How long are morons gonna say LUCK > WILSON...??!!

[Anthony!]

For one, if a QB's passing less and the team running more, he's more likely to see man coverage and fewer blitzes, which would have the effect of making his attempts a little better quality than slinging it around like Mathew Stafford does.

I never said Russell wasn't an 'elite quarterback.' I was merely commenting about using a purely statistical argument. If you did that, you'd have to elevate Tony Romo to elite company.

Absolutely true. My point is that there's scores of variables that one can cojure up to justify or discredit stats to support or dismiss a particular point of view. They are not always apples to apples.

Question: Of those that qualified (200+ attempts), who was the top rated passer in the NFL last season? Hint: It wasn't Peyton Manning.

It's never been or is ever going to be apples to apples because every starting QB plays with different personnel, different offensive schemes, and against different levels of competition, yet stats have been used from the very beginning as a means to measure and compare quarterback play. It's not a perfect system - nothing created by man ever is - but it's what we have. So my question is this: why are stats that have been used for years to measure quarterback play (along with more recently developed advanced metrics) suddenly not relevant when it comes to comparing a 6'3" number one draft choice and a 5'11" third round pick? My belief is because there is an inherent bias toward the one with the prototypical size who was projected to be great all along. If Luck was putting up Wilson's stats and Wilson had Luck's stats everyone claiming that Luck is better would be using those stats as evidence of his superiority rather than coming up with excuses why stats aren't valid in making comparisons.

And to answer your question about who was the top rated passer in 2013 that would be Nick Foles. So why isn't he in the discussion? Much smaller sample size primarily. Wilson and Luck have two full seasons as starting quarterbacks under their belts now. Foles had six starts in 2012 in Andy Reid's system where he wasn't very good, and ten starts in 2013 in Chip Kelly's system where he was great. There's a big question about what's going to happen now that opposing DCs have a full season of tape and an entire offseason to prepare for the Eagles offense. There's inevitably going to be some regression by Foles (a 27/2 TD/Int ratio and 119.2 QB rating are unsustainable) so it remains to be seen how much that regression will be. Colin Kaepernick had a similar stretch of great play in the last half of 2012 when he was an unknown quantity with a unique skillset but regressed somewhat in 2013 after opposing defenses became better prepared for him. By contrast, Wilson and Luck both improved statistically in their second seasons despite opposing teams having a better book on how to defend them. If Foles has another outstanding season in 2014 he absolutely should be in the discussion of best young QBs.

Some great points however Luck was a mixed bag regressed in some areas got better in others

Luck Way less yards, less YPA, but he did go up in compt%, and qb rating so kind of mixed

 

[Anthony!]

Luck took at team who was zero wins into a perennial playoff contender all by himself. He has no running game to help him in PA situations, he has no defence. He has to drum up the team success all by himself.

While Wilson's statistics may be better, I'd still take Luck.

The Colts were 2-14, mainly because of HORRIBLE QB play, the year before they were 10-6 with Peyton Manning, the Colts were not some talent devoid team as the media would have you believe.

Much like the Chiefs of 2012, who with above average QB play in 2013 became a playoff team.

Luck is a great player, there's no question, however he's far from the top shelf player that the media makes him out to be. THey like to cite his "comeback" totals for his first 2 years. The funny thing is a number of those comebacks were only needed because of major mistakes by Luck ealier in the game. Take the Lion's game in 2012- Luck throws 3 picks in the first half, then rallies and throws the winning TD to their RB with little to no time left.

Look at his "Heroic" comeback in the playoff. He throws 3 picks and somehow the hapless Chiefs (along with some luck(fumble recovery TD)) allow them back into the game. IN 2013 playoffs he threw 6 TD's and 7 INT's in 2 games for a lousy 76 QB-rating.

Not to mention the whole "suck for luck" campaign they were entrenched into, meaning they wanted the #1 pick

 

[Anthony!]

