chris98251":4r0nea34 said:
Everyone goes back to attempts and that you have to throw a lot, bad bad bad, you throw a lot if you have no running game or if defenses suck badly in pass defense, you throw a lot if you play from behind, you don't throw if you have a lead, you convert 3rd downs to keep ball control at times with a pass and make surgical strikes to keep the feild long and wide.
What people are saying is that Luck is better because he can go 160 miles an hour, they don't say he has to stop every 100 miles to get gas as he watches Wilson drive past the station at 70 getting 300 miles to the gallon.
More usage means more statistical significance on the numbers we do have. It really is as simple as that without any analogies needed. The fact is that with only 16 regular season games per year and a max of 20 total non-preseason games per year, statistical significance is not attained in two seasons, which is all either QB in question here has.
I don't want to get sidetracked by an argument of running vs. passing, but I'll just say that it's plain as day statistically that passing is a more efficient means of moving the ball than running is, and that the greatest utility of running SHOULD be (1) as a change of pace and (2) as a way of killing the clock when you have a late lead. Adjusted net yards per pass attempt is a stat that makes this super obvious. The fact that our coaches run a sub-optimal offense works out fine when given a historically elite defense to operate with but hardly makes a statement as to how offenses should be run.
Again, that last part isn't Wilson's fault; he can only do what he can with the attempts he's given. But it's what suppresses data on him so far and makes this question of Wilson vs. Luck an uncertain one.