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

[Hasselbeck]

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?

The Colts and the Seahawks averaged the same yards per rush, and both teams were top ten scoring defenses. Not enough to account for the ENORMOUS differences in efficiency. When Rivers passer rating jumped from 88.6 in 2012 to 105.5 in 2013, he won comeback player of the year. Luck's 87.0 rating to Wilson's 101.2 is a HUGE difference to ignore.

:lol:

This is one of those instances where stats are so absolutely misleading, just like Wilson's TD mark as a rookie.

You cannot, for one second, believe that Marshawn Lynch and Trent Richardson are comparable. And you cannot, for one second, believe the Seahawks defense (an all-time unit) and the Colts defense.... are comparable. Not to mention.. the Colts had the luxury of playing 6 games against some really bad competition (which helps pad those averages you keep clinging to). The Seahawks are in the toughest division in football by a wide margin.

Just stop. The situations are in no way the same. Andrew Luck does not have anywhere near the supporting cast that Russell Wilson does, and that's exactly why Wilson is the one from the 2012 class to have a ring. Football is a team sport and while Wilson is a special player.. he's also playing on one special team.

 

[pocketprotector]

I can't help those either too dumb or stubborn to acknowledge the facts. Here we have a supposed Seahawks fan who argues that the colts rushing average was bolstered by weak defensive opponents, and fails to address any effect those weak defenses may have had on Lucks efficiency rating relative to Wilsons.

 

[Sac]

Why do so many Seahawk fans feel the need to compare these two? It just blows my mind that so many people hate Andrew Luck simply because people say he's better than Russell Wilson.

Because Andrew Luck is a brand new Ford Taurus and Russell is a Honda Accord EXL. Both are nice, but really, everyone should know which one is better by now.

 

[pocketprotector]

Just stop. The situations are in no way the same. Andrew Luck does not have anywhere near the supporting cast that Russell Wilson does, and that's exactly why Wilson is the one from the 2012 class to have a ring. Football is a team sport and while Wilson is a special player.. he's also playing on one special team.

The Colts averaged 6 wins a year the two years before Luck. The Seahawks averaged 7 wins a year the two years before Wilson. Again, willful ignorance of the facts.

 

[pocketprotector]

Again, small differences in efficiency can be accounted for by the differences of circumstances. But that sort of difference in efficiency won Rivers the Comeback player of the year award.

 

[Sac]

wow. nice work man

Great work SacHawk. The more you dig into the stats the stronger the case is for Russell Wilson. It's mind boggling how many people choose to ignore them for crap arguments like "Wilson doesn't really have to do much" or "if they were on opposite teams Luck would have won the Super Bowl and Wilson wouldn't have been as successful with the Colts." You know as if there is some parallel universe where that hypotheses has been tested and proven.

Thanks guys, I quoted myself below because it looks like the attachment didn't stick for some reason. There's a screen shot of the common defenses the two teams faced below, by DVOA. And how they did.

I was going to start a new thread, but this one's still live and kicking. So I'm just going to leave this here.

Russell Wilson Versus Andrew Luck - The Advanced Stats

Most posters on .NET would agree at this point that Russell Wilson is at least as good as Andrew Luck, if not better. There are still a few here that would rather have Andrew Luck, a sentiment that is shared by most people in sports media.

Before we begin, let's dispel a few myths, right off the bat.

1) The Colts average starting field position was their own 28 yard line. The Seahawks Average starting field position was their own 31 yard line. So stow the argument that the Seahawks defense gave Wilson a substantially shorter distances to travel for his touchdowns, because it just isn't true. Here's the link:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

2) Both Seattle and Indianapolis suffered critical injuries all along their offensive lines during the course of the season. The fact that these teams did as well as they did is a credit to both quarterbacks. Any edge in this category is minimal until you start to consider the strength of the defenses they played during the year.

3) The Colts ran 64 plays per game on average, Seattle ran around 60. Both middle of the road numbers for volume. That play difference does more to highlight the difference in offensive philosophy than anything else. That 4 play per game difference equates out to an additional 64 plays over the year. Even that number is dwarfed by the sheer difference in passing attempts (163) between Wilson and Luck.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/plays-per-game

4) Even though Seattle had more of a balanced attack, the two teams had identical yards per carry at 4.3, tied for 12th in the NFL. Seattle simply had more rushing attempts, by exactly 100.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/ ... ushAttempt

5) Yes, I'm aware Reggie Wayne was injured for a chunk of last year. Were you aware that Wilson was on his 3rd, 4th, and 5th string receivers by week two. (Baldwin, Tate, Kearse) after Sidney Rice went out and with Percy being all but out until the Super Bowl.

