimately, I want SB victories, and I really could care less if the pundits don't realise how good he is until after the fact.

When everything is said and done, I feel confident it will be Wilson with the most rings, not the others, and that will put him where he wants to be.

That's my feelings exactly. I honestly don't care if Russell Wilson is better than Andrew Luck or worse than Tim Tebow. Just keep hoisting that Lombardi!

[HumanCockroach]

This thread is funny.

Two years ago when we picked Wilson, everyone would have agreed with OBI that Luck was the better QB.

Now everyone thinks that RW is the better qb. As of today, I agree. But closely. My only test is this:

Would Luck have been able to do what RW has done under PC's system?

If your answer is yes. Then they are both very good qbs and to be ranked closely.
Also note, who was one of the few teams to beat us last season? Luck.

Wilson is better as of today. But Luck is nipping at his heels and is no slacker. Unless he regresses he has a very bright future with the NFL.

Hard to say for certain whether luck would have been as successful in this system. Still boils down to speculation, and there are honest questions that would have to be considered. Luck does turn the ball over at a higher rate, makes more bonheaded decisions, and wouldn't be as "effective" in most statistical categories as he is in Indy ( yards, etc) do to the offense being run in Seattle.

I've seen him make some amazing throws, but I have also seen him make quite a few moronic ones, which to be fair I haven't seen Wilson make, really ever in his time as the starter.. Do I think Luck on this team wins a SB by the end of year two? ( because ultimately in my book that is the ONLY thing that would equal the same success) I really don't believe so.

That isn't. Homer glasses talking either, it's an honest opinion.

Lucks good, no doubt about it, Wilson has something else, and it's hard to quantify. All great QB's have it, just don't see it in Luck, he probably will win a SB at some point, but there. Is some "other" trait Wilson displays game in and game out, that is absolutely IMHO What separates a Montana from a Marino.

[Eaglehawk]

This thread is funny.

Two years ago when we picked Wilson, everyone would have agreed with OBI that Luck was the better QB.

Now everyone thinks that RW is the better qb. As of today, I agree. But closely. My only test is this:

Would Luck have been able to do what RW has done under PC's system?

If your answer is yes. Then they are both very good qbs and to be ranked closely.
Also note, who was one of the few teams to beat us last season? Luck.

Wilson is better as of today. But Luck is nipping at his heels and is no slacker. Unless he regresses he has a very bright future with the NFL.

Hard to say for certain whether luck would have been as successful in this system. Still boils down to speculation, and there are honest questions that would have to be considered. Luck does turn the ball over at a higher rate, makes more bonheaded decisions, and wouldn't be as "effective" in most statistical categories as he is in Indy ( yards, etc) do to the offense being run in Seattle.

I've seen him make some amazing throws, but I have also seen him make quite a few moronic ones, which to be fair I haven't seen Wilson make, really ever in his time as the starter.. Do I think Luck on this team wins a SB by the end of year two? ( because ultimately in my book that is the ONLY thing that would equal the same success) I really don't believe so.

That isn't. Homer glasses talking either, it's an honest opinion.

Lucks good, no doubt about it, Wilson has something else, and it's hard to quantify. All great QB's have it, just don't see it in Luck, he probably will win a SB at some point, but there. Is some "other" trait Wilson displays game in and game out, that is absolutely IMHO What separates a Montana from a Marino.

Good points HC. I dunno. Before I read your post I would have thought that Luck would have done the same thing.
Both Luck and Wilson make boneheaded mistakes, but you are right on probably the biggest difference between them, that X FACTOR.
I think it's the CLUTCH factor. RW is just better in the Clutch than Luck.

As for RGIII, forget it, I would look like a fool to even mention his name in this context. And you'd be perfectly justified in calling me one.

[kalibane]

This thread is funny.

Two years ago when we picked Wilson, everyone would have agreed with OBI that Luck was the better QB.

No he was the better prospect. And now it's two years later and Wilson has outplayed Luck.

[FolkCrusader]

There is something to be said in all of this for what Sherman keeps trying to say. That if you were not picked in the first round it is very hard to convince people that you could be the best at your position. There are always the doubters.

Andrew Luck is, imo, a fantastic young QB who will have a lot of success in this league over the next decade or so. I think he is a quality young man, who has been raised right. No matter what, he will always have the first pick in the draft label. Mostly a blessing, but I'm sure it also comes with quite a bit of pressure.

