Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ NFL NATION ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:38 am 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:04 am
Posts: 424
The point of this thread wasn't to say that Wilson is the second coming of Joe Montana, nor was it to say that Luck sucks. I'm pointing out that Wilson had superior stats to Luck in this game, which he has had continuously if you look at both of their numbers throughout their careers. Those saying that Luck is a "just a better QB" or that 32/32 GMs will take Luck over Wilson are just flat out ignoring the numbers. That's fine, They've bought into the hype and Luck is taller, throws more, and maybe he'll bring the Colts some championships in the future, but there are no statistics that support the claim that Luck is a better QB. You can't break the ALL-TIME rookie record for TDs, have a 19:3 TD to INT ration, and not be a great QB, or be in the discussion for the best QB in last year's rookie class. Luck is not a class above RW and RW should be given just as much praise and accolades as Luck, but the hype continues.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:47 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
austinslater25 wrote:
Luck does have deficiencies. Have you seen is turnover numbers so far? Most in the nfl to only Mark Sanchez. Seahawks had better talent overall but not so sure about his receiver corp. Hilton can fly and Wayne has been top 10 for a decade. Also I mentioned it earlier but Pro Football focus had Wilson's schedule as one of the toughest in the league last year and he has had a brutal schedule to start the year. Factor in we faced 3 top 5 front sevens with a decimated offensive line as well. What happened when he did have time to throw against Jax? He had an incredible day. GM's would take Luck because of his size....he's just safer. Doesn't mean he will be or is better.

And do you know who GM's would take at #2? Russell Wilson. Not RG3, Kap, Newton etc....but Mr. Wilson.

Also what do you think Lucks stats would be if we had him as our starter these first 5 games against the front 7's we faced? I would argue they would be worse. There are only a couple of guys in the league who can avoid contact and scramble like Wilson can and that has been his saving grace this year.


He had lot of turnover because he threw a lot in a new system,to new players in that system. You forgot to mention the Clts had had Ballard, Luck, Fleener, Allen, and T.Y. Hilton, all rookies, carrying most of their offensive load. Avery had missed most of 2011 and Wayne was the only skill player the Colts returned except for Brown, and Brown isn't much of a factor.

What you want to do is look at INT%, not turnover totals. Wilson's was 2.5%, Lucks was 2.9%, not exactly a huge difference and Luck played in a much more aggressive offense than Wilson did. Luck was one of the best in the league at generating yards last year.

If you want to talk fumbles Wilson had 6, Luck had 10. Again, not much of a difference when you take into account Luck had over 200 (more than half Wilsons total last year) more attempts than Wilson.

It helps if you look at stats in context buddy.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:50 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
Also, I see a lot of people on here blaming the Seahawks O line.

The Colts had one of, if not the, worst lines in the league last year. It was constantly being shuffled because of injuries. Luck still got the job done.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:55 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 3094
Bartmuley wrote:
What you want to do is look at INT%, not turnover totals. Wilson's was 2.5%, Lucks was 2.9%, not exactly a huge difference and Luck played in a much more aggressive offense than Wilson did. Luck was one of the best in the league at generating yards last year.


You know nothing of this offense. Run-heavy does not mean non-aggressive. Seattle's entire passing game is built around long-developing routes and deep throws. Last year, Wilson completed 48.4% of his passes that traveled 20 yards or more in the air. Luck completed just 34.6% of those passes.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:06 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 3972
NFSeahawks628 wrote:
LotsOfLuck wrote:
This continues to be the only place where I even see people discussing this.


Wilson has better numbers in almost every category dating back to their beginnings in the NFL.



While true for their entire careers, it is not true so far this season.

Luck has improved his completion percentage to 62%, and QB rating to 94.1 this year.

Wilson has dropped his completion percentage to 58%, and QB rating down to 91.2.

Both can be very good for years, both fit well in their systems, and we should all get to watch solid QB play for years.

_________________
And this post is not directed at anyone personally.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:24 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
DavidSeven wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
What you want to do is look at INT%, not turnover totals. Wilson's was 2.5%, Lucks was 2.9%, not exactly a huge difference and Luck played in a much more aggressive offense than Wilson did. Luck was one of the best in the league at generating yards last year.


You know nothing of this offense. Run-heavy does not mean non-aggressive. Seattle's entire passing game is built around long-developing routes and deep throws. Last year, Wilson completed 48.4% of his passes that traveled 20 yards or more in the air. Luck completed just 34.6% of those passes.


Uh huh, Luck threw deep 108 times last year.

How many times did Wilson? The Colts were fighting to stay in almost every game last year. The only way they could is the passing game.

You know so much about football....tell me, what does a D do when it knows you have to pass the ball?

So get back to me on number of times Wilson went deep and get back to me on running games and game situations if you want to bring up completion percentages.

Again, context buddy, context.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:28 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
DTexHawk wrote:
NFSeahawks628 wrote:
LotsOfLuck wrote:
This continues to be the only place where I even see people discussing this.


Wilson has better numbers in almost every category dating back to their beginnings in the NFL.



While true for their entire careers, it is not true so far this season.

Luck has improved his completion percentage to 62%, and QB rating to 94.1 this year.

Wilson has dropped his completion percentage to 58%, and QB rating down to 91.2.

Both can be very good for years, both fit well in their systems, and we should all get to watch solid QB play for years.


Their "entire careers" lol?

They're in their second years.

And again they played in entirely different systems with different teams lol. Wilson threw no where near as many passes, or had to go deep as many times as Luck. Wilson also had a great running game to keep Ds honest and he had a good O line, Luck had none of that last year.

Wilson also didnt to a team running a new system with almost entirely new offensive personel.

