Chris Harris said Wilson is better than Luck

[bksballer89]

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.

I will still take Luck over Wilson....I think all of us are more stupid for reading this garbage you just posted. The way you're talking is like Wilson is Peyton Manning & Luck is Jimmy Claussen

You obviously have something against Luck because everything in your post made Luck seems like one of the worse Qbs in NFL history.

Wilson went to Wisconsin for a year.....You're a homer and that is clearly obvious.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

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

We are relaxed. The world isn't going to stop because ChicagoIrish prefers Luck. The question really is why should we care?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I will still take Luck over Wilson....I think all of us are more stupid for reading this garbage you just posted. The way you're talking is like Wilson is Peyton Manning & Luck is Jimmy Claussen

You obviously have something against Luck because everything in your post made Luck seems like one of the worse Qbs in NFL history.

Wilson went to Wisconsin for a year.....You're a homer and that is clearly obvious.

Like I said, I sure most folks will go with the legend before his time, for now. That may change.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

I'd take luck easily. Russell Wilson is alright though.

 

[SonnyCID]

Typical argument in favor of Luck over Wilson:

"If...."

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Typical argument in favor of Luck over Wilson:

"If...."

If only he was on a good team...what great things he would do.

 

[bksballer89]

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.

No offense but most of guys are blind homers.

Luck played with the 20th running offense and 20th ranked defense last year while Luck played with the top defense and top 5 running offense.

I just would love to see how good Wilson is when he has a shitty defense and a one dimensional pass first offense that is asking him to throw the ball 35+ passes every game.

I'm pretty sure Luck number would look amazing if he was asked to throw only 25 passes per game.

If you guys can just admit the obvious which is that Wilson is surrounded by a way better team and is not asked to do as much as luck, I wouldn't even debate this anymore because my opinion is my opinion and likewise for you guys but it is absolutely baffling that most Seahawks fans cannot even admit something so obvious.

Nobody would think less of Seahawks fans if you guys just said, Yes Wilson is surrounded by a much better team and he isn't asked to consistently throw 35-40 passes for his team to win games.

 

[dredinis21]

Typical argument in favor of Luck over Wilson:

"If...."

Luck was drafted onto a team that was 2-14. He turned them into a playoff team in his first season. He is THE reason why the Colts win and rarely, if ever, do the Colts win despite an average to poor performance by Luck.

Wilson is a GREAT QB. But he also is not THE reason why the Hawks win.

And look....no "IF" in my argument.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Luck was drafted onto a team that was 2-14. He turned them into a playoff team in his first season. He is THE reason why the Colts win and rarely, if ever, do the Colts win despite an average to poor performance by Luck.

Wilson is a GREAT QB. But he also is not THE reason why the Hawks win.

And look....no "IF" in my argument.

What did they do the year before? Before they decided to suck for Luck. Tell me that.

 

[Smart]

I will still take Luck over Wilson....I think all of us are more stupid for reading this garbage you just posted. The way you're talking is like Wilson is Peyton Manning & Luck is Jimmy Claussen

You obviously have something against Luck because everything in your post made Luck seems like one of the worse Qbs in NFL history.

Wilson went to Wisconsin for a year.....You're a homer and that is clearly obvious.

Andrew Luck is the 12th to 15th best QB in the NFL. Russell Wilson is the 3rd to 5th best QB in the NFL.

And all I did was post stats and attributes. Obviously, stats are real. They are directly related to performance. And which one of those attributes favor Luck?

Saying "you are a homer" isn't an argument. It's a conclusion. But that's to be expected because thinking Luck is better than Wilson isn't supported by arguments. It is supported only as a conclusion, and an irrational one at that.

 

[SonnyCID]

No offense but most of guys are blind homers.

Luck played with the 20th running offense and 20th ranked defense last year while Luck played with the top defense and top 5 running offense.

I just would love to see how good Wilson is when he has a shitty defense and a one dimensional pass first offense that is asking him to throw the ball 35+ passes every game.

I'm pretty sure Luck number would look amazing if he was asked to throw only 25 passes per game.

