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: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:09 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:04 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Behind you
LotsOfLuck wrote:
This continues to be the only place where I even see people discussing this.



How many boards discuss 2 qbs not on their team?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:47 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 3100
TJH wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.


You are crazy.

If you polled every GM and coach in the league (other than Seattle's), they'd take Luck over Wilson........


And candidly, our GM would take Luck in a heartbeat. That won't be a popular statement but it's the truth.


We get it, man. You hate Russell Wilson. You've seriously dogged him in basically every thread that's come up in the last two days. Hard to take you seriously.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:04 am
Posts: 424
Sgt. Largent wrote:
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.


You are crazy.

If you polled every GM and coach in the league (other than Seattle's), they'd take Luck over Wilson........and you would too if you removed your allegiance to the Hawks.

I love Russell, he's a top 10 QB in this league and a fantastic teammate, role model and community leader. But Luck is an every 25 year type of QB. IMO he's that special.


Luck is better if you ignore every statistical category other than total yards; including stats like total wins, completion percentage, TDs, QBR, YPA, rushing yards, ect. Sgt. Largent, you have bought into the hype.

You can make the case that Luck is more accurate, but completion percentage blows that up.

Look, I'm not saying both will not be elite. I predict both will be Hall of Famers one day. I'm just saying RW deserves the same amount of props for being great as Luck does and several posters on this board need to recognize it. He doesn't deserve to be thought of as only the third best or fourth best Sophomore QB. He's been more successful that Luck and just as clutch.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:53 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 3100
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:54 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am
Posts: 6414
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? This is the guy he's looked for his entire coaching career.


This...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:32 pm 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 94
aawolf wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.


You are crazy.

If you polled every GM and coach in the league (other than Seattle's), they'd take Luck over Wilson........and you would too if you removed your allegiance to the Hawks.

I love Russell, he's a top 10 QB in this league and a fantastic teammate, role model and community leader. But Luck is an every 25 year type of QB. IMO he's that special.


Luck is better if you ignore every statistical category other than total yards; including stats like total wins, completion percentage, TDs, QBR, YPA, rushing yards, ect. Sgt. Largent, you have bought into the hype.

You can make the case that Luck is more accurate, but completion percentage blows that up.

Look, I'm not saying both will not be elite. I predict both will be Hall of Famers one day. I'm just saying RW deserves the same amount of props for being great as Luck does and several posters on this board need to recognize it. He doesn't deserve to be thought of as only the third best or fourth best Sophomore QB. He's been more successful that Luck and just as clutch.


Actually luck has a better QBR then Wilson. Luck also has more passing yards with less INTs. I wouldn't use rushing yards as a statistic for who is a better QB.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:39 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Not even going to bother reading the thread, but I'll just say they're both really good QB's. They both have bright futures. And both franchises should be happy to have them.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:49 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:04 am
Posts: 424
paramedic586 wrote:
aawolf wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.


You are crazy.

If you polled every GM and coach in the league (other than Seattle's), they'd take Luck over Wilson........and you would too if you removed your allegiance to the Hawks.

I love Russell, he's a top 10 QB in this league and a fantastic teammate, role model and community leader. But Luck is an every 25 year type of QB. IMO he's that special.


Luck is better if you ignore every statistical category other than total yards; including stats like total wins, completion percentage, TDs, QBR, YPA, rushing yards, ect. Sgt. Largent, you have bought into the hype.

You can make the case that Luck is more accurate, but completion percentage blows that up.

Look, I'm not saying both will not be elite. I predict both will be Hall of Famers one day. I'm just saying RW deserves the same amount of props for being great as Luck does and several posters on this board need to recognize it. He doesn't deserve to be thought of as only the third best or fourth best Sophomore QB. He's been more successful that Luck and just as clutch.


Actually luck has a better QBR then Wilson. Luck also has more passing yards with less INTs. I wouldn't use rushing yards as a statistic for who is a better QB.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr


I was factoring in QBR from last year too. Wilson is better


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:50 pm 
NET Rookie
Online

Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:53 am
Posts: 248
TJH wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.