Watched the Colts-Chiefs playoff game again last night.. and I have to say I stand corrected. If you overlook the fact the Colts defense gave up more points in one game than the Seahawks did the entire postseason, and overlook the fact Andrew Luck needed only 11 more yards rushing to lead the Colts in that statistic too.. you can totally see how the Colts supporting cast is identical to the Seahawks.

:lol:

Andrew Luck is a good QB, that will be great very soon - on a team that would struggle to win 6 games without him.

Russell Wilson is a good QB that will be great very soon - on an already great team. Hence why he's wearing a Super Bowl ring right now and Luck isn't.

yes and that same defense held Tom Brady to only 22 points 1 week later and part of the reason they gave up those points were 3 ints by Luck all leading to TDs, and also let me remind you that the great Seattle defense gave up 24 to tampa, 34 to the colts, every team can have a bad game but when your QB is throwing 3 ints it is hard for any defense to do well.

Luck is a good QB who will be great on a very good team that would probably be 8-8 without him
RW is a great QB who will be greater on a team that also would be 8-8 without him.

 

[Anthony!]

Huh? All by himself? WTF? Let's look at their records. With the Suck for Luck year, they were 2-14,while 10-6, 14-2, 12-4, 14-2 before that making the playoffs nine straight years! He took a perrenial playoff team that had one bad year without a QB to the playoffs again. They had plenty of talent but no QB.

That's how great Peyton Manning was, that Colts team had major holes that Peyton masked. Very similarly to Luck right now.

I agree, the Colts cupboard isn't completely bare. Reggie Wayne, when healthy, still plays at an elite level and TY Hilton is a very good wideout as well. Then they of course have guys like Robert Mathis on defense.. but if you look at their roster and compare it to the Seahawks roster, where the teams lone weakness is continuity/talent on the offensive line.. there really is no comparison. The Seahawks have more talent than anyone in football right now, and that includes the quarterback.

Again.. I do agree that Wilson is slighted by many, in large part because his supporting cast is SO good in comparison to other situations.. but the people trying to spin the statistics to make it seem like the Colts and Seahawks are mirror images of each other are out of their minds.

Dude let snot let name recognition get in the way of stats and facts

Their defense was a top 10 scoring defense, that is far form bad, most teams would take that and be happy
They have a top 10 wr crops again Rw would take that
They have a run game that avg the same as us 4,3 YPA, they just do not run as much as we do
They have a top 10 pass blocking o-lien ours is last I am sure Rw would love to have a top 10 pass blocking o-line
Luck is in a pass orientated offense

Luck has it pretty damn good

Even if say Rw has the better run game and defense
Luck has the better wr, o-line and offense scheme

3-2 Luck has it better

 

[jlwaters1]

If you want to try to compare the two players, you need to compare situations. How was Luck when his team had a 21 point lead, was running all over the opposition, and his defense was completely shutting down the opposition's offense? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Absolutely, 110% correct.

When we suddenly have Marshawn Lynch struggling to get out of the backfield and a defense that hemorrhages yards and points .. all while having one target in the passing game.. then we can compare Luck and Wilson on a completely level playing field.

Until this happens, can we just admit Andrew Luck is a special talent just like Russell Wilson is a special talent?

Are you kidding me? People talk as if our running game was spectacular last year. In 2012 it was, mainly due to the read option in the 2nd half of the year and Lynch benefitting from that. In 2013 our running game was underwhelming for large stretches during the season. 4.3 yard average isn't great.

Against Houston well fell down what? 20-3 the running game sucked.
Against TB- we were 21-0 IIRC
Against ATL in 2012 we were down 20+ points and the running game was non-existent.

In all cases Wilson shined and gave us a chance to win.

If you were watching the Colts last year you would know that they TRIED to become a balanced team, they wanted to become a Seahawk style offense. In fact their win over SF, illustrated what they wanted to do. Luck threw for 159 yards Bradshaw was their horse who carried them to victory- They passed it 26 times and ran it 40. This is how they wanted to play all year long. Unfortunately, injuries as well as lack of production (from Richardson) forced them to do other things.