Russel Wilson is, imo, a phenomenon. We got to see him come in as a rookie and be more prepared than two other professional QBs. We saw him win a starting job completely unexpected in the preseason. We saw a young man take over a pretty decent offensive team in less than half a season. We've seen him make clutch plays, miracle escapes, deal with an O line that just could not block anyone. We have seen the amazingness that is Russel Wilson, and the beauty is we get to continue to watch it for many more years if he remains in good health.

So for me, if the rest of the country wants to say Luck is better that's fine with me. I have experienced two of the most enjoyable seasons of football in my life, and I expect many more. A lot of that is due to Russell Wilson. Will others realize how great he is, I think they will - eventually.

[monkey]

This thread is funny.

Two years ago when we picked Wilson, everyone would have agreed with OBI that Luck was the better QB.

No he was the better prospect. And now it's two years later and Wilson has outplayed Luck.

THIS^^^
What's interesting though is WHY he was considered the better prospect.
And don't get me wrong here, Andrew Luck's ceiling is probably, Aaron Rodgers.
Seriously.
Luck could be a HOFer someday, in fact I'll be more surprised if he isn't than if he is.
It's just that, if you look at the college numbers of him and Wilson, even just at their last seasons, then you're talking about essentially the same type of projection...superstar QB!
Of course, one of them threw fewer times, had far fewer picks, (set an NCAA record for that in fact) and had a better completion percentage, (guess which LOL!)
If it weren't for a few inches, literally just a few inches, people would have been talking about which one was the better prospect, Wilson or Luck, and it could have gone either way, legitimately.

[Anthony]

In order for you to believe that Andrew Luck should be ranked ahead of Russell Wilson, the following is what you need to believe:
1. That potential is greater than actual results, or Potential > Results
2. That Andrew Luck has more potential because he's taller and was drafted higher.
3. That having a great defense somehow improves a QB's performance. (Apparently the best performance enhancers are great defenses? Who knew...)
4. That a streak of 59 games since the last time that a Russell Wilson led football team has lost by more than 7 points, is somehow all due to the Seahawks defense...in spite of the fact that the streak dates back to college. (Apparently the Seahawks defense is so great that it affects the time stream?)
5. That having a crappy running game, a crappy defense, throwing the ball a bunch of times, while throwing several picks, at the cost of losing a playoff game makes Luck a BETTER QB than Wilson with a higher passer rating, more touchdowns, ZERO playoff INT's and a Super Bowl ring.
6. That Luck gets more credit for losing one weapon for much of the year (Reggie Wayne) than Wilson does for playing behind the leagues worst line, (ranked 32nd) while missing TWO weapons for much of the year, (Harvin and Rice).
???

At this point, anyone still arguing that Luck is better due to more upside, or against Wilson being the best QB of his class, is just being intellectually dishonest.

well first if you remove the QB rushing form the equation Our run game would be ranked 20th, and Indys 21st(difference would be 17 yards per game). So the run game thing is crap. Add to that the whole defense thing is also crap, our defense was ranked 1st in fewest post allowed, guess what Indys was 9th, so he has a top 10 scoring defense. Truth be told there is no factual reason to say Luck is better than Rw at this point and the gap will only widen.

[Anthony]

Sorry as far as a QB he is better, would I trade Wilson for Luck? NO. Luck can do more with less, he has much better arm, and his future improvement curve is much greater than RW's. However, now that RW has a ring, his confidence level will be much greater. When I knew that we would win the SB is when RW asked Terry Bradshaw, how do you handle the Super Bowl? I just about came out of my chair guys!! Is Kapper a better QB on paper than RW yes, would I trade him for Kapper? NO way. I have my Fran Tarkington, Jim Zorn clone, and he doesn't give away games. I will keep him till he retires.

obi

How is he doing more with less, he has a better o-line, better, wr, taking out the QB rushing he has as good a rushing team, the difference being 17 yards per game. As to Kapper that is the biggest joke ever, he has more around him the Rw and still is not as good.

[Anthony]

I think you're feeding into the hype surrounding Luck Obi.

1. Luck does not in any way shape or form have a much stronger arm than Wilson. In fact if anything I think Wilson's arm is slightly stronger than Luck's.

2. Luck has only done more with less because he's had to. There are only a handful of plays that I've seen Luck make that I don't believe Wilson could (largely due to size). But there are also a handful of plays Wilson has made that Luck could never do (due to shiftiness).

The bottomline is that Kaepernick and Luck both look the part more than Wilson and that's why people keep saying that they are/will be better. But Luck has not been better than Wilson. In NBA terms Luck has been a volume scorer but his efficiency really hasn't been all that great. In their first two years Wilson has been the superior QB.

