Chris Harris said Wilson is better than Luck

[SonnyCID]

This is my point exactly. It doesn't bother me that you guys think your team is good. It bothers me and a lot of other people that a lot of the fans (notice how I didn't say all) seem to get off on rubbing it into everyone's faces at how good they think their team is. I can see you guys talking about your team in the Seattle section and I can see you guys talking about your team in a general football thread. But I see a lot of Seahawks fans starting random threads (not necessarily on this forum) just to brag about how good the team is. And I say brag because it seems when someone comes in with a different opinion the Seahawks fans start saying that the other team has no shot, the Seahawks will kill them, the stadium is louder than any other, they are the best and etc....I just don't get it. There is a difference between thinking your team is good and throwing it in everyone's faces and there seems to be a lot of that going on.

Oh, I heard you the first time. Just dont know what to tell ya...

Sorry?

 

[PackManDan]

Not looking for you to tell me anything. I guess a lot of the Seahawks fans don't care how arrogant they come off as. That's okay, but in my opinion it pays to be humble.

 

[BoBlake]

Not looking for you to tell me anything. I guess a lot of the Seahawks fans don't care how arrogant they come off as. That's okay, but in my opinion it pays to be humble.

I'm pretty sure arrogant/angry is the universally accepted default "voice" of anything typed on a message board.

Maybe the problem lies with you and assumptions you're bringing with you into the discussion.

 

[bksballer89]

I don't get why certain Seahawks fans get so offended when other fans say they would take Luck over Wilson.

 

[SonnyCID]

I don't get why certain Seahawks fans get so offended when other fans say they would take Luck over Wilson.

I dont see why you think someone is taking offense by stating an opinion and debating it on a message board.

Probably because boblake is right.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

And after all is said and done, if Luck has no ring and Wilson has 1, what would you say?

Results are what matter and to this point Wilson has better results.

"It's not close" is a joke of an argument.

Ooops, maybe you missed it when I said "in my opinion".

Nice debate, but you didn't change my opinion. I'll take Luck, and it's not even close.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

I don't get why certain Seahawks fans get so offended when other fans say they would take Luck over Wilson.

It's the most sensitive fan base I have ever encountered.

 

[bksballer89]

I dont see why you think someone is taking offense by stating an opinion and debating it on a message board.

Probably because boblake is right.

It is my opinion. You can't really debate someone's opinion.

There's nothing Wilson can do or you can say to make me change my opinion.....

 

[bksballer89]

It's the most sensitive fan base I have ever encountered.

BY FAR. Not even close.

 

[BoBlake]

It is my opinion. You can't really debate someone's opinion.

Wait...what?

Of course you can debate someone's opinion, specifically the reasons that a person holds that opinion.

 

[BoBlake]

It's the most sensitive fan base I have ever encountered.

Poor baby....sorry you have to endure so much.

 

[Podunkparte]

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's unable to be argued against. And they call us arrogant...

 

[PackManDan]

I'm pretty sure arrogant/angry is the universally accepted default "voice" of anything typed on a message board.

Maybe the problem lies with you and assumptions you're bringing with you into the discussion.

There are no assumptions. I have seen it with my own eyes. Seahawks fans (like I said, not just on this site) starting threads not to talk about football in general but just to brag about how good the Seahawks are and how they dominate other teams and how their fans are the best and their stadium is the loudest and how they are probably going to win the Superbowl again. These are all things I've seen with my own eyes and words I have seen typed out so there are no assumptions.

I don't understand what the point is of them doing that. Like I said, they aren't in a Seahawks forum talking about it, and they aren't in a general forum talking about general topics. They post in the general forum and brag about how good their team is and when someone else comes in and says something the personal attacks start with "our team could whoop on yours, our team won the Super Bowl, our fans are the loudest, our stadium is the most intimidating to play in".

I don't know. I've said what I need to say. I'm out.

 

[PackManDan]

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's unable to be argued against. And they call us arrogant...

I agree with you. You can absolutely argue against an opinion. But in this case it isn't opinion, it is fact. And you can't argue over fact. Read the post of mine directly above and everything I say that I have seen is fact. It isn't opinion. But like I said above, I'm out.

 

[SonnyCID]

It is my opinion. You can't really debate someone's opinion.

There's nothing Wilson can do or you can say to make me change my opinion.....

I agree. For some reason opinions that favor your team are considered offensive to the same posters on this board over and over again. Our team is good, we have good players, plenty to debate, get the fuck over it.

I thought that's what sports boards are for. Or are they just for posting your opinion, reading others, and responding if you agree?

 

[SonnyCID]

I agree with you. You can absolutely argue against an opinion. But in this case it isn't opinion, it is fact. And you can't argue over fact. Read the post of mine directly above and everything I say that I have seen is fact. It isn't opinion. But like I said above, I'm out.