You are crazy.

If you polled every GM and coach in the league (other than Seattle's), they'd take Luck over Wilson........


And candidly, our GM would take Luck in a heartbeat. That won't be a popular statement but it's the truth.
g

I'm starting to wonder if you are Matt Flynn.

Or if perhaps Wilson stole your lady.

Every single one of your posts is bashing the guy. You have gone past helpful criticism and have now entered bashing territory.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:54 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
Posts: 1401
Location: Seattle (From Spokane)
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.

I'm the exact same way. If you offered me a straight across trade, Wilson for Luck, I would say no 10/10 times. You could show me indisputable evidence that Luck is and will always be a better quarterback than Wilson, and I wouldn't really care. Good for the Colts for drafting Luck, but I'm perfectly happy with Wilson.

_________________
Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:
Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???


Last edited by razgriz737 on Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:55 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am
Posts: 6414
I think RW is the perfect Seattle QB. It goes beyond football IMO


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:19 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:33 pm
Posts: 2148
Location: Born: Tacoma, WA Raised: Florida
Sgt. Largent wrote:
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.


You are crazy.

If you polled every GM and coach in the league (other than Seattle's), they'd take Luck over Wilson........and you would too if you removed your allegiance to the Hawks.

I love Russell, he's a top 10 QB in this league and a fantastic teammate, role model and community leader. But Luck is an every 25 year type of QB. IMO he's that special.


How so? His stats to this point are less than what Wilson has done and youre talking about him like he's the next Joe Montana. Maybe he has the potential to do something like that but until he proves it and gets his first playoff win, all those accolades you and the rest of the media want to give him are fictitious.

I think Luck is great I just don't really think he's beyond Russell Wilson or even on another level yet, theres still lots to improve on in his game.

But I'll be the first to credit him when/if he does finally make it, I've just always believe the proof is in the pudding.

_________________
Image
"Somehow a second year quarterback was more ready for this game, than a first ballot hall of famer!?"
-DMac 104.3 Denver The Fan after Super Bowl XLVIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:36 pm 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 94
aawolf. So based on your grading of qbs then you should think that Collin kaepernick is a better qb then russell Wilson. He has a higher qbr this year and last year. So do think CK is better then RW?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:21 am 
NET Practice Squad
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:04 am
Posts: 76
aawolf wrote:
I thought I'd make a separate thread on this considering it has been a topic of conversation throughout the week. I know you all were watching how they performed in this game, as I was. With all of the hype Luck has been given throughout the draft and throughout his career, and all the ball-licking commentary praising Luck that was going on throughout the broadcast, it is clear that Luck is more highly regarded across the country than Russell Wilson. But, by any statistical measure, including total wins, completion percentage, TDs, total TDs, and QBR, Russell Wilson is clearly the superior QB.

However, Luck got the one statistic that truly mattered yesterday, when he and the Colts beat the Wilson-led Seahawks. While Luck played great, I sense from a lot of .netters that they are buying into the hype that Luck is a superior QB. If you just focus on the fact that Luck won, he played better. However, having saw the game, it was clear to me that Wilson actually played better on the field, and if not for a few costly penalties and a drop by a wide-open Lynch, we would have won. Lets look at the stats:


RW: Passing: 15-31, 210 yds; Rushing: 13 carries, 102 yds; Total yds: 312
Luck: Passing: 16-29, 229 yds; Rushing: 4 carries, 9 yds; Total yds: 236

RUSSELL WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE TOTAL YARDS THAN ANDREW LUCK!!

Total net yards from both teams:
Seahawks: 423
Colts: 317

Russell Wilson was responsible for 5 LESS YARDS THAN THE ENTIRE COLTS OFFENSE!



How did Wilson get so fast all of a sudden?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:54 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
Wilson is very good but his best asset is being ale to run when he gets in a jam. Look how many times he ran against the Colts.

Wilson also has one of the best Ds, if not the best, in the league and a running game.