Now you want to play the futures market and bet that Luck will be better than Wilson when it's said and done? You have an argument. But Anyone saying Luck is a better QB right now is buying into the hype of media narratives, because it's not true. Just isn't. The only way Luck has been superior to Wilson is based on pure number of passing attempts that have led to bigger totals. If you let Wilson drop back 50 times per game though he'd match him easy.

The point is though Luck has not done more with less, his defense is top 10 in scoring like ours, taking away the QB rushing yards the difference is only 17 per game, his o-line is way better than ours, and his Wr are better than ours. The whole more with less is crap, and hype not reality

[Anthony]

I don't worry too much about the pundits. I always like to hear what they have to say but truly, it doesn't bother me if they don't come down on my side. Andrew Luck is a fine young quarterback, a better pocket passing quarterback than Russell, has a decent arm (the rap on him coming out of college was that he wasn't real effective at the 30+ yard throws), is mobile and very fast for his size. I think he's going to be a lasting star in this league, perhaps not HOF material, but a solid starter for a decade or longer.

Is he better than Russell? No, not at this stage of their careers, and I will take Russell any day of the week and twice on Sundays. But we do have to mention some of the advantages RW has over Luck. RW has a solid running attack and the league's best defense on his side. Those are two extremely big advantages. Luck is called upon to win games with his arm, and his stats suffer because of it. Even so, I feel that Russell is a better quarterback, in the top 3 in the league. Luck isn't anywhere close to top 5 IMO.

But as the two get older and slower, they are going to have to adjust their game to compensate for their advancing age. Luck is perhaps a bit better of a pocket passing QB than is Russell, the obvious reason being his 7" size difference. Luck will have a much easier transition because of his height. As he gets older, will Russell be able to change his game to include more pocket passing and less dependence on his legs? I think he can, but we'll have to wait 5-7 years or so to find out.

The point is though Luck has not done more with less, his defense is top 10 in scoring like ours, taking away the QB rushing yards the difference is only 17 per game, his o-line is way better than ours, and his Wr are better than ours. The whole more with less is crap, and hype not reality. Also Rw has a 65% completion in side the pocket were he throws 75% of his passes, Luck is not even 60%

[monkey]

Good point Anthony. I called Indi's defense and run game "crap" but that's an intentional exaggeration to convey the point I was making.
Fact is, their run game and defense were not that bad, their team as a whole was pretty danged good. It's not like Luck was leading the Jaguars as Luck supporters try to make it seem.

The Colts are a decent team to good team, one that has plenty of talent, and isn't so far behind Seattle that you somehow have to give Luck a handicap when evaluating or ranking him.
He doesn't need a handicap compared to Wilson, that's just bunk.

He just has NOT performed as well as Wilson. Period, end of story.

[Zorn76]

IMO, the only thing that really matters with QB comparisons, with all other things being more or less equal, is the mental approach, aptitude, and toughness that a quarterback has.

And in that regard, nobody has an edge on RW.

Nobody.

Not Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and certainly not Peyton Manning:)

In essence, RW has that edge over his opposing QB pretty much every time, with other rare instances being a draw.

Statistically, Wilson may be appreciably behind by career's end, when compared to other QB's.

But in terms of being CLUTCH, particularly when it matters most, he's gonna go down as one of the best all time in NFL history.

I have no doubt about it.

[monkey]

Couldn't agree more Zorn.

[Futureite]

Lol well I am going to tick you off because I believe in almost every one of the 7 on your list. Alex Smith is a mediocore QB, but he put up a QB rating of 102.7 through 8 starts specifically because he had a great D at his back. He was on pace for 25 TDs and 10 ints. Having a great D meant there was never much pressure on him to win any game. He could make safe throws or go three and out at any time in almost any game and still win (and I saw it many times). It's almost hard for me to belueve that you'd debate the value of a great D to a QB. It is immeasurable.

That said, Wilson can make plays that win games. He is a franchise QB. But Andrew Luck to me is the best young QB in the NFL. He makes throws and reads other QBs don't and he has done more with less than any other young QB IMO.

[Hawktawk]

IMO, the only thing that really matters with QB comparisons, with all other things being more or less equal, is the mental approach, aptitude, and toughness that a quarterback has.

And in that regard, nobody has an edge on RW.

Nobody.

Not Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and certainly not Peyton Manning:)

In essence, RW has that edge over his opposing QB pretty much every time, with other rare instances being a draw.

Statistically, Wilson may be appreciably behind by career's end, when compared to other QB's.

But in terms of being CLUTCH, particularly when it matters most, he's gonna go down as one of the best all time in NFL history.

I have no doubt about it.

