Pretty funny how people actually think Andrew Luck has been better than RW.

[BHF]

this is so true of the players for the colts . even ty and reggie had key drops fleener is a walking dropper . allen is a run blocking te . wilson to me is a micheal vick

How soon people forget Kearse in the NFCCG. If the Packer's had held on to win he would have been the MVP.

 

[Smart]

I guess you could take a look at Wilson's college stats. You'll notice a pretty significant difference between his stats at NC State and Wisconsin. It's the same sort of deal. The difference between just his junior and senior year is 40 attempts vs 22 attempts per game. His rating, completion %, and yards per attempt made a huge leap.

Russell Wilson Stats | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

LOL. The reason Russ threw 22 attempts is because the Badgers were up by 24 at halftime, and we didn't want to prolong the game and risk injury when we could run it down our opponents throats.

And guess what? In the first half, Russ threw 193 passes and had 10.9 YPA, 22 TDs, 1 INT and a 203 QB Rating. In the second half, when he passed it substantially less (116 times), he only had 9 YPA, 11 TDs, 3 INTs, and a 172 QB Rating.

So...his stats were better when he threw the ball more. And had he thrown the ball more in the second half, it actually would have inflated his stats, since there would have been more passes against bad teams. It sort of makes your logic seem as buffoonish as it actually is.

*And, you know, it is possible that a new QB Coach who is known as a master of the pro-style system could make Russ a better player. Insane, I know....

 

[Cyder]

this is so true of the players for the colts . even ty and reggie had key drops fleener is a walking dropper . allen is a run blocking te . wilson to me is a micheal vick

I disagree that Wilson is a Vick. Yes he runs but unlike Vick, Wilson rarely if ever takes a big hit and knows when to dump the ball. He may not have all of Vicks physical tools but his football IQ is ten times Vicks.

 

[Broncosr0k]

Like you said, OP, if people haven't been persuaded, they are Wilson haters. I've been over the facts hundreds of times going back to college. Look at the numbers Russ put up against the Pats throwing to a #1 WR who worked at Foot Locker and not a single WR who was drafted. Then look at what Luck did throwing to a future WR, two other 1,000 yard receivers, and his talented TE who he has worked with since college.

It's not close, but people don't want to acknowledge Russ' greatness. They can hate on, and Russ will keep winning.

You are glossing over what many people have stated. Luck is the entire colts offense. Wilson is not the entire seahawks offense. I am sure Belichick game planned to shut down Luck like Lynch rather than targeting Wilson and his Footlocker receiver.

I like both QBs, but Luck has been asked to do more than Wilson. Colts have a knack for focusing on QBs and flushing the rest of the team down the toilet. I think all things being equal, Luck has the higher ceiling but both QBs are great options.

 

[night]

LOL. The reason Russ threw 22 attempts is because the Badgers were up by 24 at halftime, and we didn't want to prolong the game and risk injury when we could rub it down our opponents throats.

And guess what? In the first half, Russ threw 193 passes and had 10.9 YPA, 22 TDs, 1 INT and a 203 QB Rating. In the second half, when he passed it substantially less (116 times), he only had 9 YPA, 11 TDs, 3 INTs, and a 172 QB Rating.

So...his stats were better when he threw the ball more. And had he thrown the ball more in the second half, it actually would have inflated his stats, since there would have been more passes against bad teams. It sort of makes your logic seem as buffoonish as it actually is.

*And, you know, it is possible that a new QB Coach who is known as a master of the pro-style system could make Russ a better player. Insane, I know....

If you ignore the fact that he had a significantly smaller role in the offense at Wisconsin compared to NC State. Sorry, that BS doesn't hold much water.

 

[Davis_Mike]

I hope the agents and GM's of the NFL agree with the majority in this forum.
With that in mind Luck = about $20-$22 M a year.
Russell= $12-$14 M a year.
That would work for me.

Not likely. RW is a near the bottom top 10 QB. Top 10 QB(s) AAV starts at $17 mil. So that is likely where his AAV starts.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Flat out, if you gave Luck the running game and defense that RW has had up to this point, he probably has more than one ring.

Luck IS the Indy offense. RW has been a game manager (at least by modern NFL standards). That is not to diminish RW in anyway. He has been great and given Seattle exactly what they needed when they needed it. But he hasn't been as good as Luck who has had to do a lot more of the heavy lifting in Indy where the offense begins and ends with him.

There are only one or two teams in the league that have passed for fewer yards in the NFL in the 3 years that RW has been in the league. Teams like Oakland and Jacksoville have more passing yards over the last 3 years than Seattle does. It just goes to show how much less RW has been asked to do than your typical NFL QB.

Well said...& on point. The beauty of RW...he's a leader...a competitor...saying Luck would be better in the same situation is not really a slap on RW...He got his team to back to back superbowls without elite talent outside, that a big deal in this era...

In this era of restricted DEF play...passing is the brunt of the game...the guy I want throwing 30+ times every game would be the 6'5' 230 guy, that can play....that's human nature I think. RW has proven he belongs in the NFL and will be worthy of his big contract.

