The Wilson vs Luck debate

[rideaducati]

Funny, because Wilson has a better YPA, TD Pct., Int Pct., TD to Int Ratio, Passer Rating, and QBR, not to mention more wins, fewer losses, better win percentage, and more 4th Quarter Comebacks and Game Winning Drives than Luck. Also, Wilson has the second best passer rating in league history (minimum 1,500 attempts) behind only Aaron Rodgers.

Like a ram fan would know what he is talking about when it comes to the QB position. :th2thumbs:

Such an odd comment considering the Rams QB history makes the Seahawks QB history look quite putrid. I'm only 29 but I've seen plenty of highlights of Waterfield, Van Brocklin, Ferragamo, Everett, and I obviously have lived through the Warner days...

Jim Everett would probably be the 2nd best QB the Seahawks have ever had, after Hasselbeck.

Not even 3rd after Wilson and Hass. I'd take Kreig over Chrissy anyday. Ferragamo? Meh. Now if you want to talk Roman Gabriel, that's another matter. Better than Vince and Chrissy. He was the Rapistberger of his day without the raping, big and strong though not as good at reading defenses. Still wouldn't take him over Wilson or Hass and probably not Kreig though.


BTW, the Rams franchise has existed 40 years longer than the Seahawks (1936 vs. 1976) so by sheer number of seasons your team is far more likely to have had more quality QBs.

For a team that has been around as long as the rams, that's a pretty sad list of their top QBs. I laughed out loud at the Chrissy being ranked second... I'd take Russell Wilson over every QB the Rams have ever had and Kreig and Hass would be third and fourth. Waterfield and Brocklin both had more interceptions than touchdowns and less than 50% completion rate. I'm sure they were perfect for the "three yards and a cloud of dust" era and playing against 6 other teams, but for where the NFL is today, those guys would compare to Tim Tebow.

 

[drdiags]

Ferragamo was not good, neither was Everette. Roman Gabriel was like Jim Plunkett to me but less successful.

I don't think the Wilson vs Luck debate is worth the effort. If you are a non-Seahawks fan, Wilson is not getting much love from you. Seahawks fans just have to accept it. The folks that are voting HOF (Peter King) is going to always rank Luck above Wilson. There is just a deep bias against the type of football Wilson is now playing. If he becomes the next generation Drew Brees, the bias will change but not until then.

 

[chris98251]

Ferragamo was not good, neither was Everette. Roman Gabriel was like Jim Plunkett to me but less successful.

I don't think the Wilson vs Luck debate is worth the effort. If you are a non-Seahawks fan, Wilson is not getting much love from you. Seahawks fans just have to accept it. The folks that are voting HOF (Peter King) is going to always rank Luck above Wilson. There is just a deep bias against the type of football Wilson is now playing. If he becomes the next generation Drew Brees, the bias will change but not until then.

I Remember and agree completely, Gabriel was average or maybe just above average, Jack Snow was a great weapon for him, everyone was hoping he would take the next step, tough SOB though.

 

[seahawkfreak]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Anything to back that up or you just gonna do a drive by post?

 

[chris98251]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Anything to back that up or you just gonna do a drive by post?

Luck has more wins.... Nope

Luck has more Super Bowl appearances .... Nope

Luck has better Numbers........... Nope

Luck had more Hype....................... Winner

 

[rideaducati]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Anything to back that up or you just gonna do a drive by post?

If he is looking for something to back it up before coming back, he ain't coming back any time soon.

 

[Scottemojo]

I don't love QB rating as a team to team measure.

But on the same team, Hass is 20 points higher than Luck. Same players, same talent, same scheme.

The thing is, I know, deep down, Luck is way more talented than Hasselbeck. And not Hasselbeck now, Hasselbeck in his prime.

I also know that Luck is more talented than Russell. He has the speed and size of Cam Newton with the arm talent of Dan Fouts.
But like Fouts, he hasn't turned that talent into post season success. Maybe he is the next Marino, the next Fouts, the next Kelly. Maybe Luck is the perpetual NFL bridesmaid.

 

[Spounge84]

Jim Everett would probably be the 2nd best QB the Seahawks have ever had, after Hasselbeck.