+1 nice

[Futureite]

I don't worry too much about the pundits. I always like to hear what they have to say but truly, it doesn't bother me if they don't come down on my side. Andrew Luck is a fine young quarterback, a better pocket passing quarterback than Russell, has a decent arm (the rap on him coming out of college was that he wasn't real effective at the 30+ yard throws), is mobile and very fast for his size. I think he's going to be a lasting star in this league, perhaps not HOF material, but a solid starter for a decade or longer.

Is he better than Russell? No, not at this stage of their careers, and I will take Russell any day of the week and twice on Sundays. But we do have to mention some of the advantages RW has over Luck. RW has a solid running attack and the league's best defense on his side. Those are two extremely big advantages. Luck is called upon to win games with his arm, and his stats suffer because of it. Even so, I feel that Russell is a better quarterback, in the top 3 in the league. Luck isn't anywhere close to top 5 IMO.

But as the two get older and slower, they are going to have to adjust their game to compensate for their advancing age. Luck is perhaps a bit better of a pocket passing QB than is Russell, the obvious reason being his 7" size difference. Luck will have a much easier transition because of his height. As he gets older, will Russell be able to change his game to include more pocket passing and less dependence on his legs? I think he can, but we'll have to wait 5-7 years or so to find out.

The point is though Luck has not done more with less, his defense is top 10 in scoring like ours, taking away the QB rushing yards the difference is only 17 per game, his o-line is way better than ours, and his Wr are better than ours. The whole more with less is crap, and hype not reality. Also Rw has a 65% completion in side the pocket were he throws 75% of his passes, Luck is not even 60%

I am not here not devalue what Wilson accomplished, but how in the hell can you compare Marshawn Lynch to anything the Colts have?? Lynch is a bonafide top 5 back and in my opinion, he best back in the NFL. That dude has literally taken over games for your team. The Colts do not even have a top 15 or probably top 20 back on their team.

And the Colt D gave up over 30 pts in one playoff game. Your D gave up 40 total in 3 playoff games.

Again, Wilson is a franchise QB. But I don't see the same parts around these guys. So it is tough to compare them.

[RiverDog]

I am not here not devalue what Wilson accomplished, but how in the hell can you compare Marshawn Lynch to anything the Colts have?? Lynch is a bonafide top 5 back and in my opinion, he best back in the NFL. That dude has literally taken over games for your team. The Colts do not even have a top 15 or probably top 20 back on their team.

And the Colt D gave up over 30 pts in one playoff game. Your D gave up 40 total in 3 playoff games.

Again, Wilson is a franchise QB. But I don't see the same parts around these guys. So it is tough to compare them.

You must not have read my comments, Futureite. I specifically noted Wilson's great advantage over Luck in that he has The Beast and the league's #1 defense on his side. Nevertheless, I still think he's a better quarterback than Luck, and a lot better quarterback than Numbnuts.

[Futureite]

I am not here not devalue what Wilson accomplished, but how in the hell can you compare Marshawn Lynch to anything the Colts have?? Lynch is a bonafide top 5 back and in my opinion, he best back in the NFL. That dude has literally taken over games for your team. The Colts do not even have a top 15 or probably top 20 back on their team.

And the Colt D gave up over 30 pts in one playoff game. Your D gave up 40 total in 3 playoff games.

Again, Wilson is a franchise QB. But I don't see the same parts around these guys. So it is tough to compare them.

You must not have read my comments, Futureite. I specifically noted Wilson's great advantage over Luck in that he has The Beast and the league's #1 defense on his side. Nevertheless, I still think he's a better quarterback than Luck, and a lot better quarterback than Numbnuts.

I thought I was replying to Anthony. In any event, you are entitled to your opinion, and there aee good reasons to back either QB.

[Anthony]

Lol well I am going to tick you off because I believe in almost every one of the 7 on your list. Alex Smith is a mediocore QB, but he put up a QB rating of 102.7 through 8 starts specifically because he had a great D at his back. He was on pace for 25 TDs and 10 ints. Having a great D meant there was never much pressure on him to win any game. He could make safe throws or go three and out at any time in almost any game and still win (and I saw it many times). It's almost hard for me to belueve that you'd debate the value of a great D to a QB. It is immeasurable.

That said, Wilson can make plays that win games. He is a franchise QB. But Andrew Luck to me is the best young QB in the NFL. He makes throws and reads other QBs don't and he has done more with less than any other young QB IMO.

And yet as has been shown you are wrong luck has had just as much if not more than Wilson and other than yards has done way less with it. Let me remind you Their defense also top 10 in scoring, their o-line ranked way higher in pass blocking than ours, their RB run game just as good as ours, their WR way better than ours.