With those points out of the way, let's begin.

Here, we'll take a look at their performances by overall DVOA of opposing defenses within their divisons, how they did against common opponents, and how the overall strength of their opponents impacted them.

If you don't know what DVOA is, here is a little blurb and a linky thingy where you can find more information.

DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on situation. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent. DVOA is a percentage, so a team with a DVOA of 10.0% is 10 percent better than the average team, and a quarterback with a DVOA of -20.0% is 20 percent worse than the average quarterback. Because DVOA measures scoring, defenses are better when they are negative. For more detail, read below.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

Basically zero (0) is average. For defenses, anything below zero is better than average. Seattle's historic defense was #1 in defensive DVOA at -25.8

Here is a chart I put together. Pardon the crappy quality.


First, we'll take a look at how each performed in their respective divisions.

Russell Wilson
NFC West - Not including the Seahawks
Average Defensive DVOA: -8.73
Completions: 77
Attempts: 141
Yards: 995
Completion Rate: 55%
TD: 9
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 89.4

Andrew Luck
AFC South - Not including the Colts
Average Defensive DVOA: 5.97
Completions: 124
Attempts: 212
Yards: 1422
Completion Rate: 58%
TD: 8
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 85.45

What we see here is that Russell Wilson plays in a division whose average defensive DVOA (-8.73) would be good enough to tie for 7th best in the league, and that's not including the Seahawks. Andrew Luck plays in a division whose average defense is well...below average (5.97). A score good for 9th worst. I actually fully expected to see Lucks numbers really stand out here considering the disparity of talent in the two divisions. Instead, we see Luck with a marginally better completion rate (3%), one fewer touchdown, and a passer rating four points lower than Wilson's, while throwing the ball 63 more times and gaining 427 more yards. The Yards and attempts can be explained away by offensive scheme; The shocking efficiency with which Wilson produces against far more competent division foes, cannot.

Against common opponents, the picture starts to get a little clearer. Keep in mind that Wilson has to play the Forty Niners, Cardinals, and Rams twice each while Luck got to throw against Houston, Jacksonville and Tennessee twice. The two divisions also played each other, so that's 9 common opponents. Common opponents are highlighted in blue in the chart above.

Russell Wilson Versus common opponents.

Completions: 126
Attempts: 216
Yards: 1577.00
Completion Rate: 58.33%
TD: 13
INT:5
Passer Rating: 91.53

Andrew Luck versus common opponents.

Completions: 190
Attempts: 324
Yards: 2097.00
Completion Rate: 58.64%
TD: 10
INT: 7
Passer Rating: 79.2

Clearly, Andrew Luck struggled against the rest of the NFC West, posting 675 yards, 2 TDs, 4INTs and a passer rating of 67.37.

This really brought down his common opponents score while Wilson's 582 yards, 4TDs and 2 INTs with a 95.52 passer rating against the rest of the south shot his up.

It's pretty evident that Wilson has been more efficient against much stiffer competition, and when factoring all common opponents is clearly the better player.

 

[Hawkpower]

Why do so many Seahawk fans feel the need to compare these two? It just blows my mind that so many people hate Andrew Luck simply because people say he's better than Russell Wilson.

For gods sake man, read the thread.

This isnt a "hate Luck" thread.

This is a "Luck is universally seen as better than Wilson based on....based on.....based on his height and pedigree rather than actual reality" thread.

Luck is fine. Wilson is better.

Wilson has facts on his side. What does Luck have on his?

I will continue to wait.

 

[Anthony!]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Russell does get some degree of statistical benefit from passing less often on a run orientated, defense dominated team, much like Alex Smith was able to do with the Niners for 1.5 years. I'm not comparing Russell to Smith, but you do have to take into account what the quarterback is being asked to do, the overall team composition, and the style of offense they play in rather than making a purely statistical argument.