Stop...just stop. :177692:

 

[907Hawk]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Funny, because Wilson has a better YPA, TD Pct., Int Pct., TD to Int Ratio, Passer Rating, and QBR, not to mention more wins, fewer losses, better win percentage, and more 4th Quarter Comebacks and Game Winning Drives than Luck. Also, Wilson has the second best passer rating in league history (minimum 1,500 attempts) behind only Aaron Rodgers.

Like a ram fan would know what he is talking about when it comes to the QB position. :th2thumbs:

Such an odd comment considering the Rams QB history makes the Seahawks QB history look quite putrid. I'm only 29 but I've seen plenty of highlights of Waterfield, Van Brocklin, Ferragamo, Everett, and I obviously have lived through the Warner days...

Jim Everett would probably be the 2nd best QB the Seahawks have ever had, after Hasselbeck.

You seriously just sited two players who played 60 years ago, Vince Ferragamo who had a TD to INT ratio of 76–91, and some chick, yeah thats some history you got there bro.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

From everything I've ever read, Van Broklin and Waterfield were really good in their day (the 50s) and while I'm old, I'm not so old I saw them play.
All that said, Warner was to my eyes the best QB that franchise has had. I'd easily take him over any Hawk QB thus far. HOWEVER, Russ has a good chance to change my mind.

 

[WilsonMVP]

From everything I've ever read, Van Broklin and Waterfield were really good in their day (the 50s) and while I'm old, I'm not so old I saw them play.
All that said, Warner was to my eyes the best QB that franchise has had. I'd easily take him over any Hawk QB thus far. HOWEVER, Russ has a good chance to change my mind.

Ya some people are being homers if they wouldnt take Warner. Dude led the Cards and Rams to the superbowl

Russ still has a way to go in this league but right now if its just Wilsons few years I would go Warner over him

 

[seahawkfreak]

I don't love QB rating as a team to team measure.

But on the same team, Hass is 20 points higher than Luck. Same players, same talent, same scheme.

The thing is, I know, deep down, Luck is way more talented than Hasselbeck. And not Hasselbeck now, Hasselbeck in his prime.

I also know that Luck is more talented than Russell. He has the speed and size of Cam Newton with the arm talent of Dan Fouts.
But like Fouts, he hasn't turned that talent into post season success. Maybe he is the next Marino, the next Fouts, the next Kelly. Maybe Luck is the perpetual NFL bridesmaid.

And even with all that said your still giving him to much credit

 

[Popeyejones]

Popeye and Ramfan128: by the end of their careers, you'll have a different opinion, marker my words.

Different opinion about Alex Smith and Drew Brees?

I was serious when I said my post was explaining passer rating, and not trying to sneak in an argument about Wilson and Luck.

If you want to know what I think about Wilson and Luck, here it is.

As I've said numerous times on this board over the years, Wilson has been my favorite of the young QBs. This is partially because he reminds me more of Steve Young than anyone I've seen before.

In his rookie year I also thought Luck was over-hyped.

Through years 2 and 3 I was really shocked at how little development I saw from Wilson; I was expecting much more. On the other hand I saw Luck take his really impressive skillset and really start to develop more too. He was still making too many bad decisions and trying to force too many things, but he was really developing in the ways I was expecting Wilson to (who wasn't), and in ways that made it look like over the long term he could be really, really special.

INTERMISSION FOR WHAT I MEAN BY DEVELOP: Climbing the pocket and finding space within it while keeping your eyes downfield; trusting your read of the defense and keeping safeties off your targets with your eyes; quickly getting through your progressions; making the job of your lineman easier by not moving off the point of your drop unless you have absolutely have to; checking out and down of bad matchups pre=snap

Basically, over the first three years of their careers I went from thinking Wilson was the best of the young QBs (with a slight edge over Luck) to seeing Luck develop more than I thought he would and Wilson devleop less than I thought he would; by the end year three I gave the edge to Luck.

Then this year, as we all know (and Seahawks fans celebrate because Seahawks fans) Luck had a really down year before getting injured, and I finally have seen a bit of development in Wilson's game, although it stops and starts and he's still behind that curve for me (which tbf is part of developing, if he does get there).

So, basically, I think they're the right QBs for the teams their on and what their teams are trying to do. I do however think Luck would be more successful in the Seahawks' system than Wilson would be in the Colts' system. One of the things people legitimately really like about Luck IMO is something that, out of every single QB in the NFL, he is the only guy to have in common with Aaron Rodgers: You can drop him into any system. Unlike other awesome QBs like Wilson, Palmer, Brady, Brees, etc. your scheming isn't dependent on the areas in which he excels.