[Anthony]

I don't worry too much about the pundits. I always like to hear what they have to say but truly, it doesn't bother me if they don't come down on my side. Andrew Luck is a fine young quarterback, a better pocket passing quarterback than Russell, has a decent arm (the rap on him coming out of college was that he wasn't real effective at the 30+ yard throws), is mobile and very fast for his size. I think he's going to be a lasting star in this league, perhaps not HOF material, but a solid starter for a decade or longer.

Is he better than Russell? No, not at this stage of their careers, and I will take Russell any day of the week and twice on Sundays. But we do have to mention some of the advantages RW has over Luck. RW has a solid running attack and the league's best defense on his side. Those are two extremely big advantages. Luck is called upon to win games with his arm, and his stats suffer because of it. Even so, I feel that Russell is a better quarterback, in the top 3 in the league. Luck isn't anywhere close to top 5 IMO.

But as the two get older and slower, they are going to have to adjust their game to compensate for their advancing age. Luck is perhaps a bit better of a pocket passing QB than is Russell, the obvious reason being his 7" size difference. Luck will have a much easier transition because of his height. As he gets older, will Russell be able to change his game to include more pocket passing and less dependence on his legs? I think he can, but we'll have to wait 5-7 years or so to find out.

The point is though Luck has not done more with less, his defense is top 10 in scoring like ours, taking away the QB rushing yards the difference is only 17 per game, his o-line is way better than ours, and his Wr are better than ours. The whole more with less is crap, and hype not reality. Also Rw has a 65% completion in side the pocket were he throws 75% of his passes, Luck is not even 60%

I am not here not devalue what Wilson accomplished, but how in the hell can you compare Marshawn Lynch to anything the Colts have?? Lynch is a bonafide top 5 back and in my opinion, he best back in the NFL. That dude has literally taken over games for your team. The Colts do not even have a top 15 or probably top 20 back on their team.

And the Colt D gave up over 30 pts in one playoff game. Your D gave up 40 total in 3 playoff games.

Again, Wilson is a franchise QB. But I don't see the same parts around these guys. So it is tough to compare them.

Dude you are comparing name recognition I am looking at productivity, and as I already shown there RB run game was just as productive as ours but I will show you again, the difference in RB yards was 17 a game, however we ran the ball an avg of 4 times more a game, now lets look at the YPA without QBs and we get exactly 4.1 ypa for both teams, the difference in over all run game was RW. As to the defense sorry but any team or defense can have a bad game but for the season they were ranked 9th in scoring. Like I said Luck had plenty of help as I have proven.

[Futureite]

Lol well I am going to tick you off because I believe in almost every one of the 7 on your list. Alex Smith is a mediocore QB, but he put up a QB rating of 102.7 through 8 starts specifically because he had a great D at his back. He was on pace for 25 TDs and 10 ints. Having a great D meant there was never much pressure on him to win any game. He could make safe throws or go three and out at any time in almost any game and still win (and I saw it many times). It's almost hard for me to belueve that you'd debate the value of a great D to a QB. It is immeasurable.

That said, Wilson can make plays that win games. He is a franchise QB. But Andrew Luck to me is the best young QB in the NFL. He makes throws and reads other QBs don't and he has done more with less than any other young QB IMO.

And yet as has been shown you are wrong luck has had just as much if not more than Wilson and other than yards has done way less with it. Let me remind you Their defense also top 10 in scoring, their o-line ranked way higher in pass blocking than ours, their RB run game just as good as ours, their WR way better than ours.

Their D is nowhere in the same universe as yours. Donald Brown and what's face they traded for combined are not on the same planet as Lynch. Judging QB play is subjective. You have plenty of ammo to argue for your guy. But I can't find too many reasons to compare the Colts' run game or their D to yours. I mean their D got torched up and down the field in both playoff games last yr. If you can seriously say with a straight face that Wilson would have advanced tbe Colts further than Luck did, more power to you.

They are both pretty damn good so you have to expect people will argue both guys vehemently depending on their allegience.

[NorthHawk]

In my mind, they are asked to do two different things.
Wilson is asked to protect the ball and Luck is asked to make the big play.
I think either could play in the others system and do well, but given what's asked of them it's difficult to really compare.
One thing against Wilson in written articles is the prejudice of height. Some observers can't get past that and it colors their evaluations.