 

[ducky]

This thread went off the deep end somewhere between the point that someone said that they would rather have Bridgewater than RW or when RW was called Vick (and I am saying that as a Viking fan who loves Bridgewater....I'd happily trade Bridgewater plus a 1st rounder for RW).

RW is unlike any QB in this league we have seen in decades. He really is a modern day Fran Tarkenington. He runs around....but he runs to gain time in the pocket to let his WR's gain seperation. And his touch on the deep ball is outstanding. RW is a GREAT QB. There are only a handful of 3 year NFL starters that have been as good as him. It is just in this one instance the QB he is being compared to (Luck) is slightly better. If Luck wasn't in the league, IMO, RW is the most desirable young QB hands down in the league and thus making him the #1 asset or close to it in the league.

If I am starting a franchise I pick: Aaron Rodgers (too many good years left to pass up), Andrew Luck and then RW personally.

 

[Smart]

You are glossing over what many people have stated. Luck is the entire colts offense. Wilson is not the entire seahawks offense. I am sure Belichick game planned to shut down Luck like Lynch rather than targeting Wilson and his Footlocker receiver.

I like both QBs, but Luck has been asked to do more than Wilson. Colts have a knack for focusing on QBs and flushing the rest of the team down the toilet. I think all things being equal, Luck has the higher ceiling but both QBs are great options.

Just like Belichick planned to stop Luck, the Colts built their entire plan around Luck. People seem to want to ignore that this logic goes both ways.

I've repeatedly asked for anybody to prove that "more throws makes a QB have worse stats." Nobody has been able to prove the entire basis of your argument. In order to discount Russ, you need to go much further than. You need to show that more throws makes a QB have worse stats to the point that it outweighs the difference in receiving corps between the two.

I've shown, time and time again, why numbers favor Russ. Time and time again, we hear that Luck is better because posters say so and GMs would favor Luck. That's a conclusory argument, which is to say it isn't an argument at all. Until someone can prove that Luck's performance is actually hindered by being the center of his offense, it's tough for me to take these threads seriously. As of today, one side uses logic and stats and the other side uses hunches and conclusions.

 

[Rex Racer]

No, of course not because Luck can't run like RW. That's pretty much why I said it makes no sense to hypothetically give Luck Seattle's running GAME as people often try to do.

Don't discount Luck's mobility. He is every bit as fast as Little Rusty Wilson, but his superior arm strength and accuracy skills allow him to be a "pocket passer" without the gimmicks.

 

[ducky]

Just like Belichick planned to stop Luck, the Colts built their entire plan around Luck. People seem to want to ignore that this logic goes both ways.

I've repeatedly asked for anybody to prove that "more throws makes a QB have worse stats." Nobody has been able to prove the entire basis of your argument. In order to discount Russ, you need to go much further than. You need to show that more throws makes a QB have worse stats to the point that it outweighs the difference in receiving corps between the two.

I've shown, time and time again, why numbers favor Russ. Time and time again, we hear that Luck is better because posters say so and GMs would favor Luck. That's a conclusory argument, which is to say it isn't an argument at all. Until someone can prove that Luck's performance is actually hindered by being the center of his offense, it's tough for me to take these threads seriously. As of today, one side uses logic and stats and the other side uses hunches and conclusions.

If football ability and impact could be needled down to stats, especially ones as piss poor as QB rating stats, the game of football wouldn't be very popular.

Here's a stat for you: One of the least productive passing offense in the NFL over the last 3 years has been Seattle. Sure they have been effecient, but they haven't been overly productive.

And if you don't understand why passing effeciency stats go up when teams pass less and have a devastating run game, then you don't know the game of football very well.

Wilson has been great. But he simply hasn't been asked to carry the same type of burden to carry an NFL team as Luck has. Some of the arguments against him aren't even his fault. Hell for all we know maybe Wilson can throw for 5000 yards and be wildly effecient without a run game or a great defense. But up to this point anyone who has watched him probably doesn't think he would have been able to do that.

 

[TxHeat]

Bridgewater???? You just forfeited your vote in this discussion.

IKR..surprised he didn't throw Bortles into the mix.

 

[Smart]

If you ignore the fact that he had a significantly smaller role in the offense at Wisconsin compared to NC State. Sorry, that BS doesn't hold much water.

Again, the idea that teams didn't gameplan around Russ at Wisconsin is absurd. I don't know why you are debating me on this, considering that Wisconsin team is my favorite team of all-time. I went to 12 of 14 games, knew multiple members of the team, and had a much better grip on the team than you did. He threw the ball 14 times per half on average despite playing in a slow-paced system that always runs the clock down.

Don't discount Luck's mobility. He is every bit as fast as Little Rusty Wilson, but his superior arm strength and accuracy skills allow him to be a "pocket passer" without the gimmicks.

What is this evidence for Luck's superior accuracy? His lower completion percentage? His greater interception rate?