If you look @ the first 5 games (through Seattle game) they were a well balanced team aside from the Dolphins game which was clearly pass- heavy. In the other 4 games - 3 of them they had more rushing attempts than passes (against SEA it was even), the other game they threw marginally more than they ran.

For the first 7 games (before their bye week) Luck had only 3 games with over 30 attempts, with 1 -300 yard performance, and 4- multi-TD games. Luck had 224 att with 1574 yards @ 7.03 YPA

Over the same time Wilson had 3- 30+ attempt games, 1- 300 yarder, and 3- multi-TD games. Wilson had 187 Att W/ 1489 yards for a 7.96 YPA.

After their bye week the Colts went to a clear pass-first strategy.

 

[Anthony!]

If you want to try to compare the two players, you need to compare situations. How was Luck when his team had a 21 point lead, was running all over the opposition, and his defense was completely shutting down the opposition's offense? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Absolutely, 110% correct.

When we suddenly have Marshawn Lynch struggling to get out of the backfield and a defense that hemorrhages yards and points .. all while having one target in the passing game.. then we can compare Luck and Wilson on a completely level playing field.

Until this happens, can we just admit Andrew Luck is a special talent just like Russell Wilson is a special talent?

Are you kidding me? People talk as if our running game was spectacular last year. In 2012 it was, mainly due to the read option in the 2nd half of the year and Lynch benefitting from that. In 2013 our running game was underwhelming for large stretches during the season. 4.3 yard average isn't great.

Against Houston well fell down what? 20-3 the running game sucked.
Against TB- we were 21-0 IIRC
Against ATL in 2012 we were down 20+ points and the running game was non-existent.

In all cases Wilson shined and gave us a chance to win.

If you were watching the Colts last year you would know that they TRIED to become a balanced team, they wanted to become a Seahawk style offense. In fact their win over SF, illustrated what they wanted to do. Luck threw for 159 yards Bradshaw was their horse who carried them to victory- They passed it 26 times and ran it 40. This is how they wanted to play all year long. Unfortunately, injuries as well as lack of production (from Richardson) forced them to do other things.

If you look @ the first 5 games (through Seattle game) they were a well balanced team aside from the Dolphins game which was clearly pass- heavy. In the other 4 games - 3 of them they had more rushing attempts than passes (against SEA it was even), the other game they threw marginally more than they ran.

For the first 7 games (before their bye week) Luck had only 3 games with over 30 attempts, with 1 -300 yard performance, and 4- multi-TD games. Luck had 224 att with 1574 yards @ 7.03 YPA

Over the same time Wilson had 3- 30+ attempt games, 1- 300 yarder, and 3- multi-TD games. Wilson had 187 Att W/ 1489 yards for a 7.96 YPA.

After their bye week the Colts went to a clear pass-first strategy.

Does not matter here is what you need to know about run games

GB was 7 in rushing and avg 4.7 ypa,
NE was 9th and avg 4.4 ypa,
Indy was 20th but avg 4.3 ypa,
Denver was 15th and avg 4.1 ypa,
Detroit was 17th and avg 4.0 ypa
Seattle were 4th and avg 4.3 ypa
NO was 25th and avg 3.8 ypa
Now by YPA
GB 4th at 4.7 459 attempts
NE 9th at 4.4 470 attempts
Seattle 12th at 4.3 509 attempts
Indy 13th at 4.3 409 attempts
Denver 20th at 4.1 461 attempts
Detroit 22nd at 4.0 445 attempts
NO 25th at 3.8 391 attempts

Take out the QB yardage and the number are even closer since RW had 539 yards rushing and the next nearest on this list had was luck who had only 377 and then Rogers at 120, so you can see that RWs ability to run skews the numbers a lot and he avg 5.6 ypa so that even skews that number.