Actually that si wrong it also means Rw has less room for error. FOr example say you start 1-10 for Rw that means the best he can do it 16-25 if the completes every other pass for 64%. For Luck at 35 a game he can go 21/25 the rest fo the game and get to 64%. So he can miss a few ore and still get there while RW cannot. Less attempts means less room for error.

 

[-The Glove-]

SacHawk FTW

 

[Anthony!]

The Colts ran the ball for 4.3 YPC with all 11 players on the defense ignoring the run, never seeing 8 in the box.. The Seahawks ran for 4.3 YPC with all 11 defensive players keying the run, facing 8 or even 9 in the box. Who can't see a difference here?

Andrew Luck threw for 4000 yards and got his team into the playoffs with all 11 players on defense trying to stop him from doing so, with no benefit of the defense thinking he was going to run. Russell Wilson received a QB rating of over 100 with 9 players on the defense concerned more about the run than they were concerned about him, with a safety coming up into the box, except in 3rd and long situations. Who can't see a difference here?

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.

We can compare passer rating until we're blue in the face, but without being put in a similar context, they are apples and oranges.

The excuses abound for you, First off Seattle did not run on 8 in the box everytime so get that out of your head. 2nd given Seattle faced much much tough defenses, as already shown that off sets your whole theory right there. We have already compared them every way there is, and Rw wins, you want to keep trying till you find one were Luck wins go for it, but in the end you have nothing to support your claim at all. You are without a doubt a troll and really wasting our time.

 

[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?

If half odd that was true it would be mind boggling, both team avg 4.3 ypa, so the struggling part is wrong, their defense was stop 10 in scoring so that is wrong, Indy Wr corps is ranked top 10 our is not so that is wrong shall I keep going? I.nNdy has an avg starting filed position of 28 we are only 31 not much difference either. Answer truth be told Luck has it pretty good and still does not do well.

 

[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?

The Colts and the Seahawks averaged the same yards per rush, and both teams were top ten scoring defenses. Not enough to account for the ENORMOUS differences in efficiency. When Rivers passer rating jumped from 88.6 in 2012 to 105.5 in 2013, he won comeback player of the year. Luck's 87.0 rating to Wilson's 101.2 is a HUGE difference to ignore.

:lol:

This is one of those instances where stats are so absolutely misleading, just like Wilson's TD mark as a rookie.

You cannot, for one second, believe that Marshawn Lynch and Trent Richardson are comparable. And you cannot, for one second, believe the Seahawks defense (an all-time unit) and the Colts defense.... are comparable. Not to mention.. the Colts had the luxury of playing 6 games against some really bad competition (which helps pad those averages you keep clinging to). The Seahawks are in the toughest division in football by a wide margin.

Just stop. The situations are in no way the same. Andrew Luck does not have anywhere near the supporting cast that Russell Wilson does, and that's exactly why Wilson is the one from the 2012 class to have a ring. Football is a team sport and while Wilson is a special player.. he's also playing on one special team.

But you see your wrong Luck has as good a supporting cast as Rw the stats prove it. Rw has a ring because he has played better than luck period. By the way if Indy played against such bad competition and Seattle such tough competition that would help Luck but it did not , so thanks for proving our point

Playing much inferior completion, with a run game that avg the same as ours, a defense in top 10 in scoring and Wr corps ranked top 10, Luck was not as good as Rw period. And guess what unlike your statement the facts, and stats backup mine.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

The Colts ran the ball for 4.3 YPC with all 11 players on the defense ignoring the run, never seeing 8 in the box.. The Seahawks ran for 4.3 YPC with all 11 defensive players keying the run, facing 8 or even 9 in the box. Who can't see a difference here?

Andrew Luck threw for 4000 yards and got his team into the playoffs with all 11 players on defense trying to stop him from doing so, with no benefit of the defense thinking he was going to run. Russell Wilson received a QB rating of over 100 with 9 players on the defense concerned more about the run than they were concerned about him, with a safety coming up into the box, except in 3rd and long situations. Who can't see a difference here?

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.

We can compare passer rating until we're blue in the face, but without being put in a similar context, they are apples and oranges.

Tical,

I don't know why you're all up on Luck's Jock. I think most of us here aren't trying to say Russell Wilson is better than Andrew Luck. But yeah we have a problem if the narrative suggest that Luck is better than Wilson... because NOTHING supports that as fact... nothing other than one QB got the pass attempt to throw over 4000 yards. In my mind, they are pretty much equals: Elway and Montana. Manning and Brady. You simply just cannot say Luck is better than Wilson.