Some of you guys are just wacky, I mean "entire careers"?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:30 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Tri-Cities, Washington
Actually those numbers aren't accurate and they are a big deal. The turnover numbers weren't close. In case you forgot Wilson was throwing to new receivers as well considering he was a rookie and didn't have all preseason to work with the first offense like Luck did. Total yards was the only stat Luck beat Wilson at. You mention all the attempts.....shouldnt he have a lot more TD's than Wilson? You can't have it both ways. No one argues Luck was better statistically last year, no one. Wilson had a better year. Will luck be better long term? Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows. Both will be great in my opinion but to say Luck was better last year reeks of homerism.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:32 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Tri-Cities, Washington
And I'm a huge fan of both players. I think we will see a lot of Luck vs Wilson ala Manning/Brady stuff over the next decade. Should be fun to watch.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:46 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
austinslater25 wrote:
Actually those numbers aren't accurate and they are a big deal. The turnover numbers weren't close. In case you forgot Wilson was throwing to new receivers as well considering he was a rookie and didn't have all preseason to work with the first offense like Luck did. Total yards was the only stat Luck beat Wilson at. You mention all the attempts.....shouldnt he have a lot more TD's than Wilson? You can't have it both ways. No one argues Luck was better statistically last year, no one. Wilson had a better year. Will luck be better long term? Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows. Both will be great in my opinion but to say Luck was better last year reeks of homerism.


"Shouldn't he have a lot more TDs than Wilson".

Of course, because again, they played for the same teams, with the same schedule, and faced the same situations. Exactly the same lol.

Or, you know, they were in totally different situations.

And Wilson wasnt playing with a bunch of rookies in a new system. Tate, Rice, Miller, Baldwin and Lynch were not new in Seattle,

You sure you understood my point? The Colts were completely new on offense. The started over, almost from scratch. Out of the Colts core offense only Wayne and Brown returned and Brown is a bust.

The Seahawks did not have a bunch of rookie out there. Wilson came to a team that was already together, but needed a QB.

Unless you think only rookie QBs make mistakes you have to acknowledge a bunch of rookie or new players in a new system affects a QBs stats, especially when the QB is the teams only real weapon. No D, no run game to back him up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:26 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Tri-Cities, Washington
I'm at a loss. You're coming up with a bunch of subjective reasons to say why Luck was better last year. there are numerous statistically based articles talking about how Wilson had a better year last year, plain and simple. I can post them on here if you would like. I'm doubting you are willing to do the research. Statistically Wilson was flat out better last year. The advanced stats bear this out and its a landslide. This year Luck is playing better but to argue about last year is laughable. Will Luck be better in the future? I could easily see that happening although I've said numerous times both will be great.

Luck was third behind RG3 and Wilson last year. If you don't agree your ignoring the facts. If you want to read the facts I will link some articles that broke this down.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:35 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
austinslater25 wrote:
I'm at a loss. You're coming up with a bunch of subjective reasons to say why Luck was better last year. there are numerous statistically based articles talking about how Wilson had a better year last year, plain and simple. I can post them on here if you would like. I'm doubting you are willing to do the research. Statistically Wilson was flat out better last year. The advanced stats bear this out and its a landslide. This year Luck is playing better but to argue about last year is laughable. Will Luck be better in the future? I could easily see that happening although I've said numerous times both will be great.

Luck was third behind RG3 and Wilson last year. If you don't agree your ignoring the facts. If you want to read the facts I will link some articles that broke this down.


Wilson had 200 less attempts than Luck lol. He played on a much better team and didnt have to carry the team.

Statistically Wilson threw 200 less times than Luck and had similar turnover numbers when you take the number of attempts into account. That's just a fact. Luck had a 2.9 INT percentage VS Wilson's 2.5....do you understand what an INT percentage is?

Its simply a fact tht Wilson was a game manager for most of last season, that's not a knock on his talent, its just a fact that the Seahawks were a run oriented team with a strong D.

The Colts were the exact opposite and Luck's role was to carry the offense and in reality the team.

You put Luck on the Seahawks and Wilson on the Colts in 2012 and their roles and stats would be very different.

Luck had to carry a team, Wilson did not.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:39 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 3972
Bartmuley wrote:
DTexHawk wrote:
NFSeahawks628 wrote:
Wilson has better numbers in almost every category dating back to their beginnings in the NFL.



While true for their entire careers, it is not true so far this season.

Luck has improved his completion percentage to 62%, and QB rating to 94.1 this year.

Wilson has dropped his completion percentage to 58%, and QB rating down to 91.2.

Both can be very good for years, both fit well in their systems, and we should all get to watch solid QB play for years.


Their "entire careers" lol?


They're in their second years.

And again they played in entirely different systems with different teams lol. Wilson threw no where near as many passes, or had to go deep as many times as Luck. Wilson also had a great running game to keep Ds honest and he had a good O line, Luck had none of that last year.

Wilson also didnt to a team running a new system with almost entirely new offensive personel.

Some of you guys are just wacky, I mean "entire careers"?



If you read the post above mine, he was basing his argument on their "beginnings in the NFL" which equates to "entire careers".

I was breaking it down further to this year and trends.

So sorry that this confused you.

_________________
And this post is not directed at anyone personally.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:45 pm 
NET Ring Of Honor
User avatar
Online

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
Posts: 21124
Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014
It rubs the lotion on its hands and tries to fit in.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:45 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Tri-Cities, Washington
Its the only stat you have mentioned and its WORSE for Luck than it is for Wilson....and thats your strongest argument! lol Does that not tell you something?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:48 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
DTexHawk wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
DTexHawk wrote:
NFSeahawks628 wrote:
Wilson has better numbers in almost every category dating back to their beginnings in the NFL.



While true for their entire careers, it is not true so far this season.

Luck has improved his completion percentage to 62%, and QB rating to 94.1 this year.

