Chris Harris said Wilson is better than Luck

[Cyder]

Calling YPA, passer rating, TD-Int %, among others, a function of the team is a major stretch.

And while Wilson's defense and run game is better, it's not like he's been throwing to better receivers.

All true but Wilson has generallty had more time. Personally, and I'm going on eye test, I would prefer to have Luck on my team. That being said I love Wilson. The idea he's some kind of "game manager" is ridiculous. His decision making is excellent, he's clutch, he can use his legs but avoids major hits (Unless it's absolutely necessary to make the play) and shows incredible poise for a guy his age.

 

[Bradyjustwins]

Calling YPA, passer rating, TD-Int %, among others, a function of the team is a major stretch.

And while Wilson's defense and run game is better, it's not like he's been throwing to better receivers.

And on a side note. He is giving Brady's weapons too much credit. Pats had defense and coaching but his best WR pre-Moss Era was Dieon Branch or maybe an aging Troy Brown.

Manning and Luck had more passing weapons than Brady and Wilson so far.

 

[Desean12345]

Calling YPA, passer rating, TD-Int %, among others, a function of the team is a major stretch.

And while Wilson's defense and run game is better, it's not like he's been throwing to better receivers.

Unless you have a qb like Manning, Brees, Rodgers or Tom Brady nowadays, those things are directly tied to the team around you.

As a rookie Luck had a better receiving core. Last year? It was closer than you think. Hilton was his best receiver. Is he that much better than Tate was last year or even Doug Baldwin?

This year, I would say a healthy Percy Harvin is better than any offensive player on the Colts besides Luck.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

All true but Wilson has generallty had more time. Personally, and I'm going on eye test, I would prefer to have Luck on my team. That being said I love Wilson. The idea he's some kind of "game manager" is ridiculous. His decision making is excellent, he's clutch, he can use his legs but avoids major hits (Unless it's absolutely necessary to make the play) and shows incredible poise for a guy his age.

Nothing wrong with that. Luck is a phenomenal talent.

FWIW, Wilson was the 2nd most pressured QB in the NFL last year behind Keenum. Our offensive line was pretty terrible last year.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

Unless you have a qb like Manning, Brees, Rodgers or Tom Brady nowadays, those things are directly tied to the team around you.

As a rookie Luck had a better receiving core. Last year? It was closer than you think. Hilton was his best receiver. Is he that much better than Tate was last year or even Doug Baldwin?

This year, I would say a healthy Percy Harvin is better than any offensive player on the Colts besides Luck.

Right, I agree, but he hasn't had Harvin until this year.

I'd say last year was a push.

 

[Cyder]

Nothing wrong with that. Luck is a phenomenal talent.

FWIW, Wilson was the 2nd most pressured QB in the NFL last year behind Keenum. Our offensive line was pretty terrible last year.

Considering what I've dealt with in NY the last few years I'd drive to Indy or Seattle in a Uhaul, pack up either one of their houses and personally drive them to NY. Have to admit though I love the whole 3rd round pick, he's too small, Wilson story and love watching him stick it to his detractors.

 

[Desean12345]

And on a side note. He is giving Brady's weapons too much credit. Pats had defense and coaching but his best WR pre-Moss Era was Dieon Branch or maybe an aging Troy Brown.

Manning and Luck had more passing weapons than Brady and Wilson so far.

I've acknowledged than Manning has better receiving talent overall, although players like Dallas Clark and Brandon Stokley were entirely Manning products. But what's more important, having a great defense and running game, or great recievers? It's a lot easier to win titles with a great running game and defense and average receivers than it is to win with great receivers and average running game/defense. That's been proven time and again. It's why the Seahawks killed the Broncos last year. It's why the Ravens won a super bowl with Trent Dilfer as the starting quarterback. It's why Tom Brady won 3 super bowls with average recievers.

 

[Desean12345]

Right, I agree, but he hasn't had Harvin until this year.

I'd say last year was a push.

It's why i gave Luck the edge in terms of having better playmakers at the wideout position. But it wasn't a big enough edge to close the enormous gap between Luck's running game/defense and Wilson's.

 

[Smart]

Indy's bails on the run game because they don't have one. Luck doesn't have a top 5 running back to hand the ball to. Luck is the only weapon they have on offense. Why not use that weapon to it's fullest?

And having a great defense has a huge influence on the offense. Wilson knows that he doesn't have to make many plays. He doesn't have to force anything because he has a great running game and defense that he can always rely upon to keep the game close. Luck has more turnovers because he is asked to do much more and knows that he doesn't have a great defense or running game to help him.

Again, this is statistically false. Look at how far they throw the ball. I already have gone over how Wilson throws the ball 20+ yards twice as much as Luck (16% to 8%). He throws more passes 10-20 yards as well. Luck is the dink and duck game manager. Wilson is the guy who was #4 in YPA last year. Wilson is the big play guy.

