Chris Harris said Wilson is better than Luck

[HaroldSeattle]

Put Luck on the Seahawks and they're a better team. Plain and simple. Not a knock on Wilson, but Luck is superior.

Could be. This is really the Brady vs Manning debate all over again. I expect we'll be debating it for years.

 

[SonnyCID]

Could be. This is really the Brady vs Manning debate all over again. I expect we'll be debating it for years.

Hopefully we get more debatable content than "if this" and "if that".

 

[sonnyblack65]

Could be. This is really the Brady vs Manning debate all over again. I expect we'll be debating it for years.

Too bad they dont play in the same conference and played each other once a year, be fun to watch

 

[gohusk]

Put Luck on the Seahawks and they're a better team. Plain and simple. Not a knock on Wilson, but Luck is superior.

What the hell are you basing that on? He hasn't put together a great season yet in his career and you're going to say that swapping him in to Seattle would make them better? That's what's annoying about all this Luck talk. Take Wilson out of the conversation and there's still quite a few other QB's that have outperformed him for his career so far. Why don't we wait for him to actually do something worth noting instead of basing it on how pretty a ball he throws while ignoring all the turnovers.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

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.

And Jordan shoots he scores and that's the game!!! No but seriously nice write up... Good stuff... It didn't link the write up but I was referring to the one of his NCAA stats... Amazing...

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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


THIS ONE!

 

[bksballer89]

All what turnovers? The man had 9 ints last year on 570 attempts. Wilson had the same amount of ints on 150 less attempts.

He was only turnover prone in his rookie year because the Colts didn't baby him like other usually would do with their rookies. 627 attempts for your rookie QB is ridiculous.

Last year only 2 out of the 16 QB's who threw over 500 passes threw under 10 INTs.

Luck is one, can you guys guess the other without looking it up?

 

[WizardHawk]

Actually we don't get offended at all, we just like to argue the point. If anyone is getting offended it's the Luck supporters. How dare we even argue " the fact" that Luck is better? You hear points that we are arrogant yet you see Luck supporters saying it's not even "close". Just who is being arrogant here?

I always love the 'Seahawks fans are arrogant' stuff, followed by Luck is better and it isn't even close... because I said so. It's arrogant for Seahawks fans to talk of their opinions, but not for them to continue to constantly... CONSTANTLY tell us how inferior Wilson is as a QB. That and Sherman is an asshole are all any of them ever talk about. I guess it's all they have.

Guys, if you are tired of Seahawks fans THEN STOP READING/POSTING IN SEAHAWKS RELATED THREADS. And if you are going to continue to call us names, stop being as bad as what you claim others are doing. Or be prepared to be called out on it. It's really that simple.

Best QB in the leauge? Best 'young' QB? Who the fuck cares. I like the team I follow. They won the SB with the team they have, and they are still doing well enough to possibly make the post season again. What more could I, or any fan of any other team, possibly want?

 

[gohusk]

All what turnovers? The man had 9 ints last year on 570 attempts. Wilson had the same amount of ints on 150 less attempts

.

He was only turnover prone in his rookie year because the Colts didn't baby him like other usually would do with their rookies. 627 attempts for your rookie QB is ridiculous.

Last year only 2 out of the 16 QB's who threw over 500 passes threw under 10 INTs.

Luck is one, can you guys guess the other without looking it up?

Yeah, and he had 3 more TD throws and about 200 more yards rushing. What exactly is your point? The INT's were down because the attempts were down and so were the yards per attempt. Wilson was the much more efficient QB playing in a tougher division and I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about how much better they'd be if they just had this other QB who hasn't proven anything yet. Listening to people talk you'd think he's won multiple MVP's and he hasn't cracked 90 yet for QB rating on a season.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

So if you were building a team from scratch and you could pick Luck or Wilson how many of you would pick Wilson?

I love Wilson's game and demeanor, but he doesn't have the upside and natural feel for the position that Luck does. Both are damn good, but Luck is the better QB now and long term. I'd put money on it. Sure, SEA has the better team and has actually won something, but look at what Wilson had around him compared to Luck.

 

[gohusk]

So if you were building a team from scratch and you could pick Luck or Wilson how many of you would pick Wilson?

I love Wilson's game and demeanor, but he doesn't have the upside and natural feel for the position that Luck does. Both are damn good, but Luck is the better QB now and long term. I'd put money on it. Sure, SEA has the better team and has actually won something, but look at what Wilson had around him compared to Luck.

Well the Seahawks did build a team from scratch and won the SB with Wilson so I think I'd stick with my teams choice.

 

[bksballer89]

I don't think anyone on this thread unless I missed some pages made Wilson seem like a bad QB.

It's fine that you guys like & support Wilson. I like Wilson also. Seems like a cool guy that is hard to dislike.

However if you can't see the dramatic difference in circumstances for he and Luck, it makes no sense to debate anything with Hawks fans.