[Anthony]

Lol well I am going to tick you off because I believe in almost every one of the 7 on your list. Alex Smith is a mediocore QB, but he put up a QB rating of 102.7 through 8 starts specifically because he had a great D at his back. He was on pace for 25 TDs and 10 ints. Having a great D meant there was never much pressure on him to win any game. He could make safe throws or go three and out at any time in almost any game and still win (and I saw it many times). It's almost hard for me to belueve that you'd debate the value of a great D to a QB. It is immeasurable.

That said, Wilson can make plays that win games. He is a franchise QB. But Andrew Luck to me is the best young QB in the NFL. He makes throws and reads other QBs don't and he has done more with less than any other young QB IMO.

And yet as has been shown you are wrong luck has had just as much if not more than Wilson and other than yards has done way less with it. Let me remind you Their defense also top 10 in scoring, their o-line ranked way higher in pass blocking than ours, their RB run game just as good as ours, their WR way better than ours.

Their D is nowhere in the same universe as yours. Donald Brown and what's face they traded for combined are not on the same planet as Lynch. Judging QB play is subjective. You have plenty of ammo to argue for your guy. But I can't find too many reasons to compare the Colts' run game or their D to yours. I mean their D got torched up and down the field in both playoff games last yr. If you can seriously say with a straight face that Wilson would have advanced tbe Colts further than Luck did, more power to you.

They are both pretty damn good so you have to expect people will argue both guys vehemently depending on their allegience.

Dude you can try as you might but the facts are they have a top 10 scoring defense, and while it may not be as good as ours, it is far from horrible, and he has better WRs, much better o-line for pass protection and as good a running game. I know its hard for you to be wrong, but you are. As to Wilson advancing the Colts further yeah I can say it, its really easy allow me to explain, Wilson O Ints, Luck 7 ints, even our defense would give up a lot of points if Wilson threw 7 ints. In fact out of the 7 ints, 6 ended up in TDs either by the int person , or soon after due to the int. Because of the Ints, Indys defense was on the field for over 25 minutes more than their offense in the 2 playoff games. that means indy held the ball for 47 minutes and their defense was on the field for 73 minutes out of 120, that is to much to ask from any defense. All because of Lucks 7 Ints. So yeah I do believe with Wilson they do better, for one their defense does not get tired and constantly put deep in their own territory, for 2 there are not 6 TDs handed to the other team because of the Ints. As to the Indy rbs combined not being Lynch, you might want to check out the stats because they are. Try as you might you are wrong and the stats and facts prove it. the difference in the RB running game 17 yards per game and 4 attempts more a game, that is all.

The fact are this

We do have a better Defense, but their is top 10, so its not like he has nothing.
our Running back run games are about even. However we have the better singular back, the end results are pretty much even though.

Here is were you whole thing blows a part on you. Of the 4 things in question, o-line pass blocking, wr, run game, and defense the 2 most important to a Qb and their passing game is o-line pass blocking and wr. In these 2 categories Luck has it way better. To give you an idea how much better; our o-line was ranked dead last in pass protection that's 32nd, theirs ranked 6th. So like I said truth be told Luck has it better for passing then Wilson.

[Anthony]

In my mind, they are asked to do two different things.
Wilson is asked to protect the ball and Luck is asked to make the big play.
I think either could play in the others system and do well, but given what's asked of them it's difficult to really compare.
One thing against Wilson in written articles is the prejudice of height. Some observers can't get past that and it colors their evaluations.

I can agree except Wilson has had as many if not more big plays than luck the proof is simply in their YPA Lucks is 6.71 and Wilsons is 8.25 which was 4th in the league, you do not get that high of a YPA without big plays. The biggest difference is they run less, then us, but interestingly if you take out the QB rushing, the difference is only 17 yards per game. So they have a good run game too as I said, difference is they do not do it with 1 back they do it by committee, but that doe snot change its effectiveness.

[NorthHawk]

In my mind, they are asked to do two different things.
Wilson is asked to protect the ball and Luck is asked to make the big play.
I think either could play in the others system and do well, but given what's asked of them it's difficult to really compare.
One thing against Wilson in written articles is the prejudice of height. Some observers can't get past that and it colors their evaluations.

I can agree except Wilson has had as many if not more big plays than luck the proof is simply in their YPA Lucks is 6.71 and Wilsons is 8.25 which was 4th in the league, you do not get that high of a YPA without big plays. The biggest difference is they run less, then us, but interestingly if you take out the QB rushing, the difference is only 17 yards per game. So they have a good run game too as I said, difference is they do not do it with 1 back they do it by committee, but that doe snot change its effectiveness.

What I meant was Luck is asked to make more big plays so he at times forces plays that aren't there. It's a higher risk reward than Wilson, making it difficult to compare. If they were asked to do the same things we could compare much easier, but they aren't which leads to more subjective results.