So, long post I know, but basically I think they're both really good. I went from slightly preferring Wilson to slightly preferring Luck to now thinking of them about equally.

I know this isn't the Seahawks bashing you were praying for, but so it goes. :th2thumbs:

 

[RichNhansom]

I don't love QB rating as a team to team measure.

But on the same team, Hass is 20 points higher than Luck. Same players, same talent, same scheme.

The thing is, I know, deep down, Luck is way more talented than Hasselbeck. And not Hasselbeck now, Hasselbeck in his prime.

I also know that Luck is more talented than Russell. He has the speed and size of Cam Newton with the arm talent of Dan Fouts.
But like Fouts, he hasn't turned that talent into post season success. Maybe he is the next Marino, the next Fouts, the next Kelly. Maybe Luck is the perpetual NFL bridesmaid.

Your on point about the so called debate. It shouldn't be whether Wilson or Luck is the better QB it should whether Luck is any good or not because right now there are plenty of young QB's playing the position better.

Here's the thing though, you wonder if it is him or his coaching staff or surrounding talent but that question has already been answered compliments of Hasselbeck. So really maybe we should be asking how good is Harbaugh? Is Luck like Kaep and Alex Smith, a product of Jim's ability to get the most out of his QB?

As for more talented I think it's better to say more gifted. There is zero debate by anyone that Luck is a physical freak but being able to utilize that gift is where the talent comes in and so far we have seen him excel in Harbaugh's college system and perform somewhat poorly outside of it.

Changing his environment may or may not change his talent level. For example those like Ram128 think he would be elite in Seattle but that ignores he would be playing behind our O-line the last few years and against much better defenses and he has performed very poorly when facing good defenses. You could also question how he would be affected going from the team that has benefitted the most by penalties to a team that has been benefited the least by them and I believe that is true pretty much his entire career. This is unless you believe the penalties would somehow be different if he were here.

Gifted? Absolutely but talented is a whole nother question.

 

[Popeyejones]

I still don't understand why Seahawk fans want Wilson to be considered better.

TBH I think it's a weird dangling chad from the Seattle Sports Fan Victim Complex. You basically have a fanbase that has been nurturing a victim complex for the last 30 years, looks up one day and has been the class of the NFL and gets every benefit of the doubt even when they do questionable things for the last 3 years, and those two things rub up against each other.

The Seahawks have deservedly (read that word again Hawks fans ) been deep throated by the national media for the past few years, so the lingering victim complex of the fanbase just gets applied to increasingly bizarre and petty stuff (like the imaginariy "Luck v Wilson" debate) that to everyone else just seems out of touch and whiny.

 

[Scottemojo]

The biggest difference between the two mental, though it is the physical difference that has people praising Luck so much. He is the prototype, the next best prospect since Elway, Manning with wheels.

Mentally, Russ is not an super imaginative thrower. He leaves TDs on the field with a need to KNOW, not imagine, that a receiver is open. Russ forcing a ball into tight coverage is simply something that doesn't happen often. We tend to hang that on Pete and his aversion to turnovers, but the 4 INTs Russ threw as wisconsin would suggest the need to avoid INTs runs deeper than Pete. Russ for the first 3 quarters of the NFCCG is what we would have if Russ was a guy who forced passes. No bueno. Pete has always used a point guard analogy to describe his QBs. Russ, like any good PG, is just as concerned with turnovers as he is easy buckets.

Russ, by way of his approach to football, ends up being the much safer player. Even his holding the ball too long often is because of his need to know the guy is open. For every missed TD a complaining fan points out, I can find two defensive traps Russ avoided because of this inherent need to not be tricked by coverages.

Luck does not have that. His mental approach is totally different. You can count up the number of times in a season Luck forces a ball into tight windows or gambles with his imagination (which I define as throwing the ball before the guy is open, or before the WR makes his break) and it dwarfs the number of times Russ does it. When it works, Luck is simply amazing, the complete package. When it doesn't, well we see the results in the advanced stats used to quantify QB play. Low completion percentage, too many INTs, all that. The one thing Hass is doing right that Luck simply won't so far in his career is take the short pass if pre snap read shows that is the thing to do.