Football is a team game. Wilson has the best team in the league surrounding him. I think there are about 10 QBs who make/win the SB last year with the Seahawks. On the other hand Luck is playing on an average team. There is nothing special about the Colts at all. Ty Hilton is solid but it's not like he's even a true #1 WR while their running game was trash last year but seem to be doing better with the addition of Bradshaw and their defense is avg. Last year the Colts defense finished 20th in the league. I don't think Wilson win a superbowl if he had the 20th ranked defense in the league.

I thi

 

[bksballer89]

So if you were building a team from scratch and you could pick Luck or Wilson how many of you would pick Wilson?

I love Wilson's game and demeanor, but he doesn't have the upside and natural feel for the position that Luck does. Both are damn good, but Luck is the better QB now and long term. I'd put money on it. Sure, SEA has the better team and has actually won something, but look at what Wilson had around him compared to Luck.

This is all what most of us are saying. If you can't see the difference in what Luck is surrounded by and what Wilson is surrounded by, I don't know what to tell you.

I haven't seen anyone in here trash Wilson...Damn near everyone is in agreement that he is a good QB also

 

[bksballer89]

Yeah, and he had 3 more TD throws and about 200 more yards rushing. What exactly is your point? The INT's were down because the attempts were down and so were the yards per attempt. Wilson was the much more efficient QB playing in a tougher division and I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about how much better they'd be if they just had this other QB who hasn't proven anything yet. Listening to people talk you'd think he's won multiple MVP's and he hasn't cracked 90 yet for QB rating on a season.

They weren't down that much. You're acting like Luck went from throwing 600+ passes down to Wilson standard which is in the low 400's. He was still approaching 600 attempts. There were only 2 qbs out of 16 who attempted more than 500 passes and threw less than 10 INTs. Do you not realize how good it is to throw 9 ints on 570 passes? That is ridiculously good.

Maybe his yards per attempt dropped because he got smarter and stop always looking for the big play?

 

[ChicagoIrish]

Well, I've had some time to think about it. . .

And I'm still taking Luck. You Seattle fans need to relax, I don't want your shitty QB.

Deal with it

 

[HaroldSeattle]

So if you were building a team from scratch and you could pick Luck or Wilson how many of you would pick Wilson?

I love Wilson's game and demeanor, but he doesn't have the upside and natural feel for the position that Luck does. Both are damn good, but Luck is the better QB now and long term. I'd put money on it. Sure, SEA has the better team and has actually won something, but look at what Wilson had around him compared to Luck.

I would guess most folks would start with Luck. He was a legend even before getting drafted, could of been # 1 the year before he came out. Has looked pretty good since and has all the size etc that folks love. Never the less Wilson has turned this into a debate, much like Brady did with Manning.
Posters keep saying the Seahawks posters are getting butt hurt about the debate, but we love it. It's the folks that see Luck as a legend before his time getting butt hurt. You can talk tell your blue in the face about, his team is lacking, the fact is until he shows he can lead his team to the ultimate goal, this debate is just going to get better. All the Luck supporters best hope the Seahawks don't repeat, because that's just going to crank it up.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Well the Seahawks did build a team from scratch and won the SB with Wilson so I think I'd stick with my teams choice.

I love "ifs" - let me drop a few of my own on you.

If Luck was on the board the Seahawks would have taken Luck and they would have still won the SB.

If you would take Wilson over Luck, you would be in the vast minority.

If luck was on the Seahawks, they would be virtually unbeatable.

 

[Smart]

What does Wilson's defense have to do with the fact that he has the 2nd highest QB rating ever (and leads the NFL in it so far this year) and Luck was 26th and 18th? This isn't some contest between a winner and a guy with superior stats. That's an interesting debate. It's a debate where the winner has far superior stats.

And I have asked for years for anyone to give proof that having a good running back aids QB efficiency. It just isn't true. Nothing supports it. And yet, to you this correlation (which doesn't actually exist) overpowers the difference between one of the best QBs in the league and an average QB.

It's ridiculous. And what are these attributes Luck has that Wilson doesn't? Wilson throws a more catchable and accurate ball. He throws it as far or farther than Luck. He is physically stronger than Luck. He is more elusive. He is better at reading the field. He is a better leader. He is just as clutch. He is faster. He runs better.

Oh, I got it. Luck has "upside" and "natural feel." Sure, Wilson has constantly outperformed him, makes fewer mistakes despite throwing it deeper, extends plays better, and makes more "miracle plays." But Luck's elusive "natural feel" overpowers that.

It's just a pathetic argument. All of us are more stupid for having read it. It's a major diss, and a personal diss to anybody who believes that actual performance matters.

But the good thing about your argument is it is irrelevant. People used to tell me that Russell wouldn't play in the NFL. Well, he does. And he's better than Luck. As long as there are John Schneiders in this world, excellence will always win out in the end.

 

[chf]

I don't want your shitty QB.

Deal with it

Heh.

Somebody pay attention to Irish.

 

[WizardHawk]

lol, now it's your QB is shitty and you have to be a homer to want to take Wilson over Luck so why bother.


And yet you are all still bothering.

Bks, stop telling everyone they aren't worth having discussions with and then keep on talking at them. Doing so invites a return response whether you like it or not.