Luck is a better QB. Obviously it bothers the OP since he started a thread about it.

I keep seeing people talk about "accuracy"....you guys know Wilson is only completing 58% of his passes this year.....right? Which is less than the "inaccurate" Luck.

Last year for most of the year Wilson was a game manager, nothing wrong with that but the Seahawks D and running game (and replacement refs) were what won the Seahawks games last year.

Luck is already better than Wislon and is only going to get better as he ages, Wilson is going to slow down and he won't be able to rely on running as an escape every time he gets in trouble. It will affect his game.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:35 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14122
Location: Portland, OR
Bartmuley wrote:
Last year for most of the year Wilson was a game manager, nothing wrong with that but the Seahawks D and running game (and replacement refs) were what won the Seahawks games last year.


Hahahaha, you don't know anything. Go watch the Bears game. Or the Atlanta game. Or the December 49ers game.

Game manager. Brilliant.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:36 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:52 pm
Posts: 1303
Location: Tri-Cities, WA
Bartmuley wrote:
Wilson is very good but his best asset is being ale to run when he gets in a jam. Look how many times he ran against the Colts.

Wilson also has one of the best Ds, if not the best, in the league and a running game.

Luck is a better QB. Obviously it bothers the OP since he started a thread about it.

I keep seeing people talk about "accuracy"....you guys know Wilson is only completing 58% of his passes this year.....right? Which is less than the "inaccurate" Luck.

Last year for most of the year Wilson was a game manager, nothing wrong with that but the Seahawks D and running game (and replacement refs) were what won the Seahawks games last year.

Luck is already better than Wislon and is only going to get better as he ages, Wilson is going to slow down and he won't be able to rely on running as an escape every time he gets in trouble. It will affect his game.


Man, what an ignorant troll post. If you want to say Luck is a better QB, that's fine. He's a great QB. So is Wilson. Like I said earlier, it's apples and oranges. 2 QB's, and 2 different teams with 2 different offenses. It doesn't matter who is better if they can win you a SB.

Saying replacement refs what won Seattle games last year is ridiculous. You obviously didn't watch Seattle play any games last year, so don't go posting ignorant garbage like that.

_________________
"I don't know what you're talking about." GT


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:10 am 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:50 am
Posts: 166
a)The Seattle D wasn't an elite D on Sunday. Part of that was because of Luck's manipulation and part can be attributed to an off-week. I'm sure that's something else on which we can all disagree.
b)I'm sure that both Luck and Wilson would agree with a few of the previous posts that point out the only stat that matters is the W/L. In the game Sunday, Luck got the W. All in all, both teams have 1 loss. It could also be pointed out that Tannehill was the better the QB on Sept 15.
c)It's crazy to completely ignore rushing yards when judging a QB.

Isn't it reasonable to ask the question: Without the starting QB, how would the team do?

I think, on Sunday, those couple of TD passes to TY had so much room, many QBS could make that throw. That's not to diminish any other play. I just don't agree with previous posters comparing TY's TDs to Tate's miss. There was a difference of about 5 yards of separation. That's not on the QB. That's a fail on the D or a win for the WR. I'd guess, with the situation Sunday, the Seahawks would have performed worse with Luck at the helm than the Colts would have with Wilson going. ... just a guess.

That's only one day. In general, I think Luck would have gone deep into the playoffs if he had the advantage of CLink. That has nothing to do with him as a player. ...just the fans in Indy.


Last edited by chrispy on Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:11 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am
Posts: 6414
Bartmuley wrote:
Wilson is very good but his best asset is being ale to run when he gets in a jam. Look how many times he ran against the Colts.

Wilson also has one of the best Ds, if not the best, in the league and a running game.

Luck is a better QB. Obviously it bothers the OP since he started a thread about it.

I keep seeing people talk about "accuracy"....you guys know Wilson is only completing 58% of his passes this year.....right? Which is less than the "inaccurate" Luck.

Last year for most of the year Wilson was a game manager, nothing wrong with that but the Seahawks D and running game (and replacement refs) were what won the Seahawks games last year.