Wilson is asked to make more big plays, and he does. The reason Wilson has made fewer turnovers over the two-plus years is simply because he is more accurate. That's what all the facts suggest, and if you took two seconds to look at statistics, or god forbid, watch the game, you would see that.

 

[Smart]

It's why i gave Luck the edge in terms of having better playmakers at the wideout position. But it wasn't a big enough edge to close the enormous gap between Luck's running game/defense and Wilson's.

So, where is the proof of this positive correlation between defensive stats and QB stats? I've been asking for 19 hours, giving reasons why it isn't there, showing stats that suggest it isn't there. Nobody has given me anything. Go ahead. If this gap is so big that it makes the 15th best statistical QB better than the 5th best statistical QB, it should be simple to prove.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

It's why i gave Luck the edge in terms of having better playmakers at the wideout position. But it wasn't a big enough edge to close the enormous gap between Luck's running game/defense and Wilson's.

Having a great defense doesn't mean it's easier to pass, it just means he'll be passing less.

When he does throw, it's generally higher risk throws downfield.

 

[Desean12345]

Again, this is statistically false. Look at how far they throw the ball. I already have gone over how Wilson throws the ball 20+ yards twice as much as Luck (16% to 8%). He throws more passes 10-20 yards as well. Luck is the dink and duck game manager. Wilson is the guy who was #4 in YPA last year. Wilson is the big play guy.

Wilson is asked to make more big plays, and he does. The reason Wilson has made fewer turnovers over the two-plus years is simply because he is more accurate. That's what all the facts suggest, and if you took two seconds to look at statistics, or god forbid, watch the game, you would see that.

When teams play the Seahawks, they generally have 7-8 guys in the box at all times to stop the run. That opens the door for Wilson to complete long passes on play action and so forth. We have seen this over and over again.

When teams play the Colts they always have extra players to help against the passing game, knowing they don't have to worry about the shitty running game. this means the windows and areas to throw the ball, are not as easily accessible. He can't go bombs away down the field with that many defenders in pass coverage. This often leads to him opting for short completions. This also leads to him trying to force throws down the field in order to make big plays knowing his defense and running game probably won't help, thus the extra turnovers.

Very few Qb's are able to throw the ball as much as Luck does with as little help as he has and still be highly efficient and not turn it over. Manning, Rodgers and Brady are really the only one's who can. It's why Luck isn't an elite QB like them yet, although he's well on his way.

 

[Desean12345]

Having a great defense doesn't mean it's easier to pass, it just means he'll be passing less.

When he does throw, it's generally higher risk throws downfield.

But having a great defense is always in the back of Wilson's mind. He knows that he doesn't have to force anything knowing that his defense and running game will almost always step up to the plate.

Those throws down the field are not as high risk as you think, considering there is not as many defenders in pass coverage when teams play the Seahawks.

 

[flyerhawk]

It's why i gave Luck the edge in terms of having better playmakers at the wideout position. But it wasn't a big enough edge to close the enormous gap between Luck's running game/defense and Wilson's.

Let me start off by saying you made a number of good posts already and this is more a summary response of several of your posts and a few other people.

There is no question that the Seahawk defense is vastly better than the Colts defense. No question that the running game is significantly better as well*. Those are tremendous advantages for the Seahawks.

But we are also not looking at equal results. The Colts were 11-5 while playing in what everyone agreed was the worst division in football(The Colts got the only 2 wins from that division against the NFC West) and had modest success in the playoffs. The Seahawks had the best record in the NFL playing in historically one of the 2 or 3 hardest divisions in the history of the NFL and won the Super Bowl.

So while the Seahawks clearly had more talent, they also did a lot more with it.

This is why I do think it is difficult to argue that, based on their play so far, you could argue that Luck has been better to date. Now again, it is perfectly fine to argue that he will be the better QB when it is all said and done after their careers are over. But SO FAR, the evidence doesn't really support the claim.


* From a purely statistical standpoint the Colts running game wasn't nearly as bad as people claim last year at least compared to Seattle. If we take out Wilson and Luck's running yard the Colts had 1366 yards and a 3.9 ypc. The Seahawks had 1649 for 4.0 ypc. Given how much more Seattle chose to run the ball it really isn't the massive gap that people think. Wilson's 539 rushing were a pretty big part of their rushing totals.

 

[flyerhawk]

But having a great defense is always in the back of Wilson's mind. He knows that he doesn't have to force anything knowing that his defense and running game will almost always step up to the plate.

Those throws down the field are not as high risk as you think, considering there is not as many defenders in pass coverage when teams play the Seahawks.