Without QB

Denver 1873 yards 461 attempts 4.1 ypa
GB 1955 yards 412 attempts 4.7 ypa
Detroit 1723 yards 408 attempts 4.3 ypa
NE 2047 yards 438 attempts 4.67 ypa
Seattle 1649 yards 413 attempts 3.99 ypa
Indy 1366 yards 342 attempts 3.99 ypa
NO 1421 yards 356 attempts 3.99 ypa


so as you can see without RW we are actually not as good as running the ball as we think, of course people will point to lynch so lets look just at the to RB from each team(of 2 rbs are close in stats I will list both)

Seattle-Lynch had 1257 yards on 301 attempts and 4.2 ypa( no other RB avg over 4 ypa)
GB-Lacey had 1178 yards on 284 attempts and 4.,1 ypa
Denver-Moreno had 1038 yards on 241 attempts 4.3 ypa
Det-Bush had 1006 yards on 223 attempts 4.5 ypa
Ne-Ridley had 773 yards on 178 attempts 4.3 ypa-note they also had Blount who had 772 yards on 153 attempts 5.0 ypa
Indy-Brown had 537 yards on 102 attempts 5.3 ypa
NO- Thomas had 549 yards on 147 attempts 3.7 YPA(interestingly all the other RBs they have avg over 4.2 ypa and mark ingram who had 386 yards avg 4.9)

So even going by the top RB we actually had the 2nd lowest ypa, so more proof all these teams have good run games the just do not run as much.

enough said

 

[BlueBlood]

Touchdown to Kearse on 4th down Vs Niners to pull us ahead. Thats all I will ever say when someone says "game manager."

 

[jlwaters1]

Why do people think we had a great running game last year...it wasnt that good.....

If you take away Wilsons 500 something yards we are ranked somewhere around 20 for total rushing yards on the season.

Lynch also only had 3 games where he went over 100 yards and in one of those games (Colts) Wilson had the same ammount of yards Lynch did.

There were 9 games were Lynch didnt even average 4 yards a carry in the game....Is THAT a great running game to you?

Towards the end of the year starting with the Vikings Lynch Had:

54 yards
45 yards
72 yards
47 yards
71 yards
97 yards

That is 110 carries he had for 386 yards and 5 TD. YPC avg of 3.5 per game.

Great post- I think the national media guys just look at the year end stats and because it's Beastmode it must had been a good year. The fact is the run game was underwhelming for most of the year. Yes we had injuries. But in only 7 games did he have 90+ yards carrying the ball. It wasn't nearly as effective was it was in 2012 ( had 10- 100+ yard games// 11- 90+ yard games). Hopefully that can change in 2014.

 

[Escamillo]

Wilson has been better in the statistical sense. But I think we should remember the 2011 college football season when both Wilson and Luck were playing in very similar offenses on very similar teams with very similar results. If we traded Luck for Wilson straight up, I'm guessing Luck's numbers on our team would look fairly similar to Wilson's.

Luck has had an interception problem in an offense that throws the ball too much and can't run it. But when he was at Stanford with a great defense and awesome rush attack, he barely threw any picks at all.

Even though Wilson is better, I would probably be fine with a Wilson-Luck swap. Luck seems like the most injury proof QB in NFL history, and I think his resilience would help mitigate our OL issues more than Wilson's habits would. There are a few games a year where good defenses with smart coordinators give Wilson a ton of trouble due to his lack of height, and that's another issue Luck wouldn't have to worry about. Wilson has better intangibles and is I think a better pure QB than Luck is, but I feel like both would have the same performance level and Luck would be more consistent and carry less risk.

Is Luck really more "injury proof"? At Stanford in his first year as the starting QB, he suffered an injury that caused him to miss the Sun Bowl, which liklely cost Stanford the game, as they barely lost to the Sooners. Not that Luck has a chronic history of injuries, but I don't know that he's "the most injury proof QB in history".

 

[Anthony!]

Wilson has been better in the statistical sense. But I think we should remember the 2011 college football season when both Wilson and Luck were playing in very similar offenses on very similar teams with very similar results. If we traded Luck for Wilson straight up, I'm guessing Luck's numbers on our team would look fairly similar to Wilson's.

Luck has had an interception problem in an offense that throws the ball too much and can't run it. But when he was at Stanford with a great defense and awesome rush attack, he barely threw any picks at all.