Wilson has dropped his completion percentage to 58%, and QB rating down to 91.2.

Both can be very good for years, both fit well in their systems, and we should all get to watch solid QB play for years.


Their "entire careers" lol?


They're in their second years.

And again they played in entirely different systems with different teams lol. Wilson threw no where near as many passes, or had to go deep as many times as Luck. Wilson also had a great running game to keep Ds honest and he had a good O line, Luck had none of that last year.

Wilson also didnt to a team running a new system with almost entirely new offensive personel.

Some of you guys are just wacky, I mean "entire careers"?



If you read the post above mine, he was basing his argument on their "beginnings in the NFL" which equates to "entire careers".

I was breaking it down further to this year and trends.

So sorry that this confused you.


It didnt confuse me, it made me laugh.

"Entire career" for guys who have played about a season and a quarter?

"Entire career" lol.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:52 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
austinslater25 wrote:
Its the only stat you have mentioned and its WORSE for Luck than it is for Wilson....and thats your strongest argument! lol Does that not tell you something?


I've mentioned a bunch of stats, so not sure which one you're referring to.

If you're talking about the INT percentage I mentioned that because someone brought up Luck having so many more turnovers than Wilson. I pointed out that Luck only had so many more turnovers because he had so many more attempts.

It's not exactly rocket science. Look at their INT percentages lol. And Luck was going deep more Wilson. That affects completion percentage and INT numbers.

It's like you guys don't understand how football works around here or something.

I mean...how can you not understand an INT percentage lol?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:56 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Tri-Cities, Washington
Again you post and mention a stat where Wilson was BETTER than Luck....and its the only stat you keep bringing up.

You're right its not rocket science and you're obviously not after the truth or you would want to see the other stats. I even said I would post them for you in numerous articles that broke down the advanced stats of all the young qb's.

Honestly at this point I have to ask? Are you just trolling? It seems that way. I'm done with this as it is obviously leading nowhere.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:15 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
austinslater25 wrote:
Again you post and mention a stat where Wilson was BETTER than Luck....and its the only stat you keep bringing up.

You're right its not rocket science and you're obviously not after the truth or you would want to see the other stats. I even said I would post them for you in numerous articles that broke down the advanced stats of all the young qb's.

Honestly at this point I have to ask? Are you just trolling? It seems that way. I'm done with this as it is obviously leading nowhere.


Yeah, 2.5 VS 2.9 lol.

If you haven't been following the argument maybe you should reread it.

Someone on here said Luck is a turnover machine?

Do you follow me?

I replied by pointing out that he and Wilson had roughly the same INT percentage, the reason Luck had more turnovers......is because.....he threw the ball so much more.

If you want ill go slower but I'm not sure what it is you're not understanding.

My point, which is a fact, is Luck and Wilson had very similar turnover numbers....Luck just threw the ball 200+ more times lol.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:19 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 3870
Location: Tri Cities, WA
Who cares about Luck and the Colts. Good QB, good team. But they do not have a championship caliber defense. With their D there going to have to beat the GOOD teams in a shoot out, good luck doing that against DEN and NE.

_________________
World Champs - Sounds good don't it


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:28 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:22 am
Posts: 198
Bartmuley wrote:
austinslater25 wrote:
Its the only stat you have mentioned and its WORSE for Luck than it is for Wilson....and thats your strongest argument! lol Does that not tell you something?


I've mentioned a bunch of stats, so not sure which one you're referring to.

If you're talking about the INT percentage I mentioned that because someone brought up Luck having so many more turnovers than Wilson. I pointed out that Luck only had so many more turnovers because he had so many more attempts.

It's not exactly rocket science. Look at their INT percentages lol. And Luck was going deep more Wilson. That affects completion percentage and INT numbers.

It's like you guys don't understand how football works around here or something.

I mean...how can you not understand an INT percentage lol?




You also have to take into account the strength of schedule and defensive opposition. If my memory serves me right, the Colts had one of the easier schedules out there against weaker defensive teams.

You refer to Russell being a manager. For the second half of the season he was tops in 3rd down conversions and the redzone. Above all QBs. Game managers don't do that.

Also, to dismiss decision making on Luck's throws since he was "making harder throws" is a bit silly. It's a perfect excuse to hide bad throws. Sure the offense predicated it, but it's silly to act like he had no choice.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:28 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
hawker84 wrote:
Who cares about Luck and the Colts. Good QB, good team. But they do not have a championship caliber defense. With their D there going to have to beat the GOOD teams in a shoot out, good luck doing that against DEN and NE.


The Colts D is 13th in total D.

The last time the Colts won the SB their D was ranked around 30th.

Also see 2010 Packers.

Baltimore's D was around 12th last season.

And NE? Have you even been watching this season? NE isn't exactly a high powered offense anymore.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:30 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am
Posts: 664
Who is this clown on lucks nuts?

You want to see something that is REALLY pathetic for luck....here are the 8 common opponents from last year

Luck
197/364, 54.1% , 2573, 7.1 yards attempt, 14TD, 13INT 74.6 rating
115 rushing yards 1 TD, 3 lost fumbles

Wilson
137/213, 64.3%, 1742, 8.2 yards attempt, 17TD, 1INT, 114.4 rating
306 rushing yards 3TD, 2 lost fumbles


Oh and they also BOTH had 10 30+ yard passes so there goes your luck throws deep balls all over the place theory.

Ya man, I guess having 12 less INT, 3 more passing TD, 10% more accuracy and 39.8 more QB rating is "really close".