Bye.

 

[SonnyCID]

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's unable to be argued against. And they call us arrogant...

Nope.... Can't debate opinions and they dont change! smh

 

[bksballer89]

If Wilson played for SF and had 1 title, I'm almost sure every Seahawks fan would take Luck over Wilson.

Football is a team sport so Luck having 1 less title than Wilson doesn't mean shit. You need an all around great team to win championships. Wilson didn't have great numbers in any of the 3 playoffs games last year and actually against the Saints he played like shit but because Seattle has a complete team they were able to win the title.

Manning only has 1 title and everyone would agree that he is better than Eli, Big Ben, & Aikman who all has more titles than Peyton.

 

[Smart]

Here's some facts for you:

- Russell Wilson has a QB Rating of 196.9. The all-time record for a single season is 186.0, set by Colt Brennan at Hawaii. The last five Heisman winning QBs have had ratings of 182 (Newton), 180.8 (Bradford), 172.5 (Tebow), 161.9 (Smith), and 156.7 (Leinart). Andrew Luck is at 179.6.

- Russell has a completion percentage of 71.3%. The previous Heisman Winners have completed 66.1% (Newton), 67.9% (Bradford), 66.9% (Tebow), 65.3 (Smith), and 65.3 (Leinart). Andrew Luck is at 71.9%.

- Before you go saying that Wilson's completion percentage must be due to short passes, Russell Wilson has 11.23 yards per attempt. The all-time record is 11.1 for Ty Detmer. The last five Heisman winners have had 10.2 (Newton), 9.8 (Bradford), 9.4 (Tebow), 8.2 (Smith), and 8.0 (Leinart). Luck has 9.2, showing that he, not Russell has the inflated completion percentage due to short passes.

I could keep going on with statistics, but you get the point. He beats Luck in TDs per attampt and is tied in INTs per attempt. They both lead comparable offenses statistically (Stanford has 15 more YPG, but plays in a conference that gives them more plays. Stanford has 35 more points, but 22 of those came in overtime, and you also have the play differential). Russell is statistically better than Luck and the last five Heisman Winners.

The response to this will probably be that statistics don't define everything. OK, let's look at some other factors:

- Competition Level: While it hasn't been elite, it has been about the same as Luck's. Plus, when the competition level has gone up, Russell has been statistically better than Luck. In his big three games, Russell had ratings of 210.1 against Nebraska (the highest against them all season), 168.2 against Michigan State (highest as well), and 159.8 against Ohio State (2nd highest behind Martinez, who was 6 points higher at home v. Russell on the road). This averages out to 176.0 in his big games. Luck's two big games have been Washington and USC. Luck had a 175 QB Rating against Washington (the best) and a 161 against USC (2nd best, behind Nic Foles). Andrew Luck has a 166 rating in hiis two big games, against defenses ranked lower than three Russell played. In other words, Russell has looked better against better teams.

- The Clutch Factor: I'm sure the ESPN "experts" would say that Luck is better because he leads his team to wins in a clutch way. This is absolute bull shit. The past two weeks Russell has been involved in three "must score quickly" drives. The results: 9-10, 161 Yards, 3 TDs, 324 passer rating. Luck's only close game this year saw him throw a pick six to give his opponents the lead. He then failed to get a fourth down only to see the drive extended by a terrible penalty. This really isn't close: Russell has been more clutch than Luck. For people that want to make the "Luck is undefeated" argument, 1. Let's see what happens against Oregon, 2. We all know that the refs won Stanford that game not Andrew, and 3. How is Russell to blame for our losses?

- The Supporting Cast: This is more subjective than anything else, but (unfortunately), Luck has the better supporting cast. His O-Line has given up less sacks and looks to be better, the running games appear to be comparable, and Luck appears to have better receivers (at least since the Toon injury). Russell's maneuvering also gives his supporting cast more time to get open downfield than Luck (hence, more YPA).

- The Raw Numbers: The last defense made by Luck supporters will be that his raw numbers are better, so he deserves the award. This one can be dismissed easily: Counting rushing and receiving yards, Russell Wilson has 2258 yards. Andrew Luck has 2,350. That's right, folks. Andrew Luck has less than 100 total yards more. I don't think anybody can make a plausible argument that is enought to offset the difference in efficiency.

Simply put, there is no plausible argument for Luck over Wilson. Case Keenum at least has a case. No other quarterback is even close. It's tough to compare apples to oranges, but I think Russell has been better than Richardson (and will probably make that argument at some point).

Russell Wilson had a 163.2 passer rating in his two close games. Andrew Luck had a 161 in his close game. Wilson faced the #7 and #17 ranked scoring defenses. Luck faced the #41 ranked scoring defense (this is inflated because of overtime, but so is Luck's QB Rating, so they even out). The "unclutch" Wilson scored 14 fourth quarter points to lead his team back from 14 andd 10 point defecits. Luck was outscored in the fourth 14-10. Seven of his points were from a bad call. Seven of his opponents points were from a pick six.

If this sounds one-sided, it is because it is.

If you want to talk about reaching, you're reaching for something Wisconsin related to talk about. Wilson doesn't deserve the Heisman, and he won't win the Heisman. He already lost two big games this year and while his numbers in some aspects may be better than Kellen Moore's or Andrew Lucks, They aren't anything to write home about because Kellen Moore's and Luck's numbers are just about the same with a more impressive team record.

Have you watched the guy play? He should have been 17/17 yesterday with 200+ yards and 3TDs. Toon dropped a pass that hit him in the hands at the end which prevented the perfect game. And he can stretch the field vertically, Luck just throws mostly short passes to TEs or possession WRs.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Russell Wilson is a game manager. He has the highest YPA in college football history. That isn't something a game manager does. The reason Wilson's numbers are so low is that we don't pass when we are up big in the second half (every game but 2). If you multiply out his raw first half numbers, they are on par with everyone.

I don't understand why people consider this to be a big issue. Andrew Luck has the exact same thing, as does Kellen Moore. Wilson has more total yards than Moore and is about 100 behind Luck. Luck is still considered the favorite, and Moore would be if he hadn't played a sub-par game in a loss this week. Why is this an issue for Russell but not those two?

The University of Wisconsin's senior quarterback should be right in the mix with those six players and possibly even the No. 1 candidate for one simple reason: No one on a highly ranked team has played better week-in and week-out. Wilson has performed at an extremely high level in every one of his 10 games, something no other candidate can say.

In one Heisman poll, Wilson moved up to second behind Luck after six games, but dropped to fifth after UW lost to Michigan State and eighth after the loss to Ohio State. Wilson's stock plummeted even though he was the best thing the Badgers had going for them in those back-to-back road night games that UW lost on improbable long passes in the closing seconds.

Wilson led fourth-quarter comebacks both times, bringing the Badgers back from a 14-point deficit to tie it up at Michigan State and rallying them from 12 down to take the lead at Ohio State. What did voters expect him to do beyond that? Break up a pass in the end zone? Block for the punter?

Of course, Heisman voting is an unscientific undertaking often conducted from afar that combines a players statistics, ability to shine against good competition and his team's record.

Many voters place a high priority on winning and the top six candidates play on teams in the top 11 in the BCS standings and have lost, at most, one game. Twice-beaten UW is 17th.

Still, those who have watched Wilson on a weekly basis marvel at his Aaron Rodgers-like consistency from game to game. Indeed, he's doing some historic things as a passer, and he's not doing them in some pass-crazy spread. He's doing them in a pro-style offense that also has the nation's fifth leading rusher in Ball.

Go ahead, check out some of the records Wilson is chasing:

• He leads the nation in pass efficiency (201.6) and is on pace to destroy the NCAA record of 186.0 set by Hawaii's Colt Brennan.

• He leads the nation with 11.08 yards per pass attempt and is on pace to break the NCAA record of 11.07 set by BYU's Ty Detmer.

• He leads the nation with 9.9 yards per play, well ahead of Brennan's NCAA record of 9.2.

Wilson also is fourth in the NCAA in completion percentage (.734) and close to the Big Ten record (.735). His 25 touchdown passes put him on a pace to finish with the second-most in Big Ten history behind Purdue's Drew Brees (39) and his 25-3 touchdown-to-interception ratio trails only Keenum's 37-3 mark nationally. Wilson also has thrown a touchdown pass in 34 straight games, putting him within two of the NCAA record held by Graham Harrell of Texas Tech.

You Wisconsin fans should send this stuff to people with votes; I don't think you're going to convince any Hooplans of his legitimacy

You have to love it. Same as always. Wilson with better stats than Luck. People come up with BS excuses to claim Luck is better.

The irony? The BS excuse used to be Luck was better because his team had less losses. Funny how now that Russell leads the best team in the NFL, that doesn't matter anymore.

There's a reason why Wilson-backers are intellectually consistent and not complete hypocrites. It's because we are right and you are wrong. Russell Wilson is better than Andrew Luck. He was better their Senior years of college. He was better as a rookie. He was better last year...he's still better this year...and he'll be better when they retire as well.

 

[Podunkparte]

I would rather have 2 titles than 1.
I would rather have 1 title than 0.


Wilson brought this team 1 title. Luck has brought the Colts 0.

You sure like arguing hypotheticals, don't you?