Clayton still Screaming LUCK for OROY

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • meh, who cares, they're all in the playoffs, all wild cards, all with similar records and stats, let post season play dictate their prestige, if they all lose their first or second games then fall back on stats..

    you have to figure if Luck did carry his team then he will fail in the playoffs, same with the rest...

    its just an award
    GO HAWKS!!!
    User avatar
    Twisted
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1554
    Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:29 pm


  • The colts had an awful roster with manning. It is even far worse now. It shouldnt be held against luck that he had to throw more. The dude put his entire team on his back. Russell didn't. So Russ should have and did have more efficient results.

    To me, the best way to determine the winner is to try to picture what the players seasons would have played out like if their roles were reversed. Wilson certainly had the far easier task, i don't think that is debatable. Can somebody answer this question...how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?
    "So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. " ------Anthony!
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1300
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • jewhawk wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    jewhawk wrote:This is a great, detailed article from a few weeks ago comparing how Luck's usage affects his efficiency numbers compared to RG3's (the article only compares Luck and RG3, not Wilson).


    All the article really argues is that Luck earns recognition for seeing more reps. I find that hard to swallow as much of an argument though, Wilson and RG3 had games this year where they topped 30 or 35 attempts and their efficiency numbers did not change.

    From the article:
    Griffin has lost a yard of efficiency roughly every six attempts, whereas Luck has lost one just every 50.

    Luck was remarkably consistent no matter how often he had to throw. You could argue that RG3's superior efficiency throwing between 20-25 times a game is more impressive, but it's a mistake to completely ignore Luck's performance even in games where he had to throw 50+ times. And it's wrong to say that RG3's efficiency numbers did not change when they had to throw more. RG3's AY/A for the year was 8.59. In his five games where he attempted the most passes (29, 34, 35, 34, 39), his AY/A in those games were 6.24, 7.09, 9.23, 5.79, and 5.51, with the 9.23 game coming against Tampa Bay's defense that was one of the worst in the league against the pass. Luck's AY/A for the year was 6.42. In his five games where he attempted the most passes (46, 55, 48, 50, 54), his AY/A in those games were 6.70, 6.49, 9.85, 4.78, and 6.22. Wilson's AY/A for the year was 8.11. In his six games where he attempted the most passes (34, 27, 35, 27, 37), his AY/A in those games were 3.76, 13.07, 6.60, 9.78, and 9.00, with the 3.76 game being week 1 against the Cardinals in his first game in a limited offense. So you're right about Wilson's efficiency not suffering much with increased attempts, but RG3's efficiency dropped significantly with increased usage.

    I also think you're downplaying the effect of the running game on RG3's efficiency. Sure, he deserves some credit for that because he's a threat to run himself, but I saw a stat somewhere a few weeks ago that RG3 led the league in Y/A from play-action, and was last in the league in Y/A without play action. This is further illustrated by looking at his numbers on 3rd and long, where there is no real threat of a rush on obvious passing downs. Here are the numbers for the rookie QBs on 3rd and 8 or more to go:

    Luck: 41-83, 8.54 Y/A, 2.41 INT%, 5.68 Sack%, 36.4 1st down %
    RG3: 28-48, 5.88 Y/A, 0.00 INT%, 11.11 Sack%, 9.3 1st down %
    Wilson: 22-40, 7.33 Y/A, 2.44 INT%, 9.09 Sack%, 27.3 1st down %

    So in situations where the defense knows it's a pass, RG3 struggles in a way that Luck and Wilson don't. Again, I'm not even saying I think Luck should win ROY. To me, the best order would be 1. Wilson, 2. Luck, 3. Griffin, but it's close between all of them.


    Wow... Great post Jewhawk. Really changed my opinion on Griffin and Luck. Thanks.
    User avatar
    hawksfan515
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5211
    Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:52 pm
    Location: Battle Ground, Washington


  • Tical21 wrote:The colts had an awful roster with manning. It is even far worse now. It shouldnt be held against luck that he had to throw more. The dude put his entire team on his back. Russell didn't. So Russ should have and did have more efficient results.