And the arm strength claim is the official signal of "I have no fucking clue what I am talking about." Russell Wilson may have the strongest arm in the NFL. He throws the ball 70 yards in the air before games. He throws one of the fastest balls in the league. It's just objectively false that Luck (or anyone else) has a bigger arm than him.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

This thread went off the deep end somewhere between the point that someone said that they would rather have Bridgewater than RW or when RW was called Vick (and I am saying that as a Viking fan who loves Bridgewater....I'd happily trade Bridgewater plus a 1st rounder for RW).

Yep...

Someone posted "I'd rank Russell Wilson towards the bottom part of top 10, and I think that's completely accurate. But to say Bridgewater ahead of Wilson? BIT of a stretch although Bridgewater definitely surprised me with his play last year. That might turn out to be good for the Vikes but let's see what happens after the first year.

 

[Rex Racer]

Again, the idea that teams didn't gameplan around Russ at Wisconsin is absurd. I don't know why you are debating me on this, considering that Wisconsin team is my favorite team of all-time. I went to 12 of 14 games, knew multiple members of the team, and had a much better grip on the team than you did. He threw the ball 14 times per half on average despite playing in a slow-paced system that always runs the clock down.



What is this evidence for Luck's superior accuracy? His lower completion percentage? His greater interception rate?

And the arm strength claim is the official signal of "I have no fucking clue what I am talking about." Russell Wilson may have the strongest arm in the NFL. He throws the ball 70 yards in the air before games. He throws one of the fastest balls in the league. It's just objectively false that Luck (or anyone else) has a bigger arm than him.

I've known you to have a hard on for Little Rusty for quite a while and it compels you to say some really stupid shit. Rest assured I have been a participant (not the NFL) and observer of the NFL game longer than you have been alive and I do know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand just earned full blown fan-boy status with your ridiculous claim. Absent the Seahawks defense Rusty is not heading for a 100 million dollar payday, simple as that.

 

[Smart]

If football ability and impact could be needled down to stats, especially ones as piss poor as QB rating stats, the game of football wouldn't be very popular.

Here's a stat for you: One of the least productive passing offense in the NFL over the last 3 years has been Seattle. Sure they have been effecient, but they haven't been overly productive.

And if you don't understand why passing effeciency stats go up when teams pass less and have a devastating run game, then you don't know the game of football very well.

Again, prove the bolded. Show me a correlation between passing efficiency stats and a devastating run game, because I have asked for years. If you look at the great running attacks in history, nearly of them have had terrible passing efficiency stats.

This post is a cop-out. You are basically admitting that you can't come up with any objective argument why Luck is better, but "football ability" isn't objective. How are we supposed to debate anything then? Why are we discussing this if you are going to dismiss any point by saying subjective mush is all that matters?

 

[Rex Racer]

I like Wilson, he's a good QB with a solid head on his shoulders.

All other things being equal and given the choice between him and Andrew Luck it's not even close.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

I've known you to have a hard on for Little Rusty for quite a while and it compels you to say some really stupid shit. Rest assured I have been a participant (not the NFL) and observer of the NFL game longer than you have been alive and I do know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand just earned full blown fan-boy status with your ridiculous claim. Absent the Seahawks defense Rusty is not heading for a 100 million dollar payday, simple as that.

So.....are you even going to try to back up your argument that Luck is more accurate? Because like he said, all evidence points to the contrary.

There are arguments that can be made for why Luck is the better QB, but the problem I have with this debate is that the vast majority of the arguments people use in Luck's favor just don't hold any water. Using statements that are statistically incorrect to support your view, bringing up arguments that involve things like arm strength ( which can be hard to gauge ), and throwing out hypothetical situations just doesn't cut it.

 

[night]

Again, the idea that teams didn't gameplan around Russ at Wisconsin is absurd. I don't know why you are debating me on this, considering that Wisconsin team is my favorite team of all-time. I went to 12 of 14 games, knew multiple members of the team, and had a much better grip on the team than you did. He threw the ball 14 times per half on average despite playing in a slow-paced system that always runs the clock down.

Yet you're here comparing halfs in the season he played at Wisconsin when he actual comparison is between him at Wisconsin vs NC State.

 

[Cyder]

This thread went off the deep end somewhere between the point that someone said that they would rather have Bridgewater than RW or when RW was called Vick (and I am saying that as a Viking fan who loves Bridgewater....I'd happily trade Bridgewater plus a 1st rounder for RW).

RW is unlike any QB in this league we have seen in decades. He really is a modern day Fran Tarkenington. He runs around....but he runs to gain time in the pocket to let his WR's gain seperation. And his touch on the deep ball is outstanding. RW is a GREAT QB. There are only a handful of 3 year NFL starters that have been as good as him. It is just in this one instance the QB he is being compared to (Luck) is slightly better. If Luck wasn't in the league, IMO, RW is the most desirable young QB hands down in the league and thus making him the #1 asset or close to it in the league.

If I am starting a franchise I pick: Aaron Rodgers (too many good years left to pass up), Andrew Luck and then RW personally.

Well said Sir...well said. I thought the Vick remark was off base. Vick has always been a turnover machine and RW rarely coughs up the ball