That really isn't how Seattle plays. One of the reasons why Wilson's numbers are relatively low in the aggregate is that one Seattle gets a 2 score or more lead they play VERY conservative. Eat the clock. Very slow tempo.

Last Sunday is a perfect example. Seattle gets a 2 score lead and they go into a shell. In this case, Wilson did wind up making a bad throw that led to a pick that got them back into it. Even then they were still being very conservative. Once they got the ball in overtime, their tempo immediately picked up and he marched down the field to score.

One thing that many people don't realize is that Carroll firmly believes that the longer his offense is on the field, the less his defense is. He doesn't care how many plays are run. He cares about possession. That is his philosophy and it would be the same even if he had Manning as his QB.

 

[Desean12345]

Let me start off by saying you made a number of good posts already and this is more a summary response of several of your posts and a few other people.

There is no question that the Seahawk defense is vastly better than the Colts defense. No question that the running game is significantly better as well*. Those are tremendous advantages for the Seahawks.

But we are also not looking at equal results. The Colts were 11-5 while playing in what everyone agreed was the worst division in football(The Colts got the only 2 wins from that division against the NFC West) and had modest success in the playoffs. The Seahawks had the best record in the NFL playing in historically one of the 2 or 3 hardest divisions in the history of the NFL and won the Super Bowl.

So while the Seahawks clearly had more talent, they also did a lot more with it.

This is why I do think it is difficult to argue that, based on their play so far, you could argue that Luck has been better to date. Now again, it is perfectly fine to argue that he will be the better QB when it is all said and done after their careers are over. But SO FAR, the evidence doesn't really support the claim.


* From a purely statistical standpoint the Colts running game wasn't nearly as bad as people claim last year at least compared to Seattle. If we take out Wilson and Luck's running yard the Colts had 1366 yards and a 3.9 ypc. The Seahawks had 1649 for 4.0 ypc. Given how much more Seattle chose to run the ball it really isn't the massive gap that people think. Wilson's 539 rushing were a pretty big part of their rushing totals.

True, Luck played in a worse division and thus didn't play as tough a schedule as the Seahawks. But again, it's widely acknowledged that the Seahawks are the best team in the league. Even though they played in a much tougher division they were still superior to everyone who they went up against. the Colts while they played in a worse division simply weren't a good team regardless of who they played. they just happpened to play more teams that were worse than they were.

in regard to running game it basically comes down to Marshawn or Trent Richardson/Donald Brown?

And if your going to count Russell contribution to the run game, you have to count Luck's. He rushed for almost 400 yd's on 6 ypc with 4 td's.

 

[Desean12345]

That really isn't how Seattle plays. One of the reasons why Wilson's numbers are relatively low in the aggregate is that one Seattle gets a 2 score or more lead they play VERY conservative. Eat the clock. Very slow tempo.

Last Sunday is a perfect example. Seattle gets a 2 score lead and they go into a shell. In this case, Wilson did wind up making a bad throw that led to a pick that got them back into it. Even then they were still being very conservative. Once they got the ball in overtime, their tempo immediately picked up and he marched down the field to score.

One thing that many people don't realize is that Carroll firmly believes that the longer his offense is on the field, the less his defense is. He doesn't care how many plays are run. He cares about possession. That is his philosophy and it would be the same even if he had Manning as his QB.

I gotta disagree with that point. You say that, but that's because Carroll has never had a qb as good as Manning. John Fox had the same philosophy with Delhomme in Carolina and Tebow in Denver. What happened once he got Peyton? Everything changed. They became a quick strike, high powered, finesse passing offense. To think Carroll wouldn't change his philosophy if he got a quarterback like Manning instead of Wilson is a little weird to me.

 

[flyerhawk]

Fair enough. My statement was a little over the top there. Yes he would change but not to the extent of the Broncos, imo

 

[Oldschool739]

OH god here we go..... All over ESPN and the Luck lovers are insulted... Again Wilson can't be as good he's only 5.11 and has a better defense...

I think most people would say that Luck is a better over all qb than Wilson, but Wilson is on a far better team and he has the ring, so I can see the argument....

 

[Bradyjustwins]

I've acknowledged than Manning has better receiving talent overall, although players like Dallas Clark and Brandon Stokley were entirely Manning products. But what's more important, having a great defense and running game, or great recievers? It's a lot easier to win titles with a great running game and defense and average receivers than it is to win with great receivers and average running game/defense. That's been proven time and again. It's why the Seahawks killed the Broncos last year. It's why the Ravens won a super bowl with Trent Dilfer as the starting quarterback. It's why Tom Brady won 3 super bowls with average recievers.

I mostly agree but when the argument is basically Manning is better because he puts up better numbers. Who each QB is throwing to matters greatly.

Same can be said for the Luck vs Wilson debate. If someone is saying Wilson is better because he won a SB then his D and running games mattered.