Also please tell me how Wilson "game manager" was able to tie the rookie record for TD passes which Manning held if he was "just a game manager" and he did it with WAY less attempts than luck.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:32 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 3870
Location: Tri Cities, WA
Bartmuley wrote:
hawker84 wrote:
Who cares about Luck and the Colts. Good QB, good team. But they do not have a championship caliber defense. With their D there going to have to beat the GOOD teams in a shoot out, good luck doing that against DEN and NE.


The Colts D is 13th in total D.

The last time the Colts won the SB their D was ranked around 30th.

Also see 2010 Packers.

Baltimore's D was around 12th last season.

And NE? Have you even been watching this season? NE isn't exactly a high powered offense anymore.


OK great stats, and i still say you face DEN or NE in the playoffs your season is over... all three of your defenses suck, but out of the three QB's, i'll take those two over luck right now.

_________________
World Champs - Sounds good don't it


Last edited by hawker84 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:33 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am
Posts: 664
hawker84 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
hawker84 wrote:
Who cares about Luck and the Colts. Good QB, good team. But they do not have a championship caliber defense. With their D there going to have to beat the GOOD teams in a shoot out, good luck doing that against DEN and NE.


The Colts D is 13th in total D.

The last time the Colts won the SB their D was ranked around 30th.

Also see 2010 Packers.

Baltimore's D was around 12th last season.

And NE? Have you even been watching this season? NE isn't exactly a high powered offense anymore.


OK great stats, and i still say you face DEN or NE in the playoffs your season is over...


What about the Chiefs? They are playing some good football


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:35 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
Posts: 3870
Location: Tri Cities, WA
Not quite sold there yet, but they're definitely in the conversation.

_________________
World Champs - Sounds good don't it


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:41 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
hawker84 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
hawker84 wrote:
Who cares about Luck and the Colts. Good QB, good team. But they do not have a championship caliber defense. With their D there going to have to beat the GOOD teams in a shoot out, good luck doing that against DEN and NE.


The Colts D is 13th in total D.

The last time the Colts won the SB their D was ranked around 30th.

Also see 2010 Packers.

Baltimore's D was around 12th last season.

And NE? Have you even been watching this season? NE isn't exactly a high powered offense anymore.


OK great stats, and i still say you face DEN or NE in the playoffs your season is over... all three of your defenses suck, but out of the three QB's, i'll take those two over luck right now.


And I still say you apparently haven't seen NE play this year. They're a good team, but nothing better. And their offense is a joke compared to past NE offenses.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:43 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am
Posts: 664
Bartmuley wrote:
hawker84 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
hawker84 wrote:
Who cares about Luck and the Colts. Good QB, good team. But they do not have a championship caliber defense. With their D there going to have to beat the GOOD teams in a shoot out, good luck doing that against DEN and NE.


The Colts D is 13th in total D.

The last time the Colts won the SB their D was ranked around 30th.

Also see 2010 Packers.

Baltimore's D was around 12th last season.

And NE? Have you even been watching this season? NE isn't exactly a high powered offense anymore.


OK great stats, and i still say you face DEN or NE in the playoffs your season is over... all three of your defenses suck, but out of the three QB's, i'll take those two over luck right now.


And I still say you apparently haven't seen NE play this year. They're a good team, but nothing better. And their offense is a joke compared to past NE offenses.


As much as I disagree with this guys stance on Luck and Wilson, he is right about the pats. I think they make the playoffs but they will probably be out pretty quickly. They just seem like an average team to me


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:47 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
WilsonMVP wrote:
Who is this clown on lucks nuts?

You want to see something that is REALLY pathetic for luck....here are the 8 common opponents from last year

Luck
197/364, 54.1% , 2573, 7.1 yards attempt, 14TD, 13INT 74.6 rating
115 rushing yards 1 TD, 3 lost fumbles

Wilson
137/213, 64.3%, 1742, 8.2 yards attempt, 17TD, 1INT, 114.4 rating
306 rushing yards 3TD, 2 lost fumbles


Oh and they also BOTH had 10 30+ yard passes so there goes your luck throws deep balls all over the place theory.

Ya man, I guess having 12 less INT, 3 more passing TD, 10% more accuracy and 39.8 more QB rating is "really close".

Also please tell me how Wilson "game manager" was able to tie the rookie record for TD passes which Manning held if he was "just a game manager" and he did it with WAY less attempts than luck.


Lol, you still don't get the concept of "different teams" buddy.

Luck was playing on a team tht was rebuilding and almost entirely new.

Wilson played on a good team, with vets, that needed a QB.

I keep telling you guys, context lol.

And Wilson was a game manager for most of last season, that's just a fact. The Seahawks relied on their D and run game. That's why he averaged (and still averages) less than 200 yards per game.

He's a good QB, but his role wasnt comparable to Lucks last season.

Calm down.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:51 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am
Posts: 664
Bartmuley wrote:
WilsonMVP wrote:
Who is this clown on lucks nuts?

You want to see something that is REALLY pathetic for luck....here are the 8 common opponents from last year

Luck
197/364, 54.1% , 2573, 7.1 yards attempt, 14TD, 13INT 74.6 rating
115 rushing yards 1 TD, 3 lost fumbles

Wilson
137/213, 64.3%, 1742, 8.2 yards attempt, 17TD, 1INT, 114.4 rating
306 rushing yards 3TD, 2 lost fumbles


Oh and they also BOTH had 10 30+ yard passes so there goes your luck throws deep balls all over the place theory.

Ya man, I guess having 12 less INT, 3 more passing TD, 10% more accuracy and 39.8 more QB rating is "really close".

Also please tell me how Wilson "game manager" was able to tie the rookie record for TD passes which Manning held if he was "just a game manager" and he did it with WAY less attempts than luck.


Lol, you still don't get the concept of "different teams" buddy.

Luck was playing on a team tht was rebuilding and almost entirely new.

Wilson played on a good team, with vets, that needed a QB.