Even though Wilson is better, I would probably be fine with a Wilson-Luck swap. Luck seems like the most injury proof QB in NFL history, and I think his resilience would help mitigate our OL issues more than Wilson's habits would. There are a few games a year where good defenses with smart coordinators give Wilson a ton of trouble due to his lack of height, and that's another issue Luck wouldn't have to worry about. Wilson has better intangibles and is I think a better pure QB than Luck is, but I feel like both would have the same performance level and Luck would be more consistent and carry less risk.

Is Luck really more "injury proof"? At Stanford in his first year as the starting QB, he suffered an injury that caused him to miss the Sun Bowl, which liklely cost Stanford the game, as they barely lost to the Sooners. Not that Luck has a chronic history of injuries, but I don't know that he's "the most injury proof QB in history".

Perhaps and there have been a few instances last year were defenses game Luck troubles too, so what it happens to all QBs, I Mean AZ owned Luck, SD owned Luck, Rams Owned Luck basically any team with a good defense owned luck, now he might have won some of those games but not because of anything he did, point in case SF he through for 159 yards, no tds, but they won 27-7 an example of a running game and defense winning the game for him.

If you look at how he did against the NFC west compared to R W who saw them all twice it is pretty large

Luck posting 675 yards, 2 TDs, 4INTs and a passer rating of 67.37
Rw 582 yards, 4TDs and 2 INTs with a 95.52


Theh sholw injury proof thing is crap and another height biased thing that cannot be proven at all.

 

[Hawkpower]

Huh? All by himself? WTF? Let's look at their records. With the Suck for Luck year, they were 2-14,while 10-6, 14-2, 12-4, 14-2 before that making the playoffs nine straight years! He took a perrenial playoff team that had one bad year without a QB to the playoffs again. They had plenty of talent but no QB.

That's how great Peyton Manning was, that Colts team had major holes that Peyton masked. Very similarly to Luck right now.

I agree, the Colts cupboard isn't completely bare. Reggie Wayne, when healthy, still plays at an elite level and TY Hilton is a very good wideout as well. Then they of course have guys like Robert Mathis on defense.. but if you look at their roster and compare it to the Seahawks roster, where the teams lone weakness is continuity/talent on the offensive line.. there really is no comparison. The Seahawks have more talent than anyone in football right now, and that includes the quarterback.

Again.. I do agree that Wilson is slighted by many, in large part because his supporting cast is SO good in comparison to other situations.. but the people trying to spin the statistics to make it seem like the Colts and Seahawks are mirror images of each other are out of their minds.

One of the most important elements for a QB is their offensive line, and the hawks offensive line was not a good pass protecting group.

As has been said repeatedly in this thread, if you trade Wilson and Luck's teams respectively, no one, I mean NO ONE would be slobbering over and making excuses for Wilson the way people are here and in the media for Luck. Why does he need so many asterisks?? Well if he....but if he had.....but....but.....just stop.

I know changing mindsets are hard. Apparently even for some of us. It IS ok for a 5'11 QB to be seen as good as a 6'4 prodigy. He couuulllld even be better. Say it again.

 

[Anthony!]

Huh? All by himself? WTF? Let's look at their records. With the Suck for Luck year, they were 2-14,while 10-6, 14-2, 12-4, 14-2 before that making the playoffs nine straight years! He took a perrenial playoff team that had one bad year without a QB to the playoffs again. They had plenty of talent but no QB.

That's how great Peyton Manning was, that Colts team had major holes that Peyton masked. Very similarly to Luck right now.

I agree, the Colts cupboard isn't completely bare. Reggie Wayne, when healthy, still plays at an elite level and TY Hilton is a very good wideout as well. Then they of course have guys like Robert Mathis on defense.. but if you look at their roster and compare it to the Seahawks roster, where the teams lone weakness is continuity/talent on the offensive line.. there really is no comparison. The Seahawks have more talent than anyone in football right now, and that includes the quarterback.

Again.. I do agree that Wilson is slighted by many, in large part because his supporting cast is SO good in comparison to other situations.. but the people trying to spin the statistics to make it seem like the Colts and Seahawks are mirror images of each other are out of their minds.