Luck is already better than Wislon and is only going to get better as he ages, Wilson is going to slow down and he won't be able to rely on running as an escape every time he gets in trouble. It will affect his game.


He threw 21 TD's last year from the pocket. Had a higher QBR and completion percentage inside the pocket. But who cares, right? Espn says he's a run-first QB...it must be true


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:29 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Tri-Cities, Washington
First of all QBR is a joke. Mannings 7 TD 450+ yard game wasn't even in the top 4 games of week one for QB's. No one uses QBR other than ESPN. Statistically Wilson has been better than Luck up to this point in their respective careers. I am a huge fan of Luck but Wilson has been as good or better while playing a much tougher schedule. Last year Wilson had one of the toughest schedules for a QB in the league....people forget that.

I think both are going to be great and they are the two best young QB's in the league. Would most GM's take Luck over Wilson? Probably because of his size.

I would love to revisit this after Wilson has a weapon like Harvin for 4 games or so. I think we see a jump in Wilson's stats when he has a guy who can create space and get open on his own at will.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:39 am 
*NET #1 Sherman Fan*
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:14 pm
Posts: 640
DavidSeven wrote:
We get it, man. You hate Russell Wilson. You've seriously dogged him in basically every thread that's come up in the last two days. Hard to take you seriously.



I don't hate him at all. I really like him as a person and think he has a ton of potential.

1. I am disapointed in his progress so far this year. I expected a lot more out of him. A lot of it is the Oline but to give them all the blame is foolish. He needs to get better. He needs to get better with his reads and downfield vision and his accuracy needs to improve. He also needs to work on stepping into the pocket against edge pressure instead of sliding out. Against inside pressure that's not really his fault and not much he can do. The good thing is that these are all rectifiable.

2. 32/32 GMs in the league would take Luck. That's just the honest truth.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:55 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2471
NFSeahawks628 wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.


You are crazy.

If you polled every GM and coach in the league (other than Seattle's), they'd take Luck over Wilson........and you would too if you removed your allegiance to the Hawks.

I love Russell, he's a top 10 QB in this league and a fantastic teammate, role model and community leader. But Luck is an every 25 year type of QB. IMO he's that special.


How so? His stats to this point are less than what Wilson has done and youre talking about him like he's the next Joe Montana. Maybe he has the potential to do something like that but until he proves it and gets his first playoff win, all those accolades you and the rest of the media want to give him are fictitious.

I think Luck is great I just don't really think he's beyond Russell Wilson or even on another level yet, theres still lots to improve on in his game.


IMO Wilson's stats were better last year because Wilson had more talent around him, and a much better offensive line. Now that Luck has some talent on offense you'll notice that their 2013 stats are very close.

No one can convince me that any GM/coach combo would choose Wilson over Luck. That right there should end this debate. Both are very good QB's, but IMO Luck is the TOTAL package. He has no deficiencies.

Wilson also has the ability to have a very good long career, and I'm glad we have him. But it'll be interesting to see how well he does when he starts approaching age 30 and his mobility slows down. Allusiveness is his biggest asset right now, what happens when that wanes? Hopefully we start building the hell out of our O-Line in the coming years so we don't have to find out.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:20 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 3100
Sgt. Largent wrote:
No one can convince me that any GM/coach combo would choose Wilson over Luck. That right there should end this debate.


And no one can convince me that Carroll/Schneider or Bret Bielema would choose anyone other than Russell Wilson to be their franchise quarterback. That right there should end this debate.

Sgt. Largent wrote:
[But it'll be interesting to see how well he does when he starts approaching age 30 and his mobility slows down. Allusiveness is his biggest asset right now, what happens when that wanes? Hopefully we start building the hell out of our O-Line in the coming years so we don't have to find out.


Tarkenton, Favre, and Young were mobile and productive well beyond 30. Russell isn't a running QB.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:29 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
Posts: 558
Location: Tri-Cities, Washington
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:29 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:32 pm
Posts: 525
coltsfan1405 wrote:
lol im sorry but Wilson is not on lucks level VERY close but just not yet I hope we see you guys in the superbowl cause it will be a very good game and on neutral grounds in NY



You are correct Wilson is clearly a level above...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:44 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
Sarlacc83 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
Last year for most of the year Wilson was a game manager, nothing wrong with that but the Seahawks D and running game (and replacement refs) were what won the Seahawks games last year.


Hahahaha, you don't know anything. Go watch the Bears game. Or the Atlanta game. Or the December 49ers game.

Game manager. Brilliant.


You obviously missed the "most of the year" part of my post. It's OK, i know some people have trouble reading. Just go reread my post, I'm sure you'll see it tis time.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:47 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14122
Location: Portland, OR
Bartmuley wrote:
Sarlacc83 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
Last year for most of the year Wilson was a game manager, nothing wrong with that but the Seahawks D and running game (and replacement refs) were what won the Seahawks games last year.


Hahahaha, you don't know anything. Go watch the Bears game. Or the Atlanta game. Or the December 49ers game.

Game manager. Brilliant.


You obviously missed the "most of the year" part of my post. It's OK, i know some people have trouble reading. Just go reread my post, I'm sure you'll see it tis time.


Nope; I just know that you don't know anything.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:49 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2471
DavidSeven wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
Tarkenton, Favre, and Young were mobile and productive well beyond 30. Russell isn't a running QB.


Russell isn't a running QB in the same vein as guys like Vick or Cunningham, but he does depend heavily on his legs to allude pressure and buy time and/or run when the pocket breaks down.

I'm just worried that his effectiveness might wane when he can no longer do this as efficiently as he does now. But that's a good problem to have considering every single one of our previous QB's going back to Zorn didn't have 1/10th of Wilson's skill set.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:54 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
Sgt. Largent wrote:
NFSeahawks628 wrote:
Sgt. Largent wrote:
KARAVARUS wrote:
I still don't see why you think I am irrational if I don't want Luck over Wilson. Or am I misunderstanding? Literally, no part of me wants Luck over Wilson. None. Zero. Nada. Does that mean I think Wilson is better or that I hate Luck? I don't think so. I am happy with our QB, and it has to do with more than QB play on the field. I think Luck leaves Indy at some point in his career. Maybe Wilson leaves eventually too, but I think we have a better chance of having RW forever than Indy has of keeping Luck forever. I have no evidence to back that claim, mind you, none. I'm just happy with our guy. Call me crazy.


You are crazy.

If you polled every GM and coach in the league (other than Seattle's), they'd take Luck over Wilson........and you would too if you removed your allegiance to the Hawks.

I love Russell, he's a top 10 QB in this league and a fantastic teammate, role model and community leader. But Luck is an every 25 year type of QB. IMO he's that special.


How so? His stats to this point are less than what Wilson has done and youre talking about him like he's the next Joe Montana. Maybe he has the potential to do something like that but until he proves it and gets his first playoff win, all those accolades you and the rest of the media want to give him are fictitious.

I think Luck is great I just don't really think he's beyond Russell Wilson or even on another level yet, theres still lots to improve on in his game.


IMO Wilson's stats were better last year because Wilson had more talent around him, and a much better offensive line. Now that Luck has some talent on offense you'll notice that their 2013 stats are very close.

No one can convince me that any GM/coach combo would choose Wilson over Luck. That right there should end this debate. Both are very good QB's, but IMO Luck is the TOTAL package. He has no deficiencies.

Wilson also has the ability to have a very good long career, and I'm glad we have him. But it'll be interesting to see how well he does when he starts approaching age 30 and his mobility slows down. Allusiveness is his biggest asset right now, what happens when that wanes? Hopefully we start building the hell out of our O-Line in the coming years so we don't have to find out.


Anyone who is directly comparing Luck's stats to Wilson's from last year doesn't know about football. Luck ran a totally different, far more aggressive offense than Wilson and he did it without anywhere near the defense or running game the Seahawks had last year.