And you can argue all you want about supporting cast and defenses.

But one QB signed for 4 yrs, 22 million, He was the 1st pick, he was 6'4, 235, he was handed the starting QB position getting starter reps, had a HoF WR usher him into the league, and was drafted among all his peers, so Luck was able to hit the ground running without any adversity other than replacing Manning.

Wilson signed for 4 yrs, 3 million, he was the 75th pick, he came into the league at 5'11, 205, he came in as the 3rd QB and had to battle incumbent, lockerroom favorite T-Jack, and pricey free agent addition Matt Flynn getting only 1/3rd of starting reps until after the first PS game of 2012, when the team shipped T-Jack for a 7th round. The battle then became Wilson vs Flynn in which Wilson was named the starter, but even then he had to prove himself everyday, and earn the respect of every teammate in that locker-room because the only offensive peer that came in with Wilson was Robert Turbin (and the Sweezy project).

Let's also state the fact that Wilson plays in one of the toughest divisions with the toughest defenses going against him, in a tougher conference with better defenses. Not to mention Seahawks have one of the most ardous travel schedules every year and we know the NFL never gives us any favors in that regard. Not to mention we have an open air stadium that is exposed to the elements.

And Luck has had it harder than Wilson because Wilson hasn't had to do as much because Pete Carroll has a great system of ball control offense paired with a suffocating defense and ST. Right because that makes sense.

And you can say things like passer efficiency rating doesn't matter but then you act like passing yards do... when its all a volume of players... and I don't think you saw my reply to your post on Page 2.

ALL THAT REALLY SEPARATES LUCK AND WILSON STATISTICALLY IS 397 PASS ATTEMPTS AND 1721 PASSING YARDS. DO THE MATH AND IT COMES OUT TO ONLY 4.33 YARDS PER ATTEMPT.

Wilson career average is 8.1 Wilson easily could have 4000 yards passing if he needed to be that QB, and he'd probably pass for 35+ TDs as well with increased attempts.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

The problem is that you guys are trying to use stats to prove an argument that is purely theoretical. No matter what stats you come up with, you will never, ever be able to prove that Andrew Luck wouldn't be playing better than Russell Wilson has if Luck was a Seahawk. Likewise, nobody will ever be able to prove that Russell Wilson wouldn't be better than Luck has been if Russell was a Colt.

So we can never ever compare athletes because they play for different teams??? Quick, someone tell the last 60 years that we have been wasting our time!!! LOL

Here is the real translation for your statement: I have been thoroughly and soundly proven wrong 26 times in this thread so I'm going to now claim that it's impossible to compare the two.

Basically, what Tical is saying is that we should notify the Hall of Fame and tell them to close down, they're a racket glorifying players who only have the "stats to prove an argument". No one can ever be able to prove that, say, Jerry Rice would have been the best WR ever if he'd played for the Browns.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Just thought I would throw my discussion from thehuddle.com in here for fun.

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?/ ... vs-wilson/

Got to, I think, Page 2...where you mentioned how you would take Luck in a trade... AFTER everything you said supporting Wilson, and I have come to the conclusion that you just like arguments. Weird AF.

Some posters think they are battling against "blind homerism" by hawk fans and playing the rational, intelligent role.

Apparently if you support a side that is supported by overwhelming statistical proof, you are a "blind homer" lol

Good thing we have a few of them in here to set the rest of us straight. Believing in an argument because the good ole boys do is much more intelligent. Who needs facts?

Its called "being contrarian"....... some folks get off on it and they think it makes them superior, it doesn't though.
Best to just ignore them as they are trying to "stand out" from the crowd.

 

[Hasselbeck]

But you see your wrong Luck has as good a supporting cast as Rw the stats prove it. Rw has a ring because he has played better than luck period. By the way if Indy played against such bad competition and Seattle such tough competition that would help Luck but it did not , so thanks for proving our point

Playing much inferior completion, with a run game that avg the same as ours, a defense in top 10 in scoring and Wr corps ranked top 10, Luck was not as good as Rw period. And guess what unlike your statement the facts, and stats backup mine.