Add to that, most of his detractors, myself included, don't really want him to fail, lets face it, the guy is really likable, but his anointing as MVP before the season and things like that are really, really offputting. The guy was going into the HOF from the day he got drafted, his GM won an award for drafting him first overall, the hype really is annoying.

And while he is a nice guy, his failures are his own doing. He needs to stop trusting his arm, become more of a game manager, and pick his shots. That has to be his next evolution. In a sense, Luck is a 80's era gunslinger in a modern league, and he needs to watch closely what Hass is doing and add it to his game.

 

[DTexHawk]

Agreed, both have areas to work on.

 

[Popeyejones]

The biggest difference between the two mental, though it is the physical difference that has people praising Luck so much. He is the prototype, the next best prospect since Elway, Manning with wheels.

Mentally, Russ is not an super imaginative thrower. He leaves TDs on the field with a need to KNOW, not imagine, that a receiver is open. Russ forcing a ball into tight coverage is simply something that doesn't happen often. We tend to hang that on Pete and his aversion to turnovers, but the 4 INTs Russ threw as wisconsin would suggest the need to avoid INTs runs deeper than Pete. Russ for the first 3 quarters of the NFCCG is what we would have if Russ was a guy who forced passes. No bueno. Pete has always used a point guard analogy to describe his QBs. Russ, like any good PG, is just as concerned with turnovers as he is easy buckets.

Russ, by way of his approach to football, ends up being the much safer player. Even his holding the ball too long often is because of his need to know the guy is open. For every missed TD a complaining fan points out, I can find two defensive traps Russ avoided because of this inherent need to not be tricked by coverages.

Luck does not have that. His mental approach is totally different. You can count up the number of times in a season Luck forces a ball into tight windows or gambles with his imagination (which I define as throwing the ball before the guy is open, or before the WR makes his break) and it dwarfs the number of times Russ does it. When it works, Luck is simply amazing, the complete package. When it doesn't, well we see the results in the advanced stats used to quantify QB play. Low completion percentage, too many INTs, all that. The one thing Hass is doing right that Luck simply won't so far in his career is take the short pass if pre snap read shows that is the thing to do.

Add to that, most of his detractors, myself included, don't really want him to fail, lets face it, the guy is really likable, but his anointing as MVP before the season and things like that are really, really offputting. The guy was going into the HOF from the day he got drafted, his GM won an award for drafting him first overall, the hype really is annoying.

And while he is a nice guy, his failures are his own doing. He needs to stop trusting his arm, become more of a game manager, and pick his shots. That has to be his next evolution. In a sense, Luck is a 80's era gunslinger in a modern league, and he needs to watch closely what Hass is doing and add it to his game.

This is a really great post. Seriously.

Only around the extreme margins I think we might disagree a bit, but overall 99% agreed.

*I don't think the "physical difference" thing between these two has mattered for at least a couple years now, if it ever mattered, or what's causing people to praise Luck so much. This is also because for practically everyone who isn't a Hawks fan "Luck or Wilson" isn't actually a thing; Hawks fans see the praise of Luck and institute "Luck or Wilson" but when people are praising Luck they're not even remotely talking about Wilson, so that Luck is of prototypical size and above average athletic ability doesn't enter the equation too much (I mean, heck, you can say the same thing about Ryan Fitzpatrick).

*While there was a lot of deserved hype about Luck leading up to the draft, I don't think he was going into the HOF before he was drafted, or Grigson won exec of the year because he drafted Luck (those two things contradict a bit too). Instead, the Colts going from 2-14 to 11-5 and winning their division both elevated Luck above the normal (albeit slightly elevated for Luck) "best prospect in x years" draft chatter and also elevated Grigson. TBF I think the love of Luck really didn't hit its apex until last year though, but that's what happens when a 25 year old throws for almost 5,000 yards and 40 TDs.

 

[Seanhawk]

There has never been much of a debate about this except amongst Seahawk fans.

Luck is better.

Funny, because Wilson has a better YPA, TD Pct., Int Pct., TD to Int Ratio, Passer Rating, and QBR, not to mention more wins, fewer losses, better win percentage, and more 4th Quarter Comebacks and Game Winning Drives than Luck. Also, Wilson has the second best passer rating in league history (minimum 1,500 attempts) behind only Aaron Rodgers.