Indy last year was running a new offense, with a rookie QB, with two rookie TEs, a rookie RB, a rookie WR, Avery who caught 3 passes the year before, and of course Wayne. And the Colts won 11 games...largely because oF Luck.

No disrespect to Wilson but he came to loaded team and for much of last year he was just a game manager. He had nowhere near the attempts Luck had or passing yards.

Wilson's running ability saves him a lot but sooner or later it will cost him. Ask RG3. Personally I don't want my QB running except as a last resort or if he's not going to get hit, QBs are too important.


Last edited by Bartmuley on Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:57 am 
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 6754
Speaking as a fan (i.e. one who is prone to emotional swings) I think both are very promising QBs and deserve their accolades, but they make plays in different ways. That said, if the question is which is going to have the better career, at this point I'd say Luck will. He seems to be the more accurate passer and better at hitting a receiver in stride. I'm also beginning to think he sees the field better. Russell tends to overthrow open receivers, and this is something we've been seeing since he's been our QB, and it seems he's just not seeing some wide open receivers of late. Perhaps all QBs are guilty of that, but it just seems that this part of his game, his vision, hasn't been great this season. He makes up for this by being terrific with his legs, having great poise, and dedicating himself to being a great leader, but the dude has to figure out his accuracy issues because at some point, legs aren't enough for a QB.

I don't know if this is all because our OL has more or less failed to rise to the occasion in Pass Pro (seem to be doing a little better in run game of late), but Russell just seems "off" a wee bit. Not a ton, mind you, but I don't mind telling you I'm a little...concerned.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:02 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am
Posts: 6414
TJH wrote:
DavidSeven wrote:
We get it, man. You hate Russell Wilson. You've seriously dogged him in basically every thread that's come up in the last two days. Hard to take you seriously.



I don't hate him at all. I really like him as a person and think he has a ton of potential.

1. I am disapointed in his progress so far this year. I expected a lot more out of him. A lot of it is the Oline but to give them all the blame is foolish. He needs to get better. He needs to get better with his reads and downfield vision and his accuracy needs to improve. He also needs to work on stepping into the pocket against edge pressure instead of sliding out. Against inside pressure that's not really his fault and not much he can do. The good thing is that these are all rectifiable.

2. 32/32 GMs in the league would take Luck. That's just the honest truth.


Unless you talked to 32 GM's, there's no sort of truth to that.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:08 am 
*NET #1 Sherman Fan*
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:14 pm
Posts: 640
-The Glove- wrote:
TJH wrote:
DavidSeven wrote:
We get it, man. You hate Russell Wilson. You've seriously dogged him in basically every thread that's come up in the last two days. Hard to take you seriously.



I don't hate him at all. I really like him as a person and think he has a ton of potential.

1. I am disapointed in his progress so far this year. I expected a lot more out of him. A lot of it is the Oline but to give them all the blame is foolish. He needs to get better. He needs to get better with his reads and downfield vision and his accuracy needs to improve. He also needs to work on stepping into the pocket against edge pressure instead of sliding out. Against inside pressure that's not really his fault and not much he can do. The good thing is that these are all rectifiable.

2. 32/32 GMs in the league would take Luck. That's just the honest truth.


Unless you talked to 32 GM's, there's no sort of truth to that.



Luck was universally acclaimed as the best prospect in 20 years since Elway and has done nothing to dispell that. This isn' really even questionable.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:08 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2471
MysterMatt wrote:
I don't know if this is all because our OL has more or less failed to rise to the occasion in Pass Pro (seem to be doing a little better in run game of late), but Russell just seems "off" a wee bit. Not a ton, mind you, but I don't mind telling you I'm a little...concerned.


I'm not concerned about Wilson. Right now he's trying to operate behind a horrific offensive line. Seriously, our O-line was under performing BEFORE all the injuries, and now they're just flat out getting beat on a regular basis......especially pass blocking.

No QB, even Manning and Brees could operate efficiently behind this line. Add in the fact that guys like Miller and Rice aren't playing up to their potential (or in Miller's case aren't playing at all), and it spells disaster for Russell.

The good news is Harvin is coming back, and hopefully Unger and Breno get back to full health. Then Okung in November and we should be good to go for the stretch run.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:16 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
Sarlacc83 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
Sarlacc83 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
Last year for most of the year Wilson was a game manager, nothing wrong with that but the Seahawks D and running game (and replacement refs) were what won the Seahawks games last year.


Hahahaha, you don't know anything. Go watch the Bears game. Or the Atlanta game. Or the December 49ers game.

Game manager. Brilliant.


You obviously missed the "most of the year" part of my post. It's OK, i know some people have trouble reading. Just go reread my post, I'm sure you'll see it tis time.


Nope; I just know that you don't know anything.


I know Russel passed for less than 200 yards 9 times last season, averaged only around 24 attempts per game, and only passed for 300 yards once, in a loss in the playoffs.

Hell the guy passed for less than 175 yards 9 times.

Like I said, most of the year he was a game manager. He was a rookie on a team with a great running game and defense, he did what was asked of him, but the fact is what he did and what Luck did last year as far as roles go, are totally different.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:55 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am
Posts: 6414
TJH wrote:
-The Glove- wrote:
TJH wrote:
DavidSeven wrote:
We get it, man. You hate Russell Wilson. You've seriously dogged him in basically every thread that's come up in the last two days. Hard to take you seriously.



I don't hate him at all. I really like him as a person and think he has a ton of potential.

1. I am disapointed in his progress so far this year. I expected a lot more out of him. A lot of it is the Oline but to give them all the blame is foolish. He needs to get better. He needs to get better with his reads and downfield vision and his accuracy needs to improve. He also needs to work on stepping into the pocket against edge pressure instead of sliding out. Against inside pressure that's not really his fault and not much he can do. The good thing is that these are all rectifiable.

2. 32/32 GMs in the league would take Luck. That's just the honest truth.


Unless you talked to 32 GM's, there's no sort of truth to that.



Luck was universally acclaimed as the best prospect in 20 years since Elway and has done nothing to dispell that. This isn' really even questionable.


Sure. That was entering the league. Back then, no doubt. Now that we know what we have in Wilson, I highly doubt PC and JS would part with him for anybody.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:14 am 
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
*TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
Posts: 6754
Sgt. Largent wrote:
MysterMatt wrote:
I don't know if this is all because our OL has more or less failed to rise to the occasion in Pass Pro (seem to be doing a little better in run game of late), but Russell just seems "off" a wee bit. Not a ton, mind you, but I don't mind telling you I'm a little...concerned.


I'm not concerned about Wilson. Right now he's trying to operate behind a horrific offensive line. Seriously, our O-line was under performing BEFORE all the injuries, and now they're just flat out getting beat on a regular basis......especially pass blocking.

No QB, even Manning and Brees could operate efficiently behind this line. Add in the fact that guys like Miller and Rice aren't playing up to their potential (or in Miller's case aren't playing at all), and it spells disaster for Russell.

The good news is Harvin is coming back, and hopefully Unger and Breno get back to full health. Then Okung in November and we should be good to go for the stretch run.

I approve of your attitude.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:31 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14122
Location: Portland, OR
Bartmuley wrote:
I know Russel passed for less than 200 yards 9 times last season, averaged only around 24 attempts per game, and only passed for 300 yards once, in a loss in the playoffs.

Hell the guy passed for less than 175 yards 9 times.

Like I said, most of the year he was a game manager. He was a rookie on a team with a great running game and defense, he did what was asked of him, but the fact is what he did and what Luck did last year as far as roles go, are totally different.


You can keep repeating that talking point, but since you didn't watch the games, you don't know. Wilson threw less because the identity of the team is to run the ball, not because Wilson had any limitations (except the artificial limitation for the first five games). You're looking at the stats without context. Like, for instance, the fact that Wilson threw for sub 200 yards at the end of the season games because the team, as a total, kicked so much ass he was out of 2 of those games by the third quarter.