I keep telling you guys, context lol.

And Wilson was a game manager for most of last season, that's just a fact. The Seahawks relied on their D and run game. That's why he averaged (and still averages) less than 200 yards per game.

He's a good QB, but his role wasnt comparable to Lucks last season.

Calm down.


Ok but that is the best comparison you can do because they played the same teams. I would say Wilson was a game manager for the first part of the year but the last half of the year he certainly wasnt. And yards dont mean shit. The Seahawks are a run oriented team and also play close so unless they fall behind alot he probably wont be throwing alot, doesnt mean he is a game manager just because he doesnt have that many yards. If a team gets behind by 2 or more TDs they probably arent running the ball they are throwing it over and over.

Also you are basically saying there is no way to compare them so why are you here?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:54 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:32 pm
Posts: 16
What short term memories people have. Does nobody remember Wilson throwing from the pocket behind the biggest (tallest) O-line in college (and bigger than most NFL lines) while at Wisconsin? Wilson scrambles out of necessity when playing behind a patchwork O-Line or play design to take advantage of a strong running game. While at Wisconsin he set the NCAA record for passing efficiency throwing behind an offensive line that dominated. He set the record (since broken) for pass attempts without an interception while at NC State. Quit talking about height and accuracy problems as though he is operating in a vacuum. Football is the ultimate team game and QB play reflects that directly. Wilson protects the ball and has the skill set to make game-changing explosive plays. He won't win every game, and certainly not by himself. But, he will put his team into position to be able to win every game and you will always have hope (if not beat the snot out of the opponent).

As for Luck vs. Wilson, I think Cowherd made a fairly accurate comparison on his show yesterday of Manning vs. Brady and Luck vs. Wilson. That is a good place to be an no need to wring your hands in anxiety. I hope (and believe) Wilson will be like Brady in that argument as he will have more Lombardi trophies when it's all said and done.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:10 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
WilsonMVP wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
WilsonMVP wrote:
Who is this clown on lucks nuts?

You want to see something that is REALLY pathetic for luck....here are the 8 common opponents from last year

Luck
197/364, 54.1% , 2573, 7.1 yards attempt, 14TD, 13INT 74.6 rating
115 rushing yards 1 TD, 3 lost fumbles

Wilson
137/213, 64.3%, 1742, 8.2 yards attempt, 17TD, 1INT, 114.4 rating
306 rushing yards 3TD, 2 lost fumbles


Oh and they also BOTH had 10 30+ yard passes so there goes your luck throws deep balls all over the place theory.

Ya man, I guess having 12 less INT, 3 more passing TD, 10% more accuracy and 39.8 more QB rating is "really close".

Also please tell me how Wilson "game manager" was able to tie the rookie record for TD passes which Manning held if he was "just a game manager" and he did it with WAY less attempts than luck.


Lol, you still don't get the concept of "different teams" buddy.

Luck was playing on a team tht was rebuilding and almost entirely new.

Wilson played on a good team, with vets, that needed a QB.

I keep telling you guys, context lol.

And Wilson was a game manager for most of last season, that's just a fact. The Seahawks relied on their D and run game. That's why he averaged (and still averages) less than 200 yards per game.

He's a good QB, but his role wasnt comparable to Lucks last season.

Calm down.


Ok but that is the best comparison you can do because they played the same teams. I would say Wilson was a game manager for the first part of the year but the last half of the year he certainly wasnt. And yards dont mean shit. The Seahawks are a run oriented team and also play close so unless they fall behind alot he probably wont be throwing alot, doesnt mean he is a game manager just because he doesnt have that many yards. If a team gets behind by 2 or more TDs they probably arent running the ball they are throwing it over and over.

Also you are basically saying there is no way to compare them so why are you here?


No, I didnt say there was no way to compare them, they're both QBs and they both win, but the fact, and its a fact, Luck played on a team that was starting over. Almost an expansion team. New GM, new coach, new system, new players.

Wilson came in to an established situation. The Seahawks had been rebuilding and were almost there when they drafted Wilson. Great D, great running game, already there.

Wilson is a good QB. He runs too much for me, I don't want my QB running unless they have to or if there is a wide open lane in front of them. QBs are too valuable, look at what happened to RG3 last year.

I've said about ten times why I'm here, I get a kick out of Seahawks fans reaction to the loss and their excuses for it.

Don't worry, I won't be here much longer. I just had the day off and am in North Dakota. You entertain yourself however you can in North Dakota.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:47 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm
Posts: 1304
LotsOfLuck wrote:
DavidSeven wrote:
LotsOfLuck wrote:
BTW, Luck got his yards against a far superior defense than Wilson was facing.


That's cool. Wilson was only playing without his starting LT, RT, C, and TE, but I guess that doesn't matter. None of his receivers are on Reggie Wayne's level either. He was also playing on the road. But yeah, just ignore all that and manipulate the narrative how you want.


And Luck was without his starting TE (Allen) and working with his 3rd starting RB (Ballard, Bradshaw, Richardson) of the season in only the fifth game. We could sit here and do this all day.

Like I said earlier, after having gone through close to a decade of Manning/Brady talk, that's all silly debates like this come down to. People looking at selective items and pretending like it has more merit than other selective items that don't fit their agenda. But that's what ESPN has told us sports talk should look like so that how most of us engage in it anymore.



Actually, you can't because its a pretty dumb argument.

1) Ballard, Bradshaw, Richardson, even Donald Brown have been starting RBs in their careers.

You guys traded a 1st round pick for Richardson, who was the best RB talent of his draft.

2. Even without Allen, the team has Colby Fleener. Who been with Luck since Stanford.

Also the drop of from Allen to Fleener isn't the same from Miller, a pro bowler and one of, if not the best blocking TEs in the NFL to Willson, a 5th round rookie TE who was the 2nd TE taken from his school.