If you think Lynch is equal to TRENT RICHARDSON .. and the Seahawks defense is on par with the Colts defense.. this discussion is going absolutely nowhere.

I get it. I do. I love Russell Wilson too. And the game manager schtick drives me nuts. But you cannot possibly believe that Andrew Luck has the same supporting cast as Russell Wilson, and if you do believe that.. you simply do not understand the game of football. The two teams are night and day.

Just stop trying to spin these stats to show the Colts are some secret superpower being held back by Andrew Luck. It's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard in the history of this board.

 

[Anthony!]

But you see your wrong Luck has as good a supporting cast as Rw the stats prove it. Rw has a ring because he has played better than luck period. By the way if Indy played against such bad competition and Seattle such tough competition that would help Luck but it did not , so thanks for proving our point

Playing much inferior completion, with a run game that avg the same as ours, a defense in top 10 in scoring and Wr corps ranked top 10, Luck was not as good as Rw period. And guess what unlike your statement the facts, and stats backup mine.

If you think Lynch is equal to TRENT RICHARDSON .. and the Seahawks defense is on par with the Colts defense.. this discussion is going absolutely nowhere.

I get it. I do. I love Russell Wilson too. And the game manager schtick drives me nuts. But you cannot possibly believe that Andrew Luck has the same supporting cast as Russell Wilson, and if you do believe that.. you simply do not understand the game of football. The two teams are night and day.

Just stop trying to spin these stats to show the Colts are some secret superpower being held back by Andrew Luck. It's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard in the history of this board.

First off I never said the same, however name recognition andfact are not the same

The fact is Indys run game avg the same as ours, the difference is attempts only, Same goes for defense no were did I say there was a good as ours only that it was not as bad as y9ou and other make it out to be, it is a top 10 scoring defense, which is pretty good. Not to mention the Seattle defense get an avg starting position of their own 31 yard line, guess what Inys defense helped Luck get an avg of their own 28 no ta huge difference again.

So let help you with facts not name recognition

The Colts average starting field position was their own 28 yard line. The Seahawks Average starting field position was their own 31 yard line. So stow the argument that the Seahawks defense gave Wilson a substantially shorter distances to travel for his touchdowns, because it just isn't true. Here's the link:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

Rushinghe Colts average starting field position was their own 28 yard line. The Seahawks Average starting field position was their own 31 yard line. So stow the argument that the Seahawks defense gave Wilson a substantially shorter distances to travel for his touchdowns, because it just isn't true. Here's the link:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff


Now the break down between luck and Rw

Run game Advantage Rw (slightly)
Wr Advantage Luck (INdy top tne wr corps Seattle not even close)
Pass blocking o-line Advantage Luck(indy ranked 9th, Seattle 32nd) Huge
Defense advantage RW (both top 10 in scoring though and close in avg starting position)
Strength of defense Advantage Luck(played a much easier defensive schedule)
Passing offense Advantage Luck

So lets see Rw 2, Luck 4 remind me who ahs more help again? Answer Luck and those are the facts, not opinion.

 

[kearly]

Tical is right. I'm not wading in any further, but I think the core of his argument is correct.

Scotte is right too. Luck is not a better player than Wilson, but he is very talented and clearly more respected and coveted by NFL coaches.

 

[Sac]

The Colts average starting field position was their own 28 yard line. The Seahawks Average starting field position was their own 31 yard line. So stow the argument that the Seahawks defense gave Wilson a substantially shorter distances to travel for his touchdowns, because it just isn't true. Here's the link:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

LOL Plagiarize much?

 

[Hawkpower]

Tical is right. I'm not wading in any further, but I think the core of his argument is correct.

Scotte is right too. Luck is not a better player than Wilson, but he is very talented and clearly more respected and coveted by NFL coaches.

The fact that he is more respected around the league than Wilson, despite not earning the right to be thought of more highly is what is the core of the argument here. No one denies Luck is a good QB.

Bias is clearly part of the game. But fans have a right to step back and question and examine those biases, especially when the evidence clearly paints a picture much different than analysts would have you believe.

The fact that so many HAWK fans are sucked in to this bias is what saddens me. We should know better by now.

I have seen it said in this thread that Wilson will eventually win over the national media. Perhaps he too, will win over the few hawk fans left that yearn for Luck or others to lead our team instead.