    To me, the best way to determine the winner is to try to picture what the players seasons would have played out like if their roles were reversed. Wilson certainly had the far easier task, i don't think that is debatable. Can somebody answer this question...how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?

    Luck shouldn't get extra points because the Colts tanked their season by starting Painter either.

    If you want to give a guy ROY who had a worse season but had excuses for having it, go ahead, just doesn't seem right to me. "Sure, Luck was worse than the other two, but.....". Don't get that, personally.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2833
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • I think Luck gets a lot of attention (aside from being drafted first overall and being one of the most hyped QB's of all-time) because the Colts were 2-14 last season. This year they're playoff bound with a 11-5 record.

    I have to admit that Russell Wilson has a better team around him than Andrew Luck. An elite tailback and top five defense are not luxuries that Luck has. So, it's easy for Andy Luck nutswingers to argue for him and make excuses for his horrid passing % and TD/INT rate.

    What i've seen as far as reasons/excuses for Luck to be OROY are petty stuff like; "Luck has 23 TD passes, that's only 3 less than Wilson." But they ignore the fact that Andrew Luck has 18 interceptions to Russell Wilson's 10. I also see a lot of people bringing up his passing yards. Yeah, Luck has 4,374 yards passing, but his accuracy is 54.1 pct. Compare that to Wilson's 64.1% (on his 3,118 yds).

    Anyway.. You can bring up raw stats and make a case for either of the three rookie quarterbacks. RG3 has certainly been outstanding as well. IMO, Offensive Rookie of the Year is between Wilson and RG3. Griffin III had an amazing regular season. He may not have thrown 26 TD's (RG3 has 20 TD passes), but he only has 5 interceptions on a 65.6 PCT and 3,200 yards. On top of his 815 rushing yards for 7 rushing touchdowns.

    Offensive Rookie of the Year is going to come down to playoff performance. Since Luck, Wilson and RG3 are all in the postseason. Whoever takes their team further will win the award. It may come down to the Seahawks vs. Redskins game. Russell Wilson versus Robert Griffin III. Whoever wins the game, will most likely win Offensive Rookie of the Year. Unless Luck takes his team to the Superbowl. How great would it be to see Wilson and Luck square off in the Superbowl?!
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • What kind of a record do you think we have playing Green Bay, New England, Chicago, San Francisco, etc., with Jackson at the helm? Do you honestly think we'd pull any of those games out? How many 80- to 90-yard touchdown drives has Wilson made look easy this year? How many game-winning drives did Jackson lead for us?

    We're a 5-11 team at best with no quarterback change. Anybody who thinks differently hasn't been watching the Seahawks the last couple of seasons. And that's all on Wilson.
    World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 18160
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: The beautiful PNW


  • 5-11 is generous.
    User avatar
    MrCarey
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1674
    Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:16 pm


  • seahawks875 wrote:Luck has carried his team all year, if u ever watch him play and not just look at his stats, he is the real deal, Wilson is one of the top qbs in the league in my opinion and a lot better than rg3 but luck deserves ROY


    How can you say Luck "carried" a team that went to the Superbowl 3 years ago and was 9-7 2 years ago? The 2-14 season they had last year completely skews the perception people have about his contributions. Last years Colts team was much better than their record indicated. That team gave up on their season. Luck is not the only reason they went 11-5 this year.
    User avatar
    SeaWolv
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 351
    Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:31 am


  • Hawks46 wrote:Of course they are on Luck's jock. He owns the rookie record for wins, by virtue of winning the early game.

    Russell just tied it. So it's like Luck owns it all by himself, according to the mediots.


    Scottemojo wrote:
    Hawks46 wrote:Of course they are on Luck's jock. He owns the rookie record for wins, by virtue of winning the early game.