[Anthony]

In my mind, they are asked to do two different things.
Wilson is asked to protect the ball and Luck is asked to make the big play.
I think either could play in the others system and do well, but given what's asked of them it's difficult to really compare.
One thing against Wilson in written articles is the prejudice of height. Some observers can't get past that and it colors their evaluations.

I can agree except Wilson has had as many if not more big plays than luck the proof is simply in their YPA Lucks is 6.71 and Wilsons is 8.25 which was 4th in the league, you do not get that high of a YPA without big plays. The biggest difference is they run less, then us, but interestingly if you take out the QB rushing, the difference is only 17 yards per game. So they have a good run game too as I said, difference is they do not do it with 1 back they do it by committee, but that doe snot change its effectiveness.

What I meant was Luck is asked to make more big plays so he at times forces plays that aren't there. It's a higher risk reward than Wilson, making it difficult to compare. If they were asked to do the same things we could compare much easier, but they aren't which leads to more subjective results.

Hmm okay I can agree to a point, the problem is a lot of the time were he needs to make those big plays is to make up for his own mistakes costing his team points. He makes a lot of unneeded mistakes putting his team in a bind, and thus forcing him to have to make big plays. I guess it depends on your definition of big play, because according to ESPN WIlson was top sin big plays, meaning pass plays of 15+ yards and tops incompl% of those plays. IN fact it was mentioned in several game broadcasts through out the year.

[kalibane]

Funny Future,

Because Colin Kaepernick has the same advantages that Russell Wilson had and Wilson still had more passing yards, more TDs, fewer interceptions, higher completion percentage, higher passer rating, higher yards per attempt in slightly fewer pass attempts. All this despite playing behind what was an absolutley terrible offensive line for most of the year while Kaep played behind one of the best units.

Your guilty of one of the classis logical fallacy's projecting what you can't know. Yes Wilson has a stronger defense and running game than Luck. The fact remains that Wilson has outplayed Luck. To claim Luck has been better than Wilson is to make the assumption that Wilson would be as inefficient as Luck if they switched places. But the problem is you have nothing to base this on.

Here are actual facts.

When Wilson has been asked to throw the ball 30 times or more:

287 ypg 67% completion rate 5.2% TD rate 1.2 % INT rate 8.6 yards per attempt.

Lucks stats:

256 ypg 57% completion rate 3.8% TD rate 2.3% INT rate 6.8 yards per attempt.


For your assumption to be true Wilson's numbers would get markedly worse in games where he's forced to throw to win the game. The reality is that they actually get slightly better. Your logic doesn't work Future.

Look Luck is great and personally I'm still 50/50 on who will have the better career, but the truth is Wilson has outplayed all the 2012 rookie QBs and the 2011 rookie QBs over the past two years.

[Eaglehawk]

This thread is funny.

Two years ago when we picked Wilson, everyone would have agreed with OBI that Luck was the better QB.

No he was the better prospect. And now it's two years later and Wilson has outplayed Luck.

Yes Kal you are correct I should have probably put, QB PROSPECT.
THIS^^^
What's interesting though is WHY he was considered the better prospect.
And don't get me wrong here, Andrew Luck's ceiling is probably, Aaron Rodgers.
Seriously.
Luck could be a HOFer someday, in fact I'll be more surprised if he isn't than if he is.
It's just that, if you look at the college numbers of him and Wilson, even just at their last seasons, then you're talking about essentially the same type of projection...superstar QB!
Of course, one of them threw fewer times, had far fewer picks, (set an NCAA record for that in fact) and had a better completion percentage, (guess which LOL!)
If it weren't for a few inches, literally just a few inches, people would have been talking about which one was the better prospect, Wilson or Luck, and it could have gone either way, legitimately.

Agreed with Monkey as well. The reason I would have gone with Luck before HC changed my mind was because of his draft ranking and how much the scouts were yacking him up. There is no doubt in these last two years that Wilson has performed better than Luck

[Futureite]

Funny Future,

Because Colin Kaepernick has the same advantages that Russell Wilson had and Wilson still had more passing yards, more TDs, fewer interceptions, higher completion percentage, higher passer rating, higher yards per attempt in slightly fewer pass attempts. All this despite playing behind what was an absolutley terrible offensive line for most of the year while Kaep played behind one of the best units.

Your guilty of one of the classis logical fallacy's projecting what you can't know. Yes Wilson has a stronger defense and running game than Luck. The fact remains that Wilson has outplayed Luck. To claim Luck has been better than Wilson is to make the assumption that Wilson would be as inefficient as Luck if they switched places. But the problem is you have nothing to base this on.