Don't act like missing 4/6 of your best O-Line group doesn't affect QB play. Let's not forget that this was our 2nd week of back to back 10 am starts.

If this game was at the Clink, Luck doesn't reach 150 yards and Wilson would have destroyed your defense for 450 total yards and like 4 TDs.

The problem here is the argument between Luck or Wilson and who is better. It is simply Colts fans dismissing the fact one player was a 1st round pick. One player is a 3rd round pick. One player has Reggie Wayne. The other player has Sidney Rice. One player is 6-4, 240 and runs a 4.6 40. The other player is 5-10, 205 with 4.5 speed. One player was handed the starting position in 2012. The other one had to earn it beating out not 1 but 2 other challengers.

One player has makes between 5-6 million. The other makes 500, 000-600,000 thousand.

Luck is doing exactly what he should be doing.

Wilson had defied every logical doubts over his short-comings and has earned everything given to him.

Wilson is better in every statistical category compared to Luck except for Passing Yardage and Turnovers.

Tell me again not who is better or will be better but who has been more amazing.

If you answer anything other than Wilson, you're lying to yourself.

Luck will be a great QB and he is already damn good. But most QBs, extremely talented or not, would have crumbled in Wilson's shoes. Even Luck.

Luck is a QB that comes along once or twice a decade. Wilson isn't born, he is created with hardwork, dedication, and the ability to shrug off doubts about his size to be a NFL QB.

In the 2012 draft who would have thought the 5'10 Wilson would go on to have the most success from that class. Everyone except for Russell Wilson, John Gruden, and John Schnieder probably. Wilson was told he wouldn't make it in the NFL, he even had that doubt when he chose to play baseball before going to Wisconsin.

Yet, here is Wilson, a franchise QB, on one of the best teams in the NFL. A QB who has outplayed the top two picks of the 2012 draft. A QB who was a 3rd round pick, whose meteoric rise led to the Seahawks netting a 5th round pick and a 7th round pick by trading their other QBs.

Wilson's overall net value + statistics trumps anything Luck or RG3 has done so far, if ever just so slightly. If you can't see that, then you're blind.

_________________
#3 taught Doubters, GREATNESS can be a product of HARD WORK.
#25 taught America, that we're ALL just CLASSLESS jerks.
#24 taught the Media, to REAP what you SOW.
#12 taught the NFL, TO BE LOUDER.

YOU WANTED THIS NOISE, AMERICA.
DON'T PLAY WITH DYNAMITE, IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE BOOM.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:56 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 1609
No sensible Colts fan can look at their careers to this point and honestly say Luck has been the better player.

Again, Luck was the anointed one coming out and hyped so much that people will always just naturally say Luck is better because ESPN told them so. When you actually look at their careers you see Luck really hasn't done anything to separate himself from Wilson. Russell Wilson put up better numbers in their final year of college and so far Wilson has better career NFL numbers than Luck. Wilson has consistently outperformed Luck. That's a fact.

Tell me why I should think Luck is better than Wilson? I've seen no argument for it thus far.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:58 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:17 pm
Posts: 47
So you give bonus points to Wilson because nobody expected anything of him coming out of college so he got to join a better team to start with?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:00 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Moving this to the NFL forum.

In the main forum its time to start focusing on Tennessee.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:04 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 1609
LotsOfLuck wrote:
So you give bonus points to Wilson because nobody expected anything of him coming out of college so he got to join a better team to start with?


In 2011 I watched Tarvaris Jackson struggle mightily with basically the exact same team. Same RB, offensive line, TE and WR's that Wilson threw to in 2012.

The excuse that Wilson succeeded because he stepped into a great situation is weak. He raised the team to another level with his play, dominated the 2nd half of the season and right into the playoffs. Even though Seattle lost in the NFC division game to Atlanta, Russell Wilson flat out dominated that game once the team woke up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:05 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:17 pm
Posts: 47
cesame wrote:
No sensible Colts fan can look at their careers to this point and honestly say Luck has been the better player.

Again, Luck was the anointed one coming out and hyped so much that people will always just naturally say Luck is better because ESPN told them so. When you actually look at their careers you see Luck really hasn't done anything to separate himself from Wilson. Russell Wilson put up better numbers in their final year of college and so far Wilson has better career NFL numbers than Luck. Wilson has consistently outperformed Luck. That's a fact.

Tell me why I should think Luck is better than Wilson? I've seen no argument for it thus far.


2-14

11-4


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:07 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:13 pm
Posts: 705
coltsfan1405 wrote:
No no no in no way am I calling you irrational for loving your QB you would be if you didn't im just saying that you would be irrational for saying you wouldn't be happy with having luck also. And we kept manning for that long we can keep luck for that long as well


Nobody one can really make that judgment I agree.

We'll see who has the most rings at the end of their careers.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:16 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 1609
2nd half of last season - "Game Manager" Russell Wilson

120 QB Rating
67% completion
16 TD
2 INT
1652 passing yards
9.0 Y/A
361 rushing yards


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:25 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:22 am
Posts: 198
LotsOfLuck wrote:
cesame wrote:
No sensible Colts fan can look at their careers to this point and honestly say Luck has been the better player.

Again, Luck was the anointed one coming out and hyped so much that people will always just naturally say Luck is better because ESPN told them so. When you actually look at their careers you see Luck really hasn't done anything to separate himself from Wilson. Russell Wilson put up better numbers in their final year of college and so far Wilson has better career NFL numbers than Luck. Wilson has consistently outperformed Luck. That's a fact.

Tell me why I should think Luck is better than Wilson? I've seen no argument for it thus far.


