Chris Harris said Wilson is better than Luck

[flyerhawk]

I just looked it up and his injury was when he was with the Raiders and he had hurt his elbow. My bad. I do get that he was expected to be the starter but like I said it is pretty darn obvious now to everybody in the league he is not a quality starter. Wilson obviously is so I don't think it would have been that hard of a decision to put Wilson as the starter. From what I understand Flynn just looked pretty pathetic. It is not like they were looking at 2 very good quarterbacks and having to pick between them. The money thing is the only reason that Flynn even stayed in the race.

Can you think of a 3rd round or later drafted QB that was handed the starting QB position due to performance other than Russell Wilson?

It's easy to look back and say that Wilson was clearly better but a 3rd rounder winning the job over both the incumbent QB AND a guy they just spent a bunch of cash to bring in, is fairly unique.

I can tell you that over at KFFL BSUHawk, myself, and a bunch of others were in some pretty heated debates about who should start that year.

As for the Suck for Luck, I reject the premise out of hand. The Colts got lucky that they were so ill prepared for a Manning injury at the same time that a once in a generation QB was available. Given that the coach and front office all lost their jobs, I have a hard time believing that they were in favor of tanking.

 

[cdumler7]

Again I am saying Wilson is a big part of the team's success. Creating a Super Bowl winning team though takes more than a quarterback. I'm just giving credit to the whole team not just one player. Wilson is great and for the sake of this discussion deserves to be in the talk of the best quarterback of that great draft class. Heck so far obviously he has accomplished more than any of the others by a long shot. I agree that in the playoffs there are not that many quarterbacks that could have made that comeback like he did. It is why he is a big piece of the team's success. I think they are still a successful team without him though because of the talent especially on the defensive side of the ball. Yes Wilson helps them out but that type of defense also takes a lot of pressure off a quarterback to always have to go out and win games. Guys like Romo can still lose games even after putting up over 40 points in a game. There is more pressure to force things in games than that of Wilson. This goes the same for Luck in he is being asked to do a lot more for the team to be successful. Just look at the 2nd game of the season. Seattle has not won a game in I cannot remember how long where another team scored over 27 points yet Seattle was able to win. Wilson can know going into a game that his defense though is going to hold almost every team below that mark. Luck does not have that luxury as he put up 27 points in the 2nd game of the season yet his team lost. Heck right now in the losses the defense is giving up 30.5 points. That is a lot to overcome.

 

[cdumler7]

Can you think of a 3rd round or later drafted QB that was handed the starting QB position due to performance other than Russell Wilson?

It's easy to look back and say that Wilson was clearly better but a 3rd rounder winning the job over both the incumbent QB AND a guy they just spent a bunch of cash to bring in, is fairly unique.

I can tell you that over at KFFL BSUHawk, myself, and a bunch of others were in some pretty heated debates about who should start that year.

As for the Suck for Luck, I reject the premise out of hand. The Colts got lucky that they were so ill prepared for a Manning injury at the same time that a once in a generation QB was available. Given that the coach and front office all lost their jobs, I have a hard time believing that they were in favor of tanking.

I'm not saying it was an easy decision. My guess is on the inside of the organization though it was very clear who the winner was. You don't usually just hand the reigns to the organization to a rookie 3rd round pick unless they made it clear they are the better quarterback. Like I said Flynn has proven now that he is nothing but a career back up. My guess is in those practices the coaches and other players realized this pretty darn quick. Then Wilson being the special player he is makes that an easy decision. So yes it was a competition but my guess is in the end it was a pretty easy decision for the coaches. Again no team makes that kind of move if it is a tough choice. You go with the seasoned veteran in a close race.

 

[Desean12345]

Im not saying Wilson isn't a good quarterback who will be great. I keep coming back to that Brady analogy because it seems to fit perfectly.

 

[flyerhawk]

All fair points, CD.

I will say two things in response.

1. Football is a team game but the QB often dictates the flow on the field. Throwing early picks is just as bad as throwing late picks. Forcing plays and trying to be the hero can also be a problem. I think that Luck has had hero syndrome in more than a few games I've watched. He's a tremendous player and sometimes he is the hero but sometimes he creates the problem.

2. I remember people that used to talk about Ken Dryden of the Montreal Canadiens. The Canadiens back then were the best team in the world. Simply amazing. They would dominate games. And Ken Dryden would go through longs spells in which he wouldn't see a shot. But every once in a while he would challenged to do something great. And he would almost always be there for those moments. It takes tremendous discipline to stay focused even when you aren't asked to do much.

Russell Wilson's numbers when the Seahawks are behind are staggeringly good especially when down by more than one score. It doesn't happen often, I think only about 6 times in his pro career. but those are the crunch times. Tearing up a team when you are winning by 2 scores or more doesn't mean much to me.

Now to be clear I'm not suggesting that Luck can't do that. I'm simply saying that their situations make it difficult direct comparisons difficult.