    Russell just tied it. So it's like Luck owns it all by himself, according to the mediots.

    Never heard of Ben Roethlisberger, have you?

    This hate is making some of you kind of stupid.


    The sports media keep peddling this "Andrew Luck with 11 wins has the most wins of any rookie quarterback taken first overall.

    So? Russell Wilson owns the most wins of any rookie quarterback drafted 75th overall (and presumably the most wins of any rookie QB not taken in the first round too?)
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2338
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • SeaWolv wrote:
    seahawks875 wrote:Luck has carried his team all year, if u ever watch him play and not just look at his stats, he is the real deal, Wilson is one of the top qbs in the league in my opinion and a lot better than rg3 but luck deserves ROY


    How can you say Luck "carried" a team that went to the Superbowl 3 years ago and was 9-7 2 years ago? The 2-14 season they had last year completely skews the perception people have about his contributions. Last years Colts team was much better than their record indicated. That team gave up on their season. Luck is not the only reason they went 11-5 this year.


    I think that team was better than 2-14, if you put a good-but-not-great quarterback like say Sam Bradford on the Chiefs they'd probably have won 10 games this year, that doesn't mean Sam Bradford is the second coming of the messiah.
    The talent is there, the coaching and the QB are not, and the Colts were the exact same.

    However I can't agree that it's not possible for a QB to carry a team that was a contender not long before, I'd say Matt Hasselbeck carried our 2007 team that was a superbowl team 2 years prior, and certainly by 2009 was devoid of talent.
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2338
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • I think they should just split the award 3 ways, you really can make a case for each guy (if you only judge up until now, after the playoffs maybe one will emerge)
    Seatown001
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 38
    Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:42 am


  • Has anyone thought about this.
    How good would the Hawks record be, if Russell Wilson was anointed the starter before even getting into training camp?
    Does anyone remember how we lost the Arizona game in AZ?
    We had first and goal I think 6 times inside the AZ 10 and we couldn't convert. Given how the playbook has been opened of late, I can't even imagine us not converting on 1 and goal again.
    To me, the fact that RGIII and Andrew Luck were named started basically back in April gave them a massive advantage over RW.
    The playbook was opened for RW really only around the Miami/Chicago games. A week before the season, RW was still splitting reps with Matt Flynn, for crying out loud. One more win would have given us the division and the #2 seed. Think about it for a minute.
    Joe
    joeseahawks
    *The Prophet*
     
    Posts: 867
    Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:43 pm


  • the more I think about it, the more I realise it's a pretty rubbish reward

    I couldn't name any winners past Cam Newton and Von Miller last year.
    Recognition is nice, but unless it's the MVP most people won't really remember (imo, anyway)
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2338
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • I'm ok if Wilson doesn't get it, don't need the curse of Rick Mirer
    Seatown001
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 38
    Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:42 am


  • themunn wrote:However I can't agree that it's not possible for a QB to carry a team that was a contender not long before, I'd say Matt Hasselbeck carried our 2007 team that was a superbowl team 2 years prior, and certainly by 2009 was devoid of talent.


    I would not debate this point. However, you could easily use the comparison of the 2011 vs. the 2012 Seahahwks as proof of RW's value. Same basic talent outside QB, same coaching staff very different results but that doesn't mean RW "carried" the team. He did make the difference though. Luck did the same. All things being equal in this regards I say RW is ROY because he has higher QBR, higher completion percentage more TD passes and more rushing yards than Luck. He should get it over RG3 because no one ever expected his numbers to be as good in almost every category and yet he was a 3rd rounder.
    User avatar
    SeaWolv
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 351
    Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:31 am


Re: Clayton still Screaming LUCK for OROY
Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:35 am
  • pinksheets wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:The colts had an awful roster with manning. It is even far worse now. It shouldnt be held against luck that he had to throw more. The dude put his entire team on his back. Russell didn't. So Russ should have and did have more efficient results.