Like a ram fan would know what he is talking about when it comes to the QB position. :th2thumbs:

Such an odd comment considering the Rams QB history makes the Seahawks QB history look quite putrid. I'm only 29 but I've seen plenty of highlights of Waterfield, Van Brocklin, Ferragamo, Everett, and I obviously have lived through the Warner days...

Jim Everett would probably be the 2nd best QB the Seahawks have ever had, after Hasselbeck.

Some Ram fan you are. You forgot Warren Beatty.

 

[kearly]

Passer rating isn't the end all be all, but I don't think I can make enough of an argument for Luck to overcome a 14.5 passer rating deficit.

Oh, I think an arguement for that can definitely be made. I'm gonna take Russell Wilson and Andrew Luck out of the equation just so the argument isn't as loaded. As a second caveat my point here isn't that the conclusion is that Luck > Wilson. Like everyone else who isn't a Hawks fans I don't actually think "Luck v. Wilson" is really a thing that people talk about or care about.

In any case, let's instead compare two people with pretty similar passer ratings over the last three or four years, Alex Smith and Drew Brees.

The basic story is that three of the four components of passer rating push up the rating for players like Alex Smith, and push down the rating for players like Drew Brees.

Alex Smith, by virtue of playing with a good defense and the playcalling tilting toward the running game, should reasonably have a higher comp %, higher YPA (soooo stupid they do YPA and not YPC as the later isn't dependent on completion % to begin with) and lower int % than the average QB. His team is simply leaning on him less, meaning:

1) defensive gameplans aren't solely oriented toward stopping him, creating more space for him to work.
2) because his offense relies on the run game he's making a lot of short, high percentage throws.
3) he rarely finds himself in the types of situations which kill passer rating (down by more than a scoret, everyone knows you're passing, and to try to fight your way back you're going to need to deal with a lot of incompletions and interceptions while going for your shot plays and trying to get chunk yardage back).

Drew Brees, on the other hand, doesn't get any of these benefits. He also, much more than Alex Smith, is playing in pass-first offense that takes a lot of downfield shots. Downfield shots, no matter how good you are, are going to decrease your completion % and and increase your interception % over time. They help a lot for your YPC, but actually hurt for your YPA (why it's dumb for passer rating to use YPA and not YPC).

So despite having roughly equivalent passer ratings, this is why basically everyone rightly agrees that over the last four years or so Drew Brees has been a much more dominant QB than Alex Smith, and is a more talented QB than Alex Smith to boot.

I'm not here to defend passer rating. That said, you're example doesn't work. Drew Brees career passer rating is 11.5 points HIGHER than Smith's. Even if we only look at the past 5 years Brees is still considerably higher.

That said, I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying. Passer rating is a simple amalgamation of a QB's box score, with a slight bias towards completion rate. It doesn't always paint the most accurate picture of how well a QB played, and it doesn't account for how a player benefited or was harmed by his situation, it only tells you how productive he was on a rate basis. Right now Russell is 2nd all time in passer rating, but I don't think anyone would say he's the 2nd best QB of all time.

However, I do think the box score, whether it is viewed by passer rating or AnY/A (adjusted net yards per attempt), is a good starting point for a comparison. We then have to use subjective judgement about how system, strength of schedule, and supporting cast impact that QB.

Colin Kaepernick had a career passer rating around 95.0 entering the 2014 season, his rating from 2012-2013 was higher than some future HoFers. And now, only a season and a half later, he will be lucky to have a starting job in 2016. Kaep was effective within a system, but his numbers didn't tell us how good a QB he really was. It would be fair to look at a QB with a lesser box score and think that QB was better than Kaep.

Nick Foles is another example of how the box score did not tell us how good he actually was.

But when the gap between two QBs is 14.5 points, not over one season but OVER A CAREER, to me that's nothing that could be taken lightly and I don't think the pro-Luck arguments do enough to overcome this humongous gap in their efficiency numbers. I think Wilson could post at least an 85 passer rating on any offense in the NFL, he's not a system guy. I also think some of the arguments for Luck are flawed and there are some arguments for Wilson that never get mentioned (like being held back by his OC most of his career).

In 2011, both Luck and Wilson played on elite run first teams with game manager roles. Both QBs had great numbers. Wilson's numbers were better.

(My one argument in favor of Luck used to be durability. Its weird that of these two QBs, Luck was the first to have injury problems in the NFL. Wilson is like a rabbit in a minefield, yet he's somehow avoided injury longer than a man built like a tank.)