If you guys can just admit the obvious which is that Wilson is surrounded by a way better team and is not asked to do as much as luck, I wouldn't even debate this anymore because my opinion is my opinion and likewise for you guys but it is absolutely baffling that most Seahawks fans cannot even admit something so obvious.

Nobody would think less of Seahawks fans if you guys just said, Yes Wilson is surrounded by a much better team and he isn't asked to consistently throw 35-40 passes for his team to win games.

Lol. Who is arguing that Wilson doesn't have more talent on his team? :rollseyes: Why can't you get off the fact that that doesn't define Wilson nearly as much as you would like to believe?

But thanks proving my point yet again.... "If this....if that"

 

[WizardHawk]

No offense but most of guys are blind homers.

Luck played with the 20th running offense and 20th ranked defense last year while Luck played with the top defense and top 5 running offense.

I just would love to see how good Wilson is when he has a shitty defense and a one dimensional pass first offense that is asking him to throw the ball 35+ passes every game.

I'm pretty sure Luck number would look amazing if he was asked to throw only 25 passes per game.

If you guys can just admit the obvious which is that Wilson is surrounded by a way better team and is not asked to do as much as luck, I wouldn't even debate this anymore because my opinion is my opinion and likewise for you guys but it is absolutely baffling that most Seahawks fans cannot even admit something so obvious.

Nobody would think less of Seahawks fans if you guys just said, Yes Wilson is surrounded by a much better team and he isn't asked to consistently throw 35-40 passes for his team to win games.

Admit what? I said I don't give a fuck. Never weighed in on this pointless and not answerable debate.

Wilson is the leader of the Seahawks and since he joined the team they have become one of the top teams in the league. In fact, until they are knocked off in the playoffs they are THE top team in the league. This is a fact. They were nowhere near the top before Wilson became their starter. This too is a fact. He has lead quite a few come from behind victories and with him as leader they have dominated much of the league.

Why would anyone want another QB over the one that did all of that for the team they follow? Anyone would have to be an idiot to want to make any changes.

This stupidity about who you would rather have on a new team is pure opinion and an exercise in futility. There is no facts to be had in these.

We get it, those of you with agendas against Seattle would take Luck/Peyton/Rodgers/Brees/Brady/20 other starters over Wilson. And of course it has nothing to do with you all already hating our team.

 

[dredinis21]

What did they do the year before? Before they decided to suck for Luck. Tell me that.

You mean when a HOF QB was at the helm providing the cologne to cover up the stink?

If you are implying that they were actually good, then you are practicing revisionist history. The amount of players that were let go or were well past their prime prior to Luck showing up is insane. You saw how bad that team was when Manning went down.

 

[Smart]

Luck was drafted onto a team that was 2-14. He turned them into a playoff team in his first season. He is THE reason why the Colts win and rarely, if ever, do the Colts win despite an average to poor performance by Luck.

Wilson is a GREAT QB. But he also is not THE reason why the Hawks win.

And look....no "IF" in my argument.

Are you serious? They went 11-5 last year when he was #13 in yards (average), #15 in TDs (average), #18 in QB Rating (average), #24 in completion percentage (poor), and #26 in YPA (poor). That's a textbook definition of winning despite average to poor performances.

You aren't making an argument. You are making an irrational conclusion, which in your case is just factually wrong.

 

[bksballer89]

Admit what? I said I don't give a fuck. Never weighed in on this pointless and not answerable debate.

Wilson is the leader of the Seahawks and since he joined the team they have become one of the top teams in the league. In fact, until they are knocked off in the playoffs they are THE top team in the league. This is a fact. They were nowhere near the top before Wilson became their starter. This too is a fact. He has lead quite a few come from behind victories and with him as leader they have dominated much of the league.

Why would anyone want another QB over the one that did all of that for the team they follow? Anyone would have to be an idiot to want to make any changes.

This stupidity about who you would rather have on a new team is pure opinion and an exercise in futility. There is no facts to be had in these.

We get it, those of you with agendas against Seattle would take Luck/Peyton/Rodgers/Brees/Brady/20 other starters over Wilson. And of course it has nothing to do with you all already hating our team.

I don't have any agenda against Seattle. I speak the truth.