    To me, the best way to determine the winner is to try to picture what the players seasons would have played out like if their roles were reversed. Wilson certainly had the far easier task, i don't think that is debatable. Can somebody answer this question...how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?

    Luck shouldn't get extra points because the Colts tanked their season by starting Painter either.

    If you want to give a guy ROY who had a worse season but had excuses for having it, go ahead, just doesn't seem right to me. "Sure, Luck was worse than the other two, but.....". Don't get that, personally.


    When did I ever mention anything about the Colts record last year? Player for player, the Colts have one of the 5 worst rosters in the NFL. They had one of the 7-10 worst during most of Manning's career as well. Whoever got that roster to 11 wins is definitely deserving of some kind of award, that's all I'm saying. I don't know what tangent you started going on or why you felt the need to put words in my mouth.
    "So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. " ------Anthony!
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1300
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:The colts had an awful roster with manning. It is even far worse now. It shouldnt be held against luck that he had to throw more. The dude put his entire team on his back. Russell didn't. So Russ should have and did have more efficient results.

    To me, the best way to determine the winner is to try to picture what the players seasons would have played out like if their roles were reversed. Wilson certainly had the far easier task, i don't think that is debatable. Can somebody answer this question...how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?

    Luck shouldn't get extra points because the Colts tanked their season by starting Painter either.

    If you want to give a guy ROY who had a worse season but had excuses for having it, go ahead, just doesn't seem right to me. "Sure, Luck was worse than the other two, but.....". Don't get that, personally.


    When did I ever mention anything about the Colts record last year? Player for player, the Colts have one of the 5 worst rosters in the NFL. They had one of the 7-10 worst during most of Manning's career as well. Whoever got that roster to 11 wins is definitely deserving of some kind of award, that's all I'm saying. I don't know what tangent you started going on or why you felt the need to put words in my mouth.


    Player for player, the Colts have one of the 5 worst rosters in the NFL? Says who? You? Why? Reggie Wayne is a HOFer. Does RW have one of those to throw to? Luck has a couple of young and extremely talented WR's that complement Wayne. They have one of the best-regarded young offensive lines in the league. Articles like this one detail how their offensive line is better at every position between 2011 and 2012 with their roster overhaul. Every position! How many teams can say that in 2012? Obviously, RW has the advantage of a stronger RB complement. No argument there. The quality of their defense is irrelevant to this conversation for the purposes of determining how good Luck is vs his OROTY competition. A weaker defense accounted for his higher number of attempts and created, frankly, those opportunities for game-winning drives that the other guys had a few less of. Other than that, going position-by-position on the defensive side of the ball to try and prove that Luck is more deserving than RW (or RG) is a total red herring.

    I think one factor that you're overlooking here is that Luck had the luxury of much better protection in the pocket this year. Colts QBs (Luck) were only sacked 6.13% of the time this year. Luck's a solid runner and pretty intuitive about the pass rush, but he was getting good protection this year overall. If anything, that should obviously help Luck's numbers - diminish his interceptions and improve his completion percentages. Seattle QB's (Wilson)? Sacked 7.53% of the time. That's WITH Wilson escaping innumerable additional sacks. Wilson was arguably at his best in these situations when the play broke down and it was up to him to make the plays. He kept his interception rate low and his completion percentage high in spite of inferior pass protection. Not to mention the quality of Seattle's receivers is pretty average. Rice is talented but inconsistent. Always has been. Tate? Even more inconsistent. Baldwin (injuries)? Edwards (done)? Who else was there to throw to, really? Miller? A decent complement. Bottom line, I'd bet most objective organizations would rather have the HOFer in Wayne and the young talent in Indy over Seattle's average lot of receivers.

    All of this, imo, would make RW's accomplishments this season more impressive than Luck's EVEN IF their numbers were essentially equal. The fact that Wilson has gotten better and better throughout the season and put up significantly better numbers than Luck? I just don't see an argument for Luck other than the immeasurable and thus pointless "he had less talent around him" argument.