2-14

11-4


2009 14-2
2010 10-6
2011 2-14
2012 11-4

looks more like they couldn't handle having a bad QB more than anything. And yes I know they dumped a lot of their players, but that's not a team/program that had been tanking for years and rebuilding from actually nothing.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:01 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:17 pm
Posts: 47
lobohawk wrote:
LotsOfLuck wrote:
cesame wrote:
No sensible Colts fan can look at their careers to this point and honestly say Luck has been the better player.

Again, Luck was the anointed one coming out and hyped so much that people will always just naturally say Luck is better because ESPN told them so. When you actually look at their careers you see Luck really hasn't done anything to separate himself from Wilson. Russell Wilson put up better numbers in their final year of college and so far Wilson has better career NFL numbers than Luck. Wilson has consistently outperformed Luck. That's a fact.

Tell me why I should think Luck is better than Wilson? I've seen no argument for it thus far.


2-14

11-4


2009 14-2
2010 10-6
2011 2-14
2012 11-4

looks more like they couldn't handle having a bad QB more than anything. And yes I know they dumped a lot of their players, but that's not a team/program that had been tanking for years and rebuilding from actually nothing.


Tell that to the 38 million in dead cap space last year's team was built around because of all the players they let go so the team could rebuild.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:02 pm 
* Report Button *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm
Posts: 9923
This makes me miss the Kap vs Wilson threads.

Irony...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:08 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm
Posts: 1304
LotsOfLuck wrote:
cesame wrote:
No sensible Colts fan can look at their careers to this point and honestly say Luck has been the better player.

Again, Luck was the anointed one coming out and hyped so much that people will always just naturally say Luck is better because ESPN told them so. When you actually look at their careers you see Luck really hasn't done anything to separate himself from Wilson. Russell Wilson put up better numbers in their final year of college and so far Wilson has better career NFL numbers than Luck. Wilson has consistently outperformed Luck. That's a fact.

Tell me why I should think Luck is better than Wilson? I've seen no argument for it thus far.


2-14

11-4


And the Seahawks were a 7-9 team after going 2-6. They easily could have laid down and went 4-12 at best. But the young talent that had to step-up in the midst of about 15 or so injuries refused to be that team, they refused to be the Colts... who did everything in their power to flop the season as best they could.

And I'm glad the 2011 Seahawks refused to lay down because I rather have Irvin, Wagner, and Wilson than Ryan Tannehill.

_________________
#3 taught Doubters, GREATNESS can be a product of HARD WORK.
#25 taught America, that we're ALL just CLASSLESS jerks.
#24 taught the Media, to REAP what you SOW.
#12 taught the NFL, TO BE LOUDER.

YOU WANTED THIS NOISE, AMERICA.
DON'T PLAY WITH DYNAMITE, IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE BOOM.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:42 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:17 pm
Posts: 47
Anyone who claims the Colts intentionally tanked 2011 pretty much proves they have no idea what they're talking about. Let's see. Clearly the owner, Jim Irsay, was not happy with the season as he fired the GM, the coaches, and then let go several well-paid veterans. Do you honestly believe these people were tanking and jeopardizing their careers so the team could attain a future benefit that most of them would not be around to see?

Let me guess they were tanking so badly that they were 0-13 and then won 2 games so that if they had won the last game of the season in Jacksonville they would not have ended up with #1 pick.

Finally, remember that we also had a fairly good QB that was coming back the next year had we not been in a position to draft Luck. Perhaps you've heard of him. His name is Peyton Manning. He was, and still is, a pretty big deal here in Indiana.

So congrats on being better than us in 2011. You had plenty of company. We sucked but it is pretty evident we didn't tank in an effort to get Luck. That's just what happens when you build your whole team around one great player and them remove that player from the equation. We're incredibly fortunate to have had Manning and then have Luck fall into our laps but it's not even questionable if we tanked.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:46 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm
Posts: 1304
No the team was pretty much all Peyton Manning. Everyone knew that, without him, no one put in the extra work to be competitive. And the Colts did a lot to repair the damage to move on, nope, that's why half the coaches and that team lost their jobs because their will to be a competitive team was lost the day it was announced that Manning wouldn't play that season.

Its just funny how you Colts fans assume the Seahawks would have been good in 2012. You Colts fans know nothing about the make-up of our team, only citing what little the media coverage talking heads gave us.

And that's all you have... Luck isn't the only reason you guys went 2-11 from 11-5, period. The Colts coaching staff and FO found cheap, solid options with better players at replacement level. But you guys still held onto your core of stellar veteran talent namely Reggie Wayne and the always underrated Robert Mathis. A player I wanted on the Seahawks so badly before he re-signed with the Colts. Antoine Bethea. Adam Vinerteri. Dwight Freeney. Antonio Johnson. Most those players are household names. You also kept a lot of your higher picks over the years as well.

Grabbing serviceable players in the draft like Canstanzo and Angerer in 2011. Hitting big on most of your 2012 draft with Luck, Fleener, Allen, Ballard, Hilton and winning a jackpot with Jerell Freeman, who is quietly has become one the best MLBs in the game after 1 year.

Not to mention you guys picked up a lot a cheaper veterans that are solid players that were high pick cast offs from other teams as teams tried to shed some cap:
Donnie Avery, Corry Redding, Samson Satele, Winston Justice, Matt McGlynn, Darius Butler, Trai Essex, Vontae Davis, Mewlewde Moore, Tony Hills, Justin King, and Tom Zbowski.

That 12 players the Colts signed or traded for that had 4 or more years of experience. Not a bad rag-tag group that would become a team behind Pagano's illness.

Quit acting like the Colts came out of nowhere, and that Luck is the only reason why they are winning games, they got a good group and had the right mixture of veteran talent going all out to earn a pay check and a right mixture of younger players trying to prove they belong in the league.

