Chris Harris said Wilson is better than Luck

[chf]

No, I get it. Luck makes some throws that simply boggle the mind. So you constantly think, 'wow, what could this guy become?' And that's definitely possible. He has the tools to become a great QB.


Wilson looks a bit funky out there. He does things differently, although he is very fundamentally sound also. So watching short stretches of action, Luck could be someone you'd predict would be better.


And TO REPEAT, you might be correct.


That's the fun of it, just like Manning/Brady, we'll be (barring injury) able for the next 12 seasons to sit back and watch the two careers unfold.


And again, all Wilson's INTANGIBLES are the things that I rate most highly about him. How the team responds to him, his leadership, his drive, his work ethic.


He's almost like some kind of cartoon character, with his stock answers, his upbeat attitude, his 'Go Hawks' at the end of every interview.


I don't have ANY problem with people saying that Luck will be better. What gets me is the 'there's no debate' type of lines.


And really that's all good too. Because that parrots what the larger narrative is out there, and that's a huge part of what drives Wilson to excel. Being told his whole life that he was too small to be a player.


Orton with legs.


That one was fvcking funny though.

 

[flyerhawk]

24 pages and counting....lol. This is sad!!

Maybe if you could start a thread about how black quarterbacks can't succeed in the NFL, that would be really interesting.

 

[flyerhawk]

I don't have ANY problem with people saying that Luck will be better. What gets me is the 'there's no debate' type of lines.

Yeah this sums it up for me. I think Luck is an excellent player who will likely turn into the a HoF player.

But the claims that Luck has be unquestionably better than Wilson so far are downright silly.

 

[cdumler7]

I only read about 10 pages of this, but I have to say this (if it hasent already been covered yet), i'm not sure Seattle wins a SB with Luck. Wilson runs for his life a lot and makes plays outside the pocket. The offensive line isn't that great. Would Luck have made most or even some of those plays along the line? Who knows, but I doubt it.

Bottom line is the offensive line isn't good enough to permit a pocket passer to be as successful as Wilson. For the Seahawks, I would choose Wilson. For some other teams, I could see myself choosing Luck.

I would have to say towards this that Luck has pretty much had to run for his life as well as he might have the worst OL in the NFL right now. He is a pocket passer but that doesn't mean he can't move around in the pocket and run. I mean he does average 5 rushing touchdowns a year. He is not a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady that if they have to run look like they are wearing lead shoes kind of thing. I think if Luck wanted he could be one of the best rushing quarterbacks in the NFL but he is smart enough to realize that probably isn't in the best interest for the team or for himself injury wise. This is one of the major differences between him and a guy like RGIII. He only runs when it is the last resort not the first or second. Wilson is the same way. He runs when he has to and just a couple of designed plays to keep teams guessing if he is going to run to set up the pass later but for the most part Wilson and Luck both look for the pass first.

I would pick Wilson over Luck on some things but his ability to scramble is not one of them. I would put them just about on even ground in that area.

 

[gowazzu02]

This is still going huh.

Let's put it this way. Luck is your prototype. If you give a GM an erector set and say build your perfect QB, they pop out Luck.

If He and RW continue their arch Luck theoretically has more upside because of his height.

But at this point in their careers 2 plus years in the league. RW has out produced Luck. plain and simple anything else is just noise.

 

[Desean12345]

This is still going huh.

Let's put it this way. Luck is your prototype. If you give a GM an erector set and say build your perfect QB, they pop out Luck.

If He and RW continue their arch Luck theoretically has more upside because of his height.

But at this point in their careers 2 plus years in the league. RW has out produced Luck. plain and simple anything else is just noise.

You can't really argue that point, but it has to put into context. Would Wilson have the same success with Luck's team? Would Luck win a super bowl with the Seattle Seahawks? It's a valid question.

 

[sonnyblack65]

Defense(in most cases) wins championships. Very few Qb's in the league can win in this league without. Manning and Rodgers have never had truly great defenses and both of them have super bowl rings. That's why they are the 2 best in the league. Brees won a a title with an average defense. All of Brady's titles came with elite defenses and. Is it a surprise that Brady has yet to win a super bowl without an elite defense?

Luck has been saddled with a poor running game and defense. I said it earlier but I see his career playing out a lot like Manning's. He will have the great receiving core in his career but he will never have a truly great team that he can rely on if he plays poorly. Brady always had that early in his career. Wilson has it now.

Again

Luck=Manning/rodgers

Wilson=Brady/Eli Manning

And if i am a Seahawks fan, I would be totally cool with that just like Patriots fans were. But don't say Wilson is better than Luck just because he is having more team success.

What a dumb analogy. Sure Seahawks would rather have Wilson in that category because Tom and Eli are multiple SB winners and not in the Peyton/Favre category. All the years and 1 SB win. What makes Tom and Wilson so good is the few turnovers in big games while Peyton makes turnovers galore. And Eli won because of defense, guy throws 27 picks a year. Aaron Rodgers is too early to tell but is great and doesnt make mistakes. Brady has thrown over 5000 yards and 50 tds 7 years ago, last year was Peytons first year

 

[BHF]

You can't really argue that point, but it has to put into context. Would Wilson have the same success with Luck's team? Would Luck win a super bowl with the Seattle Seahawks? It's a valid question.

Valid question. It's all hypothetical, of course, but I don't think the Hawks get HFA with Luck. The biggest difference between the two players, IMO, is that Wilson almost never makes a critical mistake. Don't get me wrong, Luck can sling it like a beast, but he's also had a track record of throwing some boneheaded picks that I think would cost Seattle a win or two in a brutal division.

 

[Desean12345]

What a dumb analogy. Sure Seahawks would rather have Wilson in that category because Tom and Eli are multiple SB winners and not in the Peyton/Favre category. All the years and 1 SB win. What makes Tom and Wilson so good is the few turnovers in big games while Peyton makes turnovers galore. And Eli won because of defense, guy throws 27 picks a year. Aaron Rodgers is too early to tell but is great and doesnt make mistakes. Brady has thrown over 5000 yards and 50 tds 7 years ago, last year was Peytons first year

Brady and Eli's teams are multiple super bowl champions. That's the whole point, there teams were the best. That's why Seahawks would want Wilson to be like those guys.

Peyton's turnover issues in big games are much overstated, as always as a way to prop up Brady and downgrade Manning. This article completely dissaproves that.

It was written before last years postseason so it is a little dated, but it still stands.

Peyton Manning?s 9-11 Playoff Record Is a Call for Help

In regards to Aaron Rodger's. He's never had the requesite help from the running game or defense in his whole career, especially the postseason, yet he has still won a Super Bowl. Right now it looks like he will be in the same boat as Peyton when it's all said and done, which is a shame because he's one of the best to ever play the position already in his career.

And finally, when i made those comments about Brady, i was referring to the Brady that was winning super bowls, not the one that was winning MVP's. The one that was winning MVP's and putting up huge stats is absolutely an elite quarterback, capable of caring a shitty team, like he did last year. The one that was leading a dynasty? He was a glorified game manager, albeit an all time great one. He was not the main reason why the Patriots were winning super bowls, and you of all people should know that.

 

[Desean12345]

Valid question. It's all hypothetical, of course, but I don't think the Hawks get HFA with Luck. The biggest difference between the two players, IMO, is that Wilson almost never makes a critical mistake. Don't get me wrong, Luck can sling it like a beast, but he's also had a track record of throwing some boneheaded picks that I think would cost Seattle a win or two in a brutal division.

And why is that? This is a bit extreme but Trent Dilfer and Eli Manning weren't turning it over much when they were winning super bowls? It's because they knew that could live to fight another down because they had beast running games and defenses to fall back on, even if they were having a poor day. His degree of difficulty is simply not as high as Luck's or Manning's or Rodger's. Same with Brady when he was winning super bowls.

I would love to see how Wilson would do on the Colts and how Luck would do on the Hawks. My guess is the results for both teams would be very similar.

Once again, this is the same argument I had with the numerous Manning and Brady debates. That same narrative applies here very well.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

And why is that? This is a bit extreme but Trent Dilfer and Eli Manning weren't turning it over much when they were winning super bowls? It's because they knew that could live to fight another down because they had beast running games and defenses to fall back on, even if they were having a poor day. His degree of difficulty is simply not as high as Luck's or Manning's or Rodger's. Same with Brady when he was winning super bowls.

I would love to see how Wilson would do on the Colts and how Luck would do on the Hawks. My guess is the results for both teams would be very similar.

Once again, this is the same argument I had with the numerous Manning and Brady debates. That same narrative applies here very well.

You know Seattle's defense and running game only became really good after Wilson took over. The year before he took over the Seahawks were 9th in total defense (not bad, but not world beaters) and 21st in rushing. Your idea that Wilson knew he could "fight another day" when he took over is incorrect because at the time he took over that definitely wasn't the case. You could make the argument that Wilson's ability to not turn over the ball and not make mistakes allowed the Seahawks to keep the ball longer on offense and that benefited the defense immensely. Also, it is probably not a coincidence that the Hawks rushing rank climbed upward from 21st before RW got to Seattle to one of the best in the league now. What Wilson does is throw accurate passes, especially deep ones and that keeps defenders off the line of scrimmage which allows Lynch more opportunities to break big runs. Lynch went from 3.5 and 4.2 yards per carry in 2010 and 2011 to 5.0 yards per carry when Wilson started. Wilson provides a threat to make clutch throws plus a threat to scramble for a big play as well. Its a difficult situation for a defense and Beast mode has definitely benefited as well.

Anyways, the point is that Wilson didn't have the advantage of relying on an elite running game because they didn't have one (21st) and he didn't have an all-pro defense when he first took over either (9th). Wilson made everyone better in my opinion. He leads on and off the field and the rest of the team feeds off that I think.

 

[Desean12345]

You know Seattle's defense and running game only became really good after Wilson took over. The year before he took over the Seahawks were 9th in total defense (not bad, but not world beaters) and 21st in rushing. Your idea that Wilson knew he could "fight another day" when he took over is incorrect because at the time he took over that definitely wasn't the case. You could make the argument that Wilson's ability to not turn over the ball and not make mistakes allowed the Seahawks to keep the ball longer on offense and that benefited the defense immensely. Also, it is probably not a coincidence that the Hawks rushing rank climbed upward from 21st before RW got to Seattle to one of the best in the league now. What Wilson does is throw accurate passes, especially deep ones and that keeps defenders off the line of scrimmage which allows Lynch more opportunities to break big runs. Lynch went from 3.5 and 4.2 yards per carry in 2010 and 2011 to 5.0 yards per carry when Wilson started. Wilson provides a threat to make clutch throws plus a threat to scramble for a big play as well. Its a difficult situation for a defense and Beast mode has definitely benefited as well.

Anyways, the point is that Wilson didn't have the advantage of relying on an elite running game because they didn't have one (21st) and he didn't have an all-pro defense when he first took over either (9th). Wilson made everyone better in my opinion. He leads on and off the field and the rest of the team feeds off that I think.

Marsawn was a beast before Wilson ever got there. Wilson didn't make Marshawn any better. Lynch's quarterback was Tarvaris jackson. Not hard to improve much on Tavaris Jackson. Wilson came into an average team with a proven coach who had already won at the collegiate level and won a postseason game already without Wilson.

Lynch regressed last year to 4.2 ypc carry from 5.0 the year before. Wilson was still the quarterback then? If Wilson was as valuable as you say, then why did Marshawn regress? Wilson's impact is a bit overstated to be perfectly honest.

 

[Desean12345]

Also, the Colts were 2-14 before Andrew Luck took over, a far cry from the 7-9 team with a good running back and defense that Wilson inherited.

That Colts team was 28th in the league on defense and 26th in the league in rushing offense. They were obviously much worse than the Seahawks.

 

[tzorn10]

I would have to say towards this that Luck has pretty much had to run for his life as well as he might have the worst OL in the NFL right now. He is a pocket passer but that doesn't mean he can't move around in the pocket and run. I mean he does average 5 rushing touchdowns a year. He is not a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady that if they have to run look like they are wearing lead shoes kind of thing. I think if Luck wanted he could be one of the best rushing quarterbacks in the NFL but he is smart enough to realize that probably isn't in the best interest for the team or for himself injury wise. This is one of the major differences between him and a guy like RGIII. He only runs when it is the last resort not the first or second. Wilson is the same way. He runs when he has to and just a couple of designed plays to keep teams guessing if he is going to run to set up the pass later but for the most part Wilson and Luck both look for the pass first.

I would pick Wilson over Luck on some things but his ability to scramble is not one of them. I would put them just about on even ground in that area.

2012-2013 (First 2 years for both QB's)

Luck - 632 rushing yards
Wilson - 1028 rushing yards

People stating they have comparable lines, this is why I would take Wilson. His ability to scramble is a definite point in my decision.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Marsawn was a beast before Wilson ever got there. Wilson didn't make Marshawn any better. Lynch's quarterback was Tarvaris jackson. Not hard to improve much on Tavaris Jackson. Wilson came into an average team with a proven coach who had already won at the collegiate level and won a postseason game already without Wilson.

Lynch regressed last year to 4.2 ypc carry from 5.0 the year before. Wilson was still the quarterback then? If Wilson was as valuable as you say, then why did Marshawn regress? Wilson's impact is a bit overstated to be perfectly honest.

Your point was that Seattle had some juggernaut defense and running game that Wilson could rely on to bail him out and I just showed you that was not the case. The defense was 9th and the running game (including Lynch) was 21st when Wilson became the starter. Lets be real, the reason Seattle jumped up so much in the rushing stats is because Wilson adds 500+ yards a season on top of Lynch's totals. Beast was always a tough runner but his best years were his last two. Coincidence that his best years are when Wilson showed up? Or is it because teams need to keep a spy on Wilson so it's one less man Lynch has to deal with? Wilson may be the best in the NFL at the fake and running the read option. It helps Lynch. It has too.

Is it also a coincidence that the year before Wilson became QB the Seahawks had the 28th ranked offense and only averaged 28:23 minutes on offense per game but the next year they jumped to 17th total offense and 31:50 time of possession? That's more than 3 minutes a game extra rest for the defense and in the NFL that's a massive advantage. So yes, I think Wilson's strong play, good decisions, strong leadership and accuracy all helped the Defense become better.

 

[gohusk]

Marsawn was a beast before Wilson ever got there. Wilson didn't make Marshawn any better. Lynch's quarterback was Tarvaris jackson. Not hard to improve much on Tavaris Jackson. Wilson came into an average team with a proven coach who had already won at the collegiate level and won a postseason game already without Wilson.

Lynch regressed last year to 4.2 ypc carry from 5.0 the year before. Wilson was still the quarterback then? If Wilson was as valuable as you say, then why did Marshawn regress? Wilson's impact is a bit overstated to be perfectly honest.

So TJax had a better running game for him, Wilson comes in and throws for 12 more TD's, rushes for 3 more TD's, puts up 20+ points more in passer rating, and his impact is a bit overstated? Why the hell do you think Lynch's numbers were down? Because of Wilson? It's because the line was a mess. Wilson was scrambling for his life at points and Lynch had to work as hard as ever to get yards because of problems with pass protection and run blocking. And the playoff game they won was with Hass who started off real hot. Hass wasn't the greatest QB in the world but he was very solid and he was on early to get the game out of reach for the Saints.

This is why these threads are stupid. You have a bunch of people who just follow box scores for a team telling the people who have been watching their games religiously what's going on.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Also, the Colts were 2-14 before Andrew Luck took over, a far cry from the 7-9 team with a good running back and defense that Wilson inherited.

That Colts team was 28th in the league on defense and 26th in the league in rushing offense. They were obviously much worse than the Seahawks.

Yes we all remember the " suck for Luck " campaign. They went to 2-14 with a team that won 12 games the year before. All they were missing was a decent QB. Seattle was 7-9 but they the year before that they went 5-11. Seattle was in worse shape than Indy. Plus, Wilson was thrown into the NFC which was a better conference, and the NFC west which was a tougher division than what Luck had to learn in.

Look, you like Luck and that's fine. I won't convince you otherwise. But if your arguments include things that don't add up then don't be surprised when Wilson fans call you out on them. Your main argument for Luck being better is to ignore all the stats because they favor Wilson and dismiss them based on your assertion that Wilson was thrown into a vastly superior team.

Even if I concede that the Hawks were better than the Colts it would only be slightly at the time. But also any advantage Wilson may have gained by having a slightly better (at the time) team would be offset by playing a way tougher slate of teams in his first two seasons compared to Luck.

 

[Desean12345]

Yes we all remember the " suck for Luck " campaign. They went to 2-14 with a team that won 12 games the year before. All they were missing was a decent QB. Seattle was 7-9 but they the year before that they went 5-11. Seattle was in worse shape than Indy. Plus, Wilson was thrown into the NFC which was a better conference, and the NFC west which was a tougher division than what Luck had to learn in.

Look, you like Luck and that's fine. I won't convince you otherwise. But if your arguments include things that don't add up then don't be surprised when Wilson fans call you out on them. Your main argument for Luck being better is to ignore all the stats because they favor Wilson and dismiss them based on your assertion that Wilson was thrown into a vastly superior team.

Even if I concede that the Hawks were better than the Colts it would only be slightly at the time. But also any advantage Wilson may have gained by having a slightly better (at the time) team would be offset by playing a way tougher slate of teams in his first two seasons compared to Luck.

The Colts were a horrible team. When you have a qb like Manning, he can cover up a lot of holes in your team. The Colts for years were an average team at best, those was put over the top by Manning.

At what point do you think the "Suck for Luck" campaign started? They lost their first 13 games of the year and actually won their only 2 games late in the season which completely contradicts the idea that they tanked. Unless you think they planned to suck from the first game of the year, onward, that theory holds zero validity.

The Seahawks were a better team then the Colts in every meaningful way. Both statistically and record wise.

How you can deny that is baffling?

 

[Desean12345]

And the Seahawks had 2 7-9 seasons in a row including a playoff victory before Wilson ever got there. Nothing special, but certainly not 2-14 Colts bad.

 

[Desean12345]

So TJax had a better running game for him, Wilson comes in and throws for 12 more TD's, rushes for 3 more TD's, puts up 20+ points more in passer rating, and his impact is a bit overstated? Why the hell do you think Lynch's numbers were down? Because of Wilson? It's because the line was a mess. Wilson was scrambling for his life at points and Lynch had to work as hard as ever to get yards because of problems with pass protection and run blocking. And the playoff game they won was with Hass who started off real hot. Hass wasn't the greatest QB in the world but he was very solid and he was on early to get the game out of reach for the Saints.

This is why these threads are stupid. You have a bunch of people who just follow box scores for a team telling the people who have been watching their games religiously what's going on.

Im saying with Tarvaris Jackson and Matt Hasselbeck, the Seahawks went 7-9 and won a playoff game without Wilson. Since Wilson is far superior to either of those qb's, it stands to reason that they would improve even more that. The Colts were a terrible 2-14 team. The whole "suck for luck" thing started because they were so bad in the first place. Luck as a rookie turns that team into an 11 team with no running game, no defense, and a rookie coach at any level.

The situations are not comparable at all.