    Oh yeah, and your question about, "how many games would the colts have won if wilson was their qb?" As if anyone can answer this. I will say the following, though. I think Luck would've been sacked 50+ times as a Seahawk this year (RW was sacked 33 times) given the same number of pass plays behind our OL. So much of RW's value comes from avoiding negative plays that most QB's wouldn't be able to. That just adds to RW's merits for the award.

    Just two cents from a guy who watches a lot of NFL games every week.
    “I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them.”
    ― George H.W. Bush
    User avatar
    Ballspiker
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 23
    Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 5:02 pm
    Location: India


  • Not going to bash on Luck because he has had a great season but to think he is in the ball park of RG3 and RW is for ROY is ridiculous. I hate the "but his team was the worst in football last year!" argument. It is just an excuse for ESPN and other media outlets to push their agenda because they practically named him rookie of the year the minute he was drafted.
    BamKam
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 357
    Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:50 pm



  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    seahawks875 wrote:Luck has carried his team all year, if u ever watch him play and not just look at his stats, he is the real deal, Wilson is one of the top qbs in the league in my opinion and a lot better than rg3 but luck deserves ROY


    how? by throwing interceptions?


    Don't forget his 10 fumbles also, agains the easiest schedule in the NFL.
    User avatar
    Shock2k
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1115
    Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:38 pm


  • U guys are all saying Luck has crappy stats, so he shouldn't get ROY, and he is not is good as RG3 or Wilson. Here are Andrew Luck stats compared to Peyton Mannings rookie stats,
    GP CMP ATT CMP% YDS AVG TD LNG INT FUM QBR RAT
    16 339 627 54.1 4,374 6.98 23 70 18 9 65.0 76.5
    GP CMP ATT CMP% YDS AVG TD LNG INT FUM QBR RAT
    16 326 575 56.7 3,739 6.50 26 78 28 3 -- 71.2
    Above is Luck, below is Manning. Luck is the best QB in this class and deserves ROY.
    My top 10 QB's
    1. Peyton Manning
    2. Tom Brady
    3. Aaron Rodgers
    4. Matt Ryan
    5. Drew Brees
    6. Andrew Luck
    7. Russell Wilson
    8. Ben Roethlisberger
    9. Eli Manning
    10. Tony Romo
    seahawks875
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 238
    Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:14 am


  • Uh what? Manning's numbers aren't relevant, and I'd say he wouldn't deserve it if he were up against Wilson and Griffin in his year either.

    ROY isn't about projecting which player is going to be the best, it's about recognizing the rookie that did play the best in their rookie year. Luck's numbers do kinda suck, as did Manning's, at least when compared to Griffin and Wilson regardless of how you rate them as players in the long-term.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2833
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • seahawks875 wrote:U guys are all saying Luck has crappy stats, so he shouldn't get ROY, and he is not is good as RG3 or Wilson. Here are Andrew Luck stats compared to Peyton Mannings rookie stats,
    GP CMP ATT CMP% YDS AVG TD LNG INT FUM QBR RAT
    16 339 627 54.1 4,374 6.98 23 70 18 9 65.0 76.5
    GP CMP ATT CMP% YDS AVG TD LNG INT FUM QBR RAT
    16 326 575 56.7 3,739 6.50 26 78 28 3 -- 71.2
    Above is Luck, below is Manning. Luck is the best QB in this class and deserves ROY.
    My top 10 QB's
    1. Peyton Manning
    2. Tom Brady
    3. Aaron Rodgers
    4. Matt Ryan
    5. Drew Brees
    6. Andrew Luck
    7. Russell Wilson
    8. Ben Roethlisberger
    9. Eli Manning
    10. Tony Romo


    You and I agree on this topic 99%. I too think Luck is the best QB of this class, but I think RW should get ROTY.
    User avatar
    HawkWow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5010
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
    Location: The 5-0


Previous


It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:10 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online