 

[flyerhawk]

I'm not saying it was an easy decision. My guess is on the inside of the organization though it was very clear who the winner was. You don't usually just hand the reigns to the organization to a rookie 3rd round pick unless they made it clear they are the better quarterback. Like I said Flynn has proven now that he is nothing but a career back up. My guess is in those practices the coaches and other players realized this pretty darn quick. Then Wilson being the special player he is makes that an easy decision. So yes it was a competition but my guess is in the end it was a pretty easy decision for the coaches. Again no team makes that kind of move if it is a tough choice. You go with the seasoned veteran in a close race.

I agree that it was an easy decision from a pure football perspective. When Wilson was at rookie camp, he was blowing people away with just about everything he did. A bunch of the football nerds like us took notice. And then Carroll said, before camp, that it would be a 3 way competition with equal snaps to everyone.

But to be honest, I think that Pete Carroll made the gutsiest decision of his pro coaching career by starting Wilson and it has changed everything for Seattle and Carroll. IF Wilson flopped, Carroll was almost certainly gone whereas sticking with Flynn would have given him at least another year or two.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

Can you think of a 3rd round or later drafted QB that was handed the starting QB position due to performance other than Russell Wilson?

It's easy to look back and say that Wilson was clearly better but a 3rd rounder winning the job over both the incumbent QB AND a guy they just spent a bunch of cash to bring in, is fairly unique.

I can tell you that over at KFFL BSUHawk, myself, and a bunch of others were in some pretty heated debates about who should start that year.

As for the Suck for Luck, I reject the premise out of hand. The Colts got lucky that they were so ill prepared for a Manning injury at the same time that a once in a generation QB was available. Given that the coach and front office all lost their jobs, I have a hard time believing that they were in favor of tanking.

Guilty. I wanted Flynn after the STL game that year.

 

[tzorn10]

I hated Wilson when we drafted him and thought it was a terrible move to start him, but then again, I hated Pete Carroll too. Still lukewarm about Carroll, but he did bring Seattle a superbowl.

 

[jakedog56]

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.

The Colts tanked to get Luck.

 

[Bradyjustwins]

The Colts weren't overly talented but they started Curtis Painter most of the year when they had a proven vet like Collins on the bench. They start Collins they win 4-5 games and don't get Luck.

So was it a full tank job like some say? No. But they damn sure were fine starting a QB who had no business being anyone's #2 QB let alone a starter.

 

[Bradyjustwins]

Oh and I'm not knocking them for it. If my favorite team ended up in that spot I am fine with starting a bum at QB to get a franchise caliber QB in the next draft.

 

[Southieinnc]

Does it matter? Universally, no matter what message board or comments section i read, the overall jist I get is that Colts fans couldn't care less and Seahawk fans are consumed with this massive inferiority complex....maybe it's because we're just used to greatness at the QB position.[/QUOTE]

Unless it's the playoffs?

 

[flyerhawk]

I hated Pete Carroll too. Still lukewarm about Carroll, but he did bring Seattle a superbowl.

Wow. You are tough.

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

The Colts tanked to get Luck.

So the people responsible for "tanking" all lost their jobs including an almost 70% turnover in player personnel. Yeah, let's tank so we lose our job said no one ever....lol

Fact is Manning carried a garbage team his entire career and Luck is doing the same thing.

 

[BoBlake]

Those units benefit from Wilson as much as he benefits from them. He keeps defenses honest by challenging them down field. Keeps the defense off the field by engineering long drive that end in TDs, and he doesn't give them a short field. This guy is the straw that stirs the drink. For as good as that defense is, I wouldn't pencil them in for being the force they have been without him playing point on the other side. I certainly wouldn't pencil them in for a SB.

Don't forget about Jon Ryan. He had a 60+ yard punt against Denver. He has a lot of do with the success of Seattle's defense too.

 

[flyerhawk]

So the people responsible for "tanking" all lost their jobs including an almost 70% turnover in player personnel. Yeah, let's tank so we lose our job said no one ever....lol

Fact is Manning carried a garbage team his entire career and Luck is doing the same thing.

Football is a team game. Except in Indy where Superman shows up and single handedly wins the game.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

If you have to add a "but" to prove Luck is better I think that says a lot.


As in: "Yes Luck was 26th in YPA, Yes Luck was 24th in Completion %, Yes Luck was 18th in passer rating, Yes Luck throws more interceptions and less TD's than Wilson, BUT......"

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

Football is a team game. Except in Indy where Superman shows up and single handedly wins the game.

2-14

 

[Manning2Luck_uJelly]

If you have to add a "but" to prove Luck is better I think that says a lot.


As in: "Yes Luck was 26th in YPA, Yes Luck was 24th in Completion %, Yes Luck was 18th in passer rating, Yes Luck throws more interceptions and less TD's than Wilson, BUT......"

Luck>>>>Wilson....get over it already

 

[flyerhawk]

2-14

You just said that the team had a 70% turnover in personnel plus a new coaching plus a new front office. Yet you still want to claim that the team was a 2-14 caliber team without Luck.