- Thread starter
- #1
Smart
Asshat
- 14,576
- 1,127
- 173
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Location
- Missouri
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
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 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).
Last edited by a moderator:
