Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck

aawolf · Oct 8, 2013

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.

Bartmuley · Oct 8, 2013

austinslater25":3m50c6b0 said:
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 · Oct 8, 2013

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.

DavidSeven · Oct 8, 2013

Bartmuley":3bwcs0mq said:
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.

DTexHawk · Oct 8, 2013

NFSeahawks628":1cdrfcqb said:
LotsOfLuck":1cdrfcqb said:

This continues to be the only place where I even see people discussing this.

Click to expand...

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.

Bartmuley · Oct 8, 2013

DavidSeven":3vsv6nzg said:
Bartmuley":3vsv6nzg said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 · Oct 8, 2013

DTexHawk":11x367ph said:
NFSeahawks628":11x367ph said:

LotsOfLuck":11x367ph said:

This continues to be the only place where I even see people discussing this.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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"?

Ozzy · Oct 8, 2013

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.

Ozzy · Oct 8, 2013

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.

Bartmuley · Oct 8, 2013

austinslater25":3449hnaj said:
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.

Ozzy · Oct 8, 2013

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.

Bartmuley · Oct 8, 2013

austinslater25":3ttdem8c said:
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.

DTexHawk · Oct 8, 2013

Bartmuley":2p8c5mat said:
DTexHawk":2p8c5mat said:

NFSeahawks628":2p8c5mat said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Largent80 · Oct 8, 2013

It rubs the lotion on its hands and tries to fit in.

Ozzy · Oct 8, 2013

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?

Bartmuley · Oct 8, 2013

DTexHawk":247kmtqb said:
Bartmuley":247kmtqb said:

DTexHawk":247kmtqb said:

NFSeahawks628":247kmtqb said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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"?

Click to expand...

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 · Oct 8, 2013

austinslater25":2ex2t8ao said:
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?

Ozzy · Oct 8, 2013

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.

Bartmuley · Oct 8, 2013

austinslater25":1pikix1h said:
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.

hawker84 · Oct 8, 2013

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.

Russell Wilson v. Andrew Luck

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads