Chris Harris said Wilson is better than Luck

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

So where is any correlation, much less proof, that more throws or a worse defense leads to worse efficiency stats? It's the only argument advanced by Luck-backers in this entire 14 page thread, and yet it's a conclusion which they can't support with any evidence.

There's plenty of evidence, but the tears of seahawk fans has clouded their vision.

 

[bigdaddytorr]

Again:

Luck career: 58.1% completions, 6.88 yards per attempt, 55 tds and 30 ints (1.83 TD to INT ratio); 83.5 passer rating

Wilson career: 64.1% completions, 8.03 yards per attempt, 58 tds and 20 ints (2.9 TD to INT ratio); 101.4 passer rating

Before you accuse me of picking stats, it is widely held that yards per attempt, completion percentage, and TD to INT ratio are considered the best statisics to evaluate QB play, and passer rating (not the ill-fated total QB rating) is a stats based rating approved and used by the NFL.

Luck has improved and is off to a very good start this year and this might be his breakthrough but his career to this point has had people impressed with his potential more than his actual performance, which is often great but has been very inconsistent. Wilson has put up less yards but has shown the ability to consistently make the correct decision more than Luck has to this point.

Luck has thrown the nearly twice as much as Wilson....So obviously completion percentage, yards per attempt, passer rating are all going to be skewed higher, lol. Wilson has a stacked box to throw against. Whereas Luck gets a constant pass rush/pass coverage, TRUTH. It's the same thing when RG3 homers were beating their chest. Just watch the two play, Luck is simply the better QB.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

I completely disagree with fans that say all the noise comes from the stadium... the Seahawks fans get rocking during games. But I completely disagree that Seahawks fans have been this way since the Kingdome days lol. Excluding a small group of Seattle fans... this entire state gave two shits about football. No Seahawks decals, no bumper stickers, no flags, no jerseys on Friday at work day.... This whole "die hard" fandom thing is new. All of a sudden everyone's a diehard Seahawks fan here. I think it's funny... same thing with the Mariners.... wait until they make a big splash... everyone will be die hard Mariners fans all of a sudden.

I think Dallas still sells the most merch of any team. They probably have the most fans sporting t-shirts, jerseys, bumper stickers, decals, flags and whatever else and what does that get them? Maybe Seattle does (and has) historically sold less stuff than other teams but the crowd is still crazy loud on game day. Unlike Dallas (for example) who sells a shit-ton of stuff to fans but when the Cowboys take the field in jerry's world you could hear a rat piss on cotton. Selling merchandise doesn't get you wins and doesn't necessarily tell you how great your fan base is. Just ask Aikman who regularly complains about the Cowboys fans not being into the game like the old days. He says (due to ticket prices) most Cowboy fans seem to be corporate people who received tickets for doing business instead of die hard fans who paid good money and really want to be at the game.

Its an impossible argument anyways. Most teams have pretty good fans when the team is winning. Who's got the best fans is completely subjective and up for interpretation. The media has said Seattle is the loudest so often that probably most people would agree with it now if they were polled.

 

[Smart]

There's plenty of evidence, but the tears of seahawk fans has clouded their vision.

Luck has thrown the nearly twice as much as Wilson....So obviously completion percentage, yards per attempt, passer rating are all going to be skewed higher, lol. Wilson has a stacked box to throw against. Whereas Luck gets a constant pass rush/pass coverage, TRUTH. It's the same thing when RG3 homers were beating their chest. Just watch the two play, Luck is simply the better QB.

And this evidence is where, exactly? I've been asking for it for years, even dating back to when they were in college. It's statistically false. It's the entire basis of your argument, but again, nothing says it is true.

Passers in run-first teams usually have a worse receiving corp. They usually have an OL recruited to run well. And they usually pass more against good teams because they run it in garbage time. They also practice passing less.

That's four big reasons why it's not true. You can say "defenses prepare more or the pass," which is one reason. Why does your one reason outnumber my four? Where is the evidence? Outside of groupthink, is there anything which actually supports the conclusion that Luck is a better QB?

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manning2Luck_uJelly
..... Seahawk fans are consumed with this massive inferiority complex.

Couldn't have said it better myself.....lol

I think you could easily make the argument that some Indy fans also have an inferiority complex since they can't handle any debate that dares to compare Wilson and Luck. They think the topic is so far skewed as to be ridiculous to even talk about. If Luck is sooo much better then why get worked up over the comparisons?

 

[SonnyCID]

So where is any correlation, much less proof, that more throws or a worse defense leads to worse efficiency stats? It's the only argument advanced by Luck-backers in this entire 14 page thread, and yet it's a conclusion which they can't support with any evidence.

There is nothing to back it up. Plenty of top QBs have poor defenses and throw the ball a lot with great efficiency. But somehow they ignore that and turn in it in to one of their typical excuses.

And the Colts defense is not nearly as bad as these tools want to make it out to be. We'll coached group, 9th in scoring last year! Just another thing that the majority is clueless on in regards to this topic.

 

[Smart]

Just watch the two play, Luck is simply the better QB.

Also, what does Luck do better than Wilson? Which of these favors Luck:

Arm Strength
Short Pass Accuracy
Deep Pass Accuracy
Catchability of passes
Decision making
Leadership
Elusiveness
Running ability
Throwing on the run
Calmness/Clutch Factor

For all the talk on how Luck is better, NONE OF THESE attributes favor Luck. I dare you...give me one. When you actually look at what it takes to be a great quarterback, it's tough to make any argument for Luck.

But at least you can always have your default arguments: Height, Defense, and Wins. Oh wait, you can't make the wins argument which was the primary Luck argument in college. And the defense has nothing to do with Russell's stats. The good news is when all stats and observations say Russell is better, you can always say "height."

 

[bigdaddytorr]

And this evidence is where, exactly? I've been asking for it for years, even dating back to when they were in college. It's statistically false. It's the entire basis of your argument, but again, nothing says it is true.

Passers in run-first teams usually have a worse receiving corp. They usually have an OL recruited to run well. And they usually pass more against good teams because they run it in garbage time. They also practice passing less.

That's four big reasons why it's not true. You can say "defenses prepare more or the pass," which is one reason. Why does your one reason outnumber my four? Where is the evidence? Outside of groupthink, is there anything which actually supports the conclusion that Luck is a better QB?

It's common sense. Throw the ball 10 times vs 100 times. I guarantee the player who through the ball 10 times is going to have a better completion percentage, less INTs, avg, etc. conversely the player with with the 100 attempts is going to have more yardage.

One fact remains, When defenses play the Colts... they're strategy is to stop the pass. When defenses play the Seahawks, their strategy is to stop the run. So, given that Luck is the sole focus of defenses... still puts the team on his back and wins games vs. a QB who gets great field position from his defense, a great running game which allows for favorable passing schemes... shows that Luck is the better QB. It's simple...

 

[flyerhawk]

There's plenty of evidence, but the tears of seahawk fans has clouded their vision.

I see the troll is back trying to start shit with Seahawks fans again.

Are you simply incapable of offering any substantive?

 

[Smart]

It's common sense. Throw the ball 10 times vs 100 times. I guarantee the player who through the ball 10 times is going to have a better completion percentage, less INTs, avg, etc. conversely the player with with the 100 attempts is going to have more yardage.

One fact remains, When defenses play the Colts... they're strategy is to stop the pass. When defenses play the Seahawks, their strategy is to stop the run. So, given that Luck is the sole focus of defenses... still puts the team on his back and wins games vs. a QB who gets great field position from his defense, a great running game which allows for favorable passing schemes... shows that Luck is the better QB. It's simple...

So wait, your argument is "numbers be damned, it's common sense" and "you gave four reasons why running offenses would lead to worse stats and one why it would lead to better stats...so to prove the one outweighs the four I will just repeat the one like you didn't understand that and ignore the four."

Of the league's top 10 passers by attempt, seven finished in the top third for YPA. The three QBs with the most passes were #2, #3, and #4 in completion percentage.

See...I don't care what your "common sense" says. I'm sure your "common sense" probably said Wilson was too short to ever start in the NFL. I care about what facts and evidence say. And the facts and evidence don't suggest this phenomenon exists, and certainly not to the point where it undoes Russ' significant statistical advantage.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

I see the troll is back trying to start shit with Seahawks fans again.

Are you simply incapable of offering any substantive?

Plenty of substance has been provided throughout the 15 pages of a thread proving the sad complex of Hawk fans. There's no reason for me to keep beating a dead horse. You see, I'm not trying to change the opinions of Seahawk fans, however, you guys' are so desperately trying to change the opinions of everyone else. Let bygones be bygones.....

 

[sonnyblack65]

Personally I think Luck has the most potential of any QB coming out of college I can remember. Big, strong, smart, mobile and not afraid to throw down shoulder into a defender and take a hit . Each season he is getting better and time will tell, but can't say that it's obvious that he is better than Wilson at this stage. Wilson was also a stud in college with NS State and would have shattered all of Rivers records if he didnt play his last year at Whisky were he had some 5 td performances. Again the stats put up Sunday vs the elite QB's he avg 3 tds and o int . Opps that was the D and Lynch my bad

Also I think the Colts, Denver, NE, Seattle, NO and GB fans wouldn't switch their QB's with any other one. Maybe Atlanta and SD too

 

[bigdaddytorr]

Take away the Wilson homer... take away the Luck homers... and the majority of football fans will say Luck is the better QB.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manning2Luck_uJelly
..... Seahawk fans are consumed with this massive inferiority complex.




I think you could easily make the argument that some Indy fans also have an inferiority complex since they can't handle any debate that dares to compare Wilson and Luck. They think the topic is so far skewed as to be ridiculous to even talk about. If Luck is sooo much better then why get worked up over the comparisons?

Inferiority complex??? Getting worked up??? This thread has proven which fanbase is getting worked up and showing their massive inferiority complex.

 

[SonnyCID]

And a majority of football fans are wrong. They lean on stupid nonexistent arguments like, more passes equals worse efficiency (can't back it up though), or Colts defense is horrible (9th in points in 13).

 

[flyerhawk]

It's common sense. Throw the ball 10 times vs 100 times. I guarantee the player who through the ball 10 times is going to have a better completion percentage, less INTs, avg, etc. conversely the player with with the 100 attempts is going to have more yardage.

This makes absolutely no sense. Using this logic, QBs will always start off with great numbers that will decline as the season goes on and they have more passes under their belt. Obviously the QB who throws the ball less will have fewer ints in total. But their interception rate is likely to remain the same.

One fact remains, When defenses play the Colts... they're strategy is to stop the pass. When defenses play the Seahawks, their strategy is to stop the run. So, given that Luck is the sole focus of defenses... still puts the team on his back and wins games vs. a QB who gets great field position from his defense, a great running game which allows for favorable passing schemes... shows that Luck is the better QB. It's simple...

You are cherry picking qualifiers. Let's factor in the quality of opponents both have played. The Colts have played in the soft chewy AFC South. IIRC, Luck has lost all of 2 times against the AFC South in his career. He has gone 11-2 against them in that time span.

Does ANYONE seriously believe that the Colts would have gone to the playoffs last year had they played in the NFC West?

This is the problem with using subjective qualifiers. You can argue almost anything when you do that.

 

[flyerhawk]

Take away the Wilson homer... take away the Luck homers... and the majority of football fans will say Luck is the better QB.

I would agree with this certainly. And when it is all said and done he likely will be the better QB.

But SO FAR that hasn't been the case.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

And a majority of football fans are wrong. They lean on stupid nonexistent arguments like, more passes equals worse efficiency (can't back it up though), or Colts defense is horrible (9th in points in 13).

Fans of 31 teams is wrong, and my fanbase is right!!1!!1!! lol

 

[SonnyCID]

Inferiority complex??? Getting worked up??? This thread has proven which fanbase is getting worked up and showing their massive inferiority complex.

You're a clown. You used to troll the ESPN boards too and tout Manning and Luck. You're just here calling out the fans instead of debating the topic because if you really get to the nitty gritty, Wilson has been a better NFL QB.

 

[Mondo Jay]

Luck is damn good but he has had a propensity for turnovers. Great young QB, but he probably gets more credit than he deserves. The Media seems to really love him.

I like Luck long-term over Wilson, but Wilson operates in a system that actually has a running game and isn't asked to do as much as Luck is game in and game out. Thanks to that Seattle D, Wilson almost never needs to engage in a shootout or a big comeback. He willed Seattle to victory in that OT drive using his legs and arm. Frustrating as a Denver fan to watch that, but that is what Elway used to do to teams on a regular basis.