If you gave me a team with a middle of the road run game & defense, I would only take the following Qbs over Wilson:

Rodgers
Manning
Brees
Luck
Maybe Brady

There are a few others you can debate about but he's a top 10 QB for sure.


I like Wilson.....heck we share the same birthday

 

[shabazz916]

wilson is on a better team but luck is on the team who does not know how to build a tuff team thru the draft

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Something to consider for all the "Seattle's defense is why they win and it has nothing to do with Wilson" crowd: Since Wilson became the starter he has 30 wins, 11 of those are come from behind wins in the 4th quarter which means the defense was actually losing and Wilson brought the team back for the win. That is more than 1/3 of all his wins that were put directly on his shoulders.

 

[bksballer89]

Andrew Luck is the 12th to 15th best QB in the NFL. Russell Wilson is the 3rd to 5th best QB in the NFL.

And all I did was post stats and attributes. Obviously, stats are real. They are directly related to performance. And which one of those attributes favor Luck?

Saying "you are a homer" isn't an argument. It's a conclusion. But that's to be expected because thinking Luck is better than Wilson isn't supported by arguments. It is supported only as a conclusion, and an irrational one at that.

I stopped reading after you said Luck falls between 12-15.

Incredible how a QB who is supposedly a middle of the road QB can change a 2-14 team to a 11-5 team in 2 years. I find it hard to believe that QBS who are ACTUALLY middle of the road QB's would be able to accomplish that with a crappy defense.

 

[dredinis21]

Are you serious? They went 11-5 last year when he was #13 in yards (average), #15 in TDs (average), #18 in QB Rating (average), #24 in completion percentage (poor), and #26 in YPA (poor). That's a textbook definition of winning despite average to poor performances.

You aren't making an argument. You are making an irrational conclusion, which in your case is just factually wrong.

In 2012, Luck AVERAGED 39 pass attempts per game. In 2013, Luck AVERAGED 35 pass attempts per game.

Conversely, Wilson has been asked to throw over 30 times in a game 6 times in his CAREER.

Without a productive running game, defenses are keying in on Luck's passing attack and of course his stats suffer a bit. But context is everything. Despite having no running game, he still posted solid numbers, while cutting down his INT from year one to year two.

With Wilson, he has the luxury of one of the best RB tandems in football to keep defenses honest while doing a GREAT job of completing 3rd downs when he needs to.

As someone stated, Wilson may be the perfect QB for THAT offense, but I also believe that Luck is a better overall QB. You may say it's irrational but the entire argument is irrational until that impossible scenario happens where one is traded for the other.

 

[Smart]

No offense but most of guys are blind homers.

Luck played with the 20th running offense and 20th ranked defense last year while Luck played with the top defense and top 5 running offense.

I just would love to see how good Wilson is when he has a shitty defense and a one dimensional pass first offense that is asking him to throw the ball 35+ passes every game.

I'm pretty sure Luck number would look amazing if he was asked to throw only 25 passes per game.

If you guys can just admit the obvious which is that Wilson is surrounded by a way better team and is not asked to do as much as luck, I wouldn't even debate this anymore because my opinion is my opinion and likewise for you guys but it is absolutely baffling that most Seahawks fans cannot even admit something so obvious.

Nobody would think less of Seahawks fans if you guys just said, Yes Wilson is surrounded by a much better team and he isn't asked to consistently throw 35-40 passes for his team to win games.

For the 200th time,

SHOW ME ANYTHING WHICH SHOWS A CORRELATION OR CAUSATION BETWEEN A QB'S EFFICIENCY STATS AND THE STRENGTH OF HIS RUNNING GAME?

Your entire post would be fine if Luck had better stats, but Wilson's team won more. The flaw is that's not true at all. Wilson's stats are demonstrably better. And you haven't tied, nor can you tie, the core of your argument to negating Wilson's stat advantage.

In fact, all you can do is shout "Luck is better" and then when confronted with facts, say "I don't care about facts, because facts are for homers. And his defense is good."

I'm willing to credit good arguments which disagree with me. But yours isn't even an argument. There's no substance there. If you went to my law school or college, they would fail you for it.