Furthermore, game managers DON'T tie the record for rookie TD throws. Nor do their numbers go drastically up when the team needs it. (See: Bears, Patriots). Once again: You don't know anything.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:36 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm
Posts: 1745
Sarlacc83 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
I know Russel passed for less than 200 yards 9 times last season, averaged only around 24 attempts per game, and only passed for 300 yards once, in a loss in the playoffs.

Hell the guy passed for less than 175 yards 9 times.

Like I said, most of the year he was a game manager. He was a rookie on a team with a great running game and defense, he did what was asked of him, but the fact is what he did and what Luck did last year as far as roles go, are totally different.


You can keep repeating that talking point, but since you didn't watch the games, you don't know. Wilson threw less because the identity of the team is to run the ball, not because Wilson had any limitations (except the artificial limitation for the first five games). You're looking at the stats without context. Like, for instance, the fact that Wilson threw for sub 200 yards at the end of the season games because the team, as a total, kicked so much ass he was out of 2 of those games by the third quarter.

Furthermore, game managers DON'T tie the record for rookie TD throws. Nor do their numbers go drastically up when the team needs it. (See: Bears, Patriots). Once again: You don't know anything.


Yeah, Sarlacc nailed it, if you look at his stats without any context you'd get that impression but consider how many games Wilson had won by the second quarter his numbers could of been way higher if stats were his goal. All you really need to know is what happened in the Atlanta game in the second half. Wilson was unstoppable in that game, without Tony Gonzales the Seahawks would of been in the NFC championship.

_________________
NFL, all your Owlz are belong to us!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:56 am 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:37 pm
Posts: 103
As a Seahawks fan I love Russell Wilson as much as the next, but there is definitely some homerism on these boards regarding RW3... Why do people get butt hurt on these boards if someone thinks Luck is better than Wilson? I will say that watching the Seahawks Colts game, Luck was much more effective stepping up into the pocket when the line collapsed, still looking down field the entire time. A problem with Wilson is that when the line collapses, he NEVER steps up into the pocket, it seems that he immediately resorts to his legs and runs outside, cutting his vision by half. I'm happy we have RW3, but placing the entire blame on the line is ridiculous. He has deficiencies and some are concerned on the lack of progression regarding said deficiencies.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
 Post Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:37 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm
Posts: 31
Sarlacc83 wrote:
Bartmuley wrote:
I know Russel passed for less than 200 yards 9 times last season, averaged only around 24 attempts per game, and only passed for 300 yards once, in a loss in the playoffs.

Hell the guy passed for less than 175 yards 9 times.

Like I said, most of the year he was a game manager. He was a rookie on a team with a great running game and defense, he did what was asked of him, but the fact is what he did and what Luck did last year as far as roles go, are totally different.


You can keep repeating that talking point, but since you didn't watch the games, you don't know. Wilson threw less because the identity of the team is to run the ball, not because Wilson had any limitations (except the artificial limitation for the first five games). You're looking at the stats without context. Like, for instance, the fact that Wilson threw for sub 200 yards at the end of the season games because the team, as a total, kicked so much ass he was out of 2 of those games by the third quarter.

Furthermore, game managers DON'T tie the record for rookie TD throws. Nor do their numbers go drastically up when the team needs it. (See: Bears, Patriots). Once again: You don't know anything.


Uh huh. I know Wilson was a game manager who averaged less than 200 yards a game passing. I know he had a great D and running game so he wasnt asked to do as much as most QBs.

Seriously I have no idea why you're getting so upset. Tom Brayd was a game manager his first year as a starter. Wilson lucked out in going to a very good team that needed a QB.

He's a good QB, but he runs too much and comparing his rookie season to Luck's stat-wise is silly. He was a game manager, Luck was the whole show in Indy last year. Luck couldn't count on his D or run game to win games for the Colts.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 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
Online

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 3100
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  
 
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: Coug_Hawk08, FriscosFinest, SalishHawkFan and 25 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.