One of the most important elements for a QB is their offensive line, and the hawks offensive line was not a good pass protecting group.

As has been said repeatedly in this thread, if you trade Wilson and Luck's teams respectively, no one, I mean NO ONE would be slobbering over and making excuses for Wilson the way people are here and in the media for Luck. Why does he need so many asterisks?? Well if he....but if he had.....but....but.....just stop.

I know changing mindsets are hard. Apparently even for some of us. It IS ok for a 5'11 QB to be seen as good as a 6'4 prodigy. He couuulllld even be better. Say it again.

all true the reality is if Rw posted these stats

8196 yards, 57% complt, 6 ypa, 46tds, 27 ints, qb rating of 78 , they would also say they told you so. I mean If Rw was 24th in complt%, 26th in ypa, 16th in tds, 18th in Qb rating they would say see I told you so. But those are Luck numbers so its see how good he is while

Rw 7th qb rating, 9th TDs, 4th YPA, 12th in Complt%, and its he is not that good, and yet he is significantly better than Luck in all those categories, with less margin for error due to less passing attempts.

 

[Smellyman]

Huh? All by himself? WTF? Let's look at their records. With the Suck for Luck year, they were 2-14,while 10-6, 14-2, 12-4, 14-2 before that making the playoffs nine straight years! He took a perrenial playoff team that had one bad year without a QB to the playoffs again. They had plenty of talent but no QB.

That's how great Peyton Manning was, that Colts team had major holes that Peyton masked. Very similarly to Luck right now.

I agree, the Colts cupboard isn't completely bare. Reggie Wayne, when healthy, still plays at an elite level and TY Hilton is a very good wideout as well. Then they of course have guys like Robert Mathis on defense.. but if you look at their roster and compare it to the Seahawks roster, where the teams lone weakness is continuity/talent on the offensive line.. there really is no comparison. The Seahawks have more talent than anyone in football right now, and that includes the quarterback.

Again.. I do agree that Wilson is slighted by many, in large part because his supporting cast is SO good in comparison to other situations.. but the people trying to spin the statistics to make it seem like the Colts and Seahawks are mirror images of each other are out of their minds.

One of the most important elements for a QB is their offensive line, and the hawks offensive line was not a good pass protecting group.

As has been said repeatedly in this thread, if you trade Wilson and Luck's teams respectively, no one, I mean NO ONE would be slobbering over and making excuses for Wilson the way people are here and in the media for Luck. Why does he need so many asterisks?? Well if he....but if he had.....but....but.....just stop.

I know changing mindsets are hard. Apparently even for some of us. It IS ok for a 5'11 QB to be seen as good as a 6'4 prodigy. He couuulllld even be better. Say it again.

all true the reality is if Rw posted these stats

8196 yards, 57% complt, 6 ypa, 46tds, 27 ints, qb rating of 78 , they would also say they told you so. I mean If Rw was 24th in complt%, 26th in ypa, 16th in tds, 18th in Qb rating they would say see I told you so. But those are Luck numbers so its see how good he is while

Rw 7th qb rating, 9th TDs, 4th YPA, 12th in Complt%, and its he is not that good, and yet he is significantly better than Luck in all those categories, with less margin for error due to less passing attempts.

awesome. this thread is killing it.

beating our heads against a wall though. Excuses will continue to be made for Luck and reasons to downgrade Wilson will continue to be made.

it is one of the more maddening national commentaries in sports I have seen.

 

[Anthony!]

awesome. this thread is killing it.

beating our heads against a wall though. Excuses will continue to be made for Luck and reasons to downgrade Wilson will continue to be made.

it is one of the more maddening national commentaries in sports I have seen.