And quit acting like the 2011 Seahawks were vastly superior team to the Colts. The only reason the Seahawks were remotely competitive was because the young players who took over as injury replacement refused to drop dead. Tarvaris Jackson refused to give up, even with a Pec injury slowing him down.

The 2011 Seahawks weren't good but they were tough and they competed. 2011 Colts laid down , it had nothing to do with the Coaching, their team laid down because they knew they sucked without Manning and there was no use in trying. That's why they flopped it per say.

_________________
#3 taught Doubters, GREATNESS can be a product of HARD WORK.
#25 taught America, that we're ALL just CLASSLESS jerks.
#24 taught the Media, to REAP what you SOW.
#12 taught the NFL, TO BE LOUDER.

YOU WANTED THIS NOISE, AMERICA.
DON'T PLAY WITH DYNAMITE, IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE BOOM.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:15 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 3972
Bartmuley wrote:
DTexHawk wrote:

If you read the post above mine, he was basing his argument on their "beginnings in the NFL" which equates to "entire careers".

I was breaking it down further to this year and trends.

So sorry that this confused you.


It didnt confuse me, it made me laugh.

"Entire career" for guys who have played about a season and a quarter?

"Entire career" lol.


With the average NFL career being about 3 - 3.5 seasons, 1.3 seasons isn't that far off.

_________________
And this post is not directed at anyone personally.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:01 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:17 pm
Posts: 47
Pandion Haliaetus wrote:
No the team was pretty much all Peyton Manning. Everyone knew that, without him, no one put in the extra work to be competitive. And the Colts did a lot to repair the damage to move on, nope, that's why half the coaches and that team lost their jobs because their will to be a competitive team was lost the day it was announced that Manning wouldn't play that season.

Its just funny how you Colts fans assume the Seahawks would have been good in 2012. You Colts fans know nothing about the make-up of our team, only citing what little the media coverage talking heads gave us.

And that's all you have... Luck isn't the only reason you guys went 2-11 from 11-5, period. The Colts coaching staff and FO found cheap, solid options with better players at replacement level. But you guys still held onto your core of stellar veteran talent namely Reggie Wayne and the always underrated Robert Mathis. A player I wanted on the Seahawks so badly before he re-signed with the Colts. Antoine Bethea. Adam Vinerteri. Dwight Freeney. Antonio Johnson. Most those players are household names. You also kept a lot of your higher picks over the years as well.

Grabbing serviceable players in the draft like Canstanzo and Angerer in 2011. Hitting big on most of your 2012 draft with Luck, Fleener, Allen, Ballard, Hilton and winning a jackpot with Jerell Freeman, who is quietly has become one the best MLBs in the game after 1 year.

Not to mention you guys picked up a lot a cheaper veterans that are solid players that were high pick cast offs from other teams as teams tried to shed some cap:
Donnie Avery, Corry Redding, Samson Satele, Winston Justice, Matt McGlynn, Darius Butler, Trai Essex, Vontae Davis, Mewlewde Moore, Tony Hills, Justin King, and Tom Zbowski.

That 12 players the Colts signed or traded for that had 4 or more years of experience. Not a bad rag-tag group that would become a team behind Pagano's illness.

Quit acting like the Colts came out of nowhere, and that Luck is the only reason why they are winning games, they got a good group and had the right mixture of veteran talent going all out to earn a pay check and a right mixture of younger players trying to prove they belong in the league.

And quit acting like the 2011 Seahawks were vastly superior team to the Colts. The only reason the Seahawks were remotely competitive was because the young players who took over as injury replacement refused to drop dead. Tarvaris Jackson refused to give up, even with a Pec injury slowing him down.

The 2011 Seahawks weren't good but they were tough and they competed. 2011 Colts laid down , it had nothing to do with the Coaching, their team laid down because they knew they sucked without Manning and there was no use in trying. That's why they flopped it per say.


As I showed earlier, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Luck and the Colts. Nobody here said the turn around was 100% Luck, but he was a huge, essential part of it. Your attempts to minimize it are admirable but silly.

Furthermore, you're pretty much admitting I was right about the Colts being built around Manning and sucking without him. In other words, the organization didn't tank to get Luck. They just were built around one essential player that they lost and were horrible without him. Your theory, that all the other players just laid down and quit, is another silly notion that doesn't hold water. Veterans like Kerry Collins, Dwight Freeney and Dallas Clark didn't gain their stature by quitting. Other players like Curtis Painter and Joseph Addai needed to perform to keep their contracts or earn new ones. They weren't laying down with their NFL careers on the line.

Like I said before, congrats on being better than the 2011 Colts. You had 30 other teams as company.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:44 pm 
*SILVER SUPPORTER*
*SILVER SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
Posts: 4378
Location: Southern CA
DavidSeven wrote:
My thoughts: Russell Wilson is Pete Carroll's dream QB.

He's a guy who can play behind a run-oriented line because of his ability to scramble, and he doesn't have to throw the ball away when pressured. He can also complete "explosive" passes and protects the ball with his life. Pete Carroll's entire philosophy is built around three things: 1) protect the football; 2) establish the run; and 3) hit on explosive passes. Russell's unique skill set plays into all three of these things.

Do you guys think it's a coincidence that PC just signed a Russell Wilson clone to be his back-up? An elusive, cannon-armed, ball-protecting QB is the guy Carroll has looked for his entire coaching career, even if he didn't realize it until Russell came along.

It's not just the on-field stuff either. Their personalities and approach mesh so perfectly.

_________________
Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:49 am 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:11 pm
Posts: 79
Only on a Seahawks forum would anyone legitimately try to argue that Russell Wilson is better than Andrew Luck


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ NFL NATION ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Popeyejones, SalishHawkFan, tacomahawk, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.