Andrew Luck's passer rating is 75.6, which is more than 10 points below the NFL median. His DVOA (football outsiders value over average all in one smart stat) is at -6.5%, meaning that on an average play he's 6.5% less efficient at scoring or converting first downs than an average QB. PFF's tracking has him just barely above the cutoff point between bad and good, at +2.8.
By comparison, Wilson (98.0) is decimal points away from having the 2nd highest rookie passer rating in NFL history, and RG3 (104.1) is very likely to finish #1 all time. Wilson's +20.8% DVOA efficiency rating is the 2nd highest (since 1991- and very likely of all time) among rookies behind Big Ben in 2004. RG3 is at +17.0%. And regarding PFF, they have Wilson (+33.1) and RG3 (+31.8 ) as the two best rookies this year by a very large margin. Both statistically and based on "eyeball test" tracking from sites like PFF, it's just not close. Wilson and RG3 destroy Andrew Luck.
The only argument that Luck has going for him is that his team was the worst in the NFL last year. That is a myth. The Colts have won 10+ games for 13 of the last 14 seasons (although the latest 10 game winner is a pretender, according to football outsiders the 2012 Colts are statistically the worst team ever to win 10 games). By contrast, both the Seahawks and Redskins had not boasted a winning season since 2007.
The truth is that the real Colts team was somewhere between the good pre-2011 version and the godawful injury ridden Curtis Painter abomination in 2011. Luck may not be an MVP level QB, but compared to Curtis Painter he looks like one. And while it's true that the current Colts team is not boasting the same supporting cast Manning had in his prime, it's still decent. I'd rate Luck's WRs ahead of Griffin's, and behind Wilson's, but not by terribly much.
The one thing I will give Luck credit for is his ability to win close games (something Griffin and Wilson also do well). That said, consider the following QB comparison:
QB A: 6.98 yards per attempt, 28.5 pass attempts per TD, 33.3 pass attempts per interception, played on a bad team, was money in close games, had a .667 overall winning percentage.
QB B: 6.98 yards per attempt, 25 pass attempts per TD, 19.6 pass attempts per interception, played on a bad team, was money in close games, had a .750 overall winning percentage.
QB A is Andrew Luck. QB B is 2011 John Skelton.
Obviously, I think Luck is a very different QB with a much brighter future, but he's alike in that his rookie season is a poster child of why it's a bad idea of judging a player by wins. Luck might have the most appropriate name ever- his 2012 team has absolutely no business having double digit wins, and it's not even because he's been that good. Regression is going to be a bitch in 2013. Unless his schedule somehow gets even easier.
Now you compare that John Skelton-esque debut with the two best rookie performances in NFL history on teams that hadn't posted winning seasons in five years. How is that even a discussion? As I like to say, it's one of those things that makes more sense the less you think about it.