Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. RATING: PG-13
Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:39 am
  • 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.
    TJH
    *NET #1 Sherman Fan*
     
    Posts: 646
    Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:14 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:55 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2866
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:20 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3562
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:29 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1005
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:29 am
  • 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...
    Schadie001
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 531
    Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:32 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:44 am
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:47 am
  • 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
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 14631
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:49 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2866
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:54 am
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:57 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6835
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:02 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    -The Glove-
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6936
    Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:08 am
  • -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.
    TJH
    *NET #1 Sherman Fan*
     
    Posts: 646
    Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:14 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:08 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2866
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:16 am
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:55 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    -The Glove-
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6936
    Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:14 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6835
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:31 am
  • 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
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 14631
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:36 am
  • 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!
    User avatar
    12th_Bob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1749
    Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:56 am
  • 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.
    Abach
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:37 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:37 am
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:38 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    aawolf
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:04 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:47 am
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:50 am
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:55 am
  • 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.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3562
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:06 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4117
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:24 pm
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:28 pm
  • 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"?
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:30 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1005
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:32 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1005
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:46 pm
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:26 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1005
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:35 pm
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:39 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4117
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:45 pm
  • It rubs the lotion on its hands and tries to fit in.
    Image
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22464
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:45 pm
  • 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?
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1005
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:48 pm
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:52 pm
  • 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?
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:56 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1005
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:15 pm
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:19 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    hawker84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3896
    Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:28 pm
  • 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.
    lobohawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 208
    Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:22 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:28 pm
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:30 pm
  • 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.
    Image
    User avatar
    WilsonMVP
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:32 pm
  • 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.
    Last edited by hawker84 on Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    World Champs - Sounds good don't it
    User avatar
    hawker84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3896
    Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:33 pm
  • 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
    Image
    User avatar
    WilsonMVP
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:35 pm
  • Not quite sold there yet, but they're definitely in the conversation.
    World Champs - Sounds good don't it
    User avatar
    hawker84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3896
    Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:41 pm
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:43 pm
  • 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
    Image
    User avatar
    WilsonMVP
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:47 pm
  • 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.
    Bartmuley
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:21 pm


Re: Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck
Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:51 pm
  • 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?
    Image
    User avatar
    WilsonMVP
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 4:39 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online