It is, so out of curiosity I decided to email a certain so called expert ex GM. All I said was what would you think of a QB with these stats in their first 2 years. I quoted Lucks stats. They came back saying that QB is not playing well and is an avg at best performer so far. I then sent back RWs stats without letting this person who is who. They came back saying this QB is a top 10 Elite QB. When I revealed who is who, the excuses started about Luck not having anything. So I then sent back the info comparing what each has to support them, I did this in a way that would make it very hard to tell who is who. He said QB A had more support, QB A was Luck. When I told him, he said does not matter luck is Elite RW is not and never will be, because he is not a prototypical QB, When I asked to define, he said 6'2". That ex GM Casserly

 

[HawkWow]

Touchdown to Kearse on 4th down Vs Niners to pull us ahead. Thats all I will ever say when someone says "game manager."

Russ knew he could get the D to jump with the double count. It worked, giving him the free down to take a chance with Kearse. Game management at it's finest. Next time someone calls RW a game manager, just say...you better believe he's a game manager. One of the best.

As an aside, while I appreciate the irony, .I'd like to nominate this thread title as dumbest ever.

 

[Anthony!]

Touchdown to Kearse on 4th down Vs Niners to pull us ahead. Thats all I will ever say when someone says "game manager."

Russ knew he could get the D to jump with the double count. It worked, giving him the free down to take a chance with Kearse. Game management at it's finest. Next time someone calls RW a game manager, just say...you better believe he's a game manager. One of the best.

LOL yeah is now that I think about it. He manages to win games LOL

 

[HawkWow]

Touchdown to Kearse on 4th down Vs Niners to pull us ahead. Thats all I will ever say when someone says "game manager."

Russ knew he could get the D to jump with the double count. It worked, giving him the free down to take a chance with Kearse. Game management at it's finest. Next time someone calls RW a game manager, just say...you better believe he's a game manager. One of the best.

LOL yeah is now that I think about it. He manages to win games LOL

Now you're catching on, Anthony. Too many let the media do their thinking. Some jackass in the media mis-used the term "game manager" and the masses allowed his inaccurate definition to become law. I've asked this too many times without receiving an answer, but can anyone name me a HOF QB that was not a great game manager? I am certain Russ would be flattered by the term.. As well he should be. Game manager = Coach on the field. Huge compliment, imo.

 

[Smellyman]

Touchdown to Kearse on 4th down Vs Niners to pull us ahead. Thats all I will ever say when someone says "game manager."

Russ knew he could get the D to jump with the double count. It worked, giving him the free down to take a chance with Kearse. Game management at it's finest. Next time someone calls RW a game manager, just say...you better believe he's a game manager. One of the best.

LOL yeah is now that I think about it. He manages to win games LOL

Now you're catching on, Anthony. Too many let the media do their thinking. Some jackass in the media mis-used the term "game manager" and the masses allowed his inaccurate definition to become law. I've asked this too many times without receiving an answer, but can anyone name me a HOF QB that was not a great game manager? I am certain Russ would be flattered by the term.. As well he should be. Game manager = Coach on the field. Huge compliment, imo.

the thing is the term and meaning has been changed. It is no longer a good thing and is used to denigrate. If you manage to flip the nations thinking on it great.

Until then RW is very "nice" person with a good personality, but I wouldn't want to date him

 

[Steve2222]

Let us also not forget the Seahawks play in the superior conference in the best division in football. While the Colts play in the inferior conference in the worst division in football.

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

awesome. this thread is killing it.

beating our heads against a wall though. Excuses will continue to be made for Luck and reasons to downgrade Wilson will continue to be made.

it is one of the more maddening national commentaries in sports I have seen.

It is, so out of curiosity I decided to email a certain so called expert ex GM. All I said was what would you think of a QB with these stats in their first 2 years. I quoted Lucks stats. They came back saying that QB is not playing well and is an avg at best performer so far. I then sent back RWs stats without letting this person who is who. They came back saying this QB is a top 10 Elite QB. When I revealed who is who, the excuses started about Luck not having anything. So I then sent back the info comparing what each has to support them, I did this in a way that would make it very hard to tell who is who. He said QB A had more support, QB A was Luck. When I told him, he said does not matter luck is Elite RW is not and never will be, because he is not a prototypical QB, When I asked to define, he said 6'2". That ex GM Casserly

Anyway you could copy/paste those?