Here are actual facts.

When Wilson has been asked to throw the ball 30 times or more:

287 ypg 67% completion rate 5.2% TD rate 1.2 % INT rate 8.6 yards per attempt.

Lucks stats:

256 ypg 57% completion rate 3.8% TD rate 2.3% INT rate 6.8 yards per attempt.


For your assumption to be true Wilson's numbers would get markedly worse in games where he's forced to throw to win the game. The reality is that they actually get slightly better. Your logic doesn't work Future.

Look Luck is great and personally I'm still 50/50 on who will have the better career, but the truth is Wilson has outplayed all the 2012 rookie QBs and the 2011 rookie QBs over the past two years.

First, I have to retract one statement. I re-read the 6 or 7 assumptions that he posted and I do not agree with all of them.

Second, if you want to discuss Kap (remember, I did not bring him up), Wilson HAS had a bigger advantage in some areas at times. You in fact were accurate in.our assessment of WR after Crab's injury; I was wrong. Kap started the yr by losing nearly every receiver he had the prior yr (Ginn, Moss, Crab, Walker) and the ones that were left were not NFL caliber other than Boldin. RW threw to the exact sane set of WRs to start the yr, and we have already seen how a similar disruption in chemistry effeceted even a dominant QB like Tom Brady.

Following that point, in games where Lynch struggled I see the exact same issues with Wilson as Kap. Look at RW's stats in the Houston game or the Cardinals home game. Look at his 1-11 start in game 1 V us, or how hard he was struggling in the NFCCCG before Lynch did what Lynch normally does broke out. If Lynch hadn't run for over 100 compared to Gore's 16 there is no way Seattle wins that game. None.

So, I am taking what I read here with a grain of salt. Everyone knows Wilson had been great at times. Most people also readily admit that the opposing team's D gameplan begins and is primarily focused on stopping Marshawn Lynch. This is obviously an immeasurable advantage for any QB, as it frees up playaction and so many other options in the pass game. In contrast, when teams play the Colts the D gameplan centers around Andrew Luck.

Speaking of that last comment, what happened when Seattle played the Colts? And the 49ers played the Colts? Seems to ne like Andrew Luck beat defenses late in the 4th. The idea that RW is more clutch than Luck is ridiculous. Luck took over V Seattle in the 4th, Wilson threw 3 straight incompletions and a pick on 4th down with the ball in his hands and a chance to win in the 4th. Luck had 7 4th qtr comeback wins in his eookie yr alobe, Wilson.has 8 total, and 1 of them is the Fail Mary game.

I would take Luck above ANY QB right now, not just RW.

[burrrton]

The idea that RW is more clutch than Luck is ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous is that you felt compelled to make such a stupid statement.

Fourth-quarter comebacks: RW 8, Luck 8.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/l ... active.htm

Game-winning drives: RW 10, Luck 11.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/l ... active.htm

I'm not going to go back and forth about something as poorly defined as "clutch", but to imply they're not comparable is preposterous. It's generally considered one of Wilson's defining traits, and finding a game or two where he couldn't pull it out doesn't change that.

[Futureite]

The idea that RW is more clutch than Luck is ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous is that you felt compelled to make such a stupid statement.

Fourth-quarter comebacks: RW 8, Luck 8.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/l ... active.htm

Game-winning drives: RW 10, Luck 11.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/l ... active.htm

I'm not going to go back and forth about something as poorly defined as "clutch", but to imply they're not comparable is preposterous. It's generally considered one of Wilson's defining traits, and finding a game or two where he couldn't pull it out doesn't change that.

Exactly. So because they are so similar, the people that are posting that RW is clearly so much better in tbe clutch than Luck are making ridiculous assertions, right?? You posted the stat right there that proves it.

[NorthHawk]

[/quote]Hmm okay I can agree to a point, the problem is a lot of the time were he needs to make those big plays is to make up for his own mistakes costing his team points. He makes a lot of unneeded mistakes putting his team in a bind, and thus forcing him to have to make big plays. I guess it depends on your definition of big play, because according to ESPN WIlson was top sin big plays, meaning pass plays of 15+ yards and tops incompl% of those plays. IN fact it was mentioned in several game broadcasts through out the year.[/quote]

Agreed. That's where the media falls short in that they don't look at the whole picture.
I'd rather have a QB that didn't put themselves into a position of having to take chances than one who does, but media types tend to hype those guys more.
Don't get me wrong, Luck is a very good QB with a lot of upside, and I would love to have him if we didn't have Wilson.