Andrew Luck or Russell Wilson?

[Lords of Scythia]

Re read it Jon, he said "I was recently told by one of my fellow Jaguar fans that 9 out of 10 Seahawk fans would take Luck over Wilson, so I want to hear straight from the horse’s mouth; which QB would you rather have?" He is looking for who Hawk fans would prefer to take but I agree w/ your assessment that 95% would take Wilson.

This is wrong. The only Seahawks fans who would rather have Luck are the ones who just say they're Seahawks fans but don't watch three games and don't really know much about football at all.

That number is MUCH lower than 5%

It's lower than 0%.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

People on this thread who say Russell fits our "system" better than Luck aren't giving Pete and John enough credit.

Russell fits what we're doing because that's how Pete and John have built the team around him. If Luck was our QB, my guess is Pete and John would have done a few things differently with player acquisitions and drafts.

Again, dumb question. Both are fantastic players who'd flourish on this team.

 

[c_hawkbob]

If Andrew Luck was a Seahawk he would fit the Seahawks style because Pete Carroll would be doing what ever was necessary to maximize Luck's potential, just as we see him doing with Russell Wilson.

As it stands I would have to choose Russ because he's our guy and he is already all in with what we have going on as a team.

I am sure however that if we had Andrew I'd be coming down on the side of staying with him as well.

In 10 years this discussion will still be going strong and the Luck/Wilson debate will have supplanted the Manning/Brady debate as to who is the greatest QB of the modern era.

 

[rastahawk]

Just the sheer fact that RW is in this comparison is amazing enough. The way the media framed it from the get go is RGIII vs Luck. But now RW has not only leap frogged into the conversation, he may be better than the both of them. Ask any Seattle fan and they would probably all say they would rather keep RW. On the flipside Luck is supposedly once in an era type player. Now how do you figure a fanbase rather keeping someone over a some else who is touted as once in an era type player? RW is just that special. BTW I'd keep RW too.

 

[KK84]

I'm excited to see how many owls they play against each other.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

There is nothing Luck can do that Wilson can't. Then there are aspects like scrambling, making plays with feet, and throwing on the run that Wilson does better than Luck.

Wilson > Luck.

 

[VANiner]

As a die hard Niner fan, to me this question is like asking whom would you prefer Brees or Brady, both are future HOF'ers. I would take either over Kaep, RG3 or Cam.

I'll be at the Kaep vs. RG3 show on Monday night, routing for my Niners for that darn wildcard spot as a much better team knocked of off the top of the west this year.

Wow. Respect. It's not often we get a Niner fan that gives RW and our team credit without a backhanded compliment.

It's gotta be in there somewhere.... this 9er fan must be smarter then the average bear..

 

[mrblitz]

luck doesn't create synergies with his receiver corps the way russell does.

 

[plyka]

Good Morning Seahawk fans,

I'm a Jaguar fan but follow the Seahawks because of the Gus Bradley connection; I'm also a Wisconsin Badger fan so I'm fond of Russell Wilson. I've been debating with my fellow Jaguar fans on our message board over which QB (Wilson or Luck) is better at this point their careers. I've watched every Seattle Seahawk game this year (Wilson is on my fantasy squad), and it amazes me how the media and fans outside the NFC West simply don't know how good Russell Wilson is, I personally believe he's a top 5 QB in this league, his numbers are gaudy, and they would be a lot better if he threw the ball for 4 quarters. I was recently told by one of my fellow Jaguar fans that 9 out of 10 Seahawk fans would take Luck over Wilson, so I want to hear straight from the horse’s mouth; which QB would you rather have?

Such a tough call. I pride myself on being the one non-biased fan in the world (Seahawk or otherwise), and it's very hard to give a straight answer. If I pick Luck am i doing it just to prove to myself that I'm not biased? If I pick Wilson, am I doing it because I'm really biased? They are close enough to where such slight subconscience factors may sway me one way or another.

In the end, I think Wilson has been the better QB thus far in their careers, but that may be due to him having the better team. Also, Wilson's coaches understand he has a great team, and thus instruct him on not taking any unnecessary risks, so this has hindered him (as we saw in the Rams game). REcently, they have begun to let out the leash a bit, he has been taking more risks --as an example, the pass to Percy on the 3rd and 10, he wouldn't have taken that risk before, secondly his TD pass to Baldwin at the end of the 1st half, never would he have taken that risk, to throw it into double coverage, and the list continues. This will allow Wilson to finally play up to his full potential (yes, it's scary).

In the end, I would take Luck over Wilson though due to the possibilities in the future. Wilson's obvious weakness is his height. It doesn't take much from his game now, due to his obvious athletic abilities, his ability to scramble and move into clearer throwing lanes. That said, it is still a weakness, one which Luck does not have. A prime example would be Wilson's INT against Tampa, on the drive before they took the lead, from the 3 yard line. He was in the pocket trying to throw a quick pass over the middle, at 5'10'' I don't see how the guy could see anything. There was a LB "hiding" right behind the dline, and I doubt Wilson could see him --he threw a perfect pass if the LB was not there, but he was there, tipped it up in the air and got the INT.

I don't think it is a major weakness, or even a medium level weakness, but it is a weakness nonetheless, one which Luck does not have. We are talking about the best QB talents to come into the league over the last decade, so no one is saying one or the other isn't GREAT, but there may be a slight difference between the two over their entire careers. I give the slight advantage to Luck. There is no other area where I see a glaring strength/weakness for one or the other. Wilson may be a better runner, but Luck may be a slightly better passer, able to go through more reads in less time. Ether way, it's close.

We lost to the Colts because we shot ourselves in the foot about seven different times.

Take out both of the starting tackles for Indy, and half the remaining games without their starting center for the entire year except for two weeks. Think they have a winning record? That's what RW has dealt with the whole season except for the opener, and just last week's game.

Give me a break. Wilson to anyone with a level head that doesn't just regurgitate what they hear from the media about how dreamy of a QB Andrew Luck is.

This is not a very good argument. I don't think anyone would claim in their wildest dreams that Luck had the better team with him as they played the Hawks. Sure the Hawks were down some olinemen, but when you compare entire teams sans the QB, the Hawks were a much better team then and an even better team now versus the Colts.

 

[Hawks46]

I'd say they're pretty damn even really.

Luck might have a few less, how do I say it, restrictions ? Wilson really needs to use his throwing lanes ( I know most QBs do) whereas at 6'4", Luck can throw over people if he needs to and it affects the throw less.

Another poster in this thread said that Wilson is making a lot less money than Luck. This is probably true, but Luck probably has another year on his contract than Wilson (don't teams have the option to sign 1st rounders to a 6 yr contract now?)/

Overall, I'd still take Wilson based on intangbiles and personality, but I will also admit that I don't follow Luck and the Colts as closely as my Hawks, so he could have every bit of the intangibles, character and personality as Russ and I wouldn't know it.

The true test is going to come when the 1st contracts are up. Both QBs are going to command huge contracts. The true test of character and integrity is which guy is going to bend his team over the worst, ala Flacco ? I know you need QBs in this league, but 20 million/year contracts cripple teams.

 

[The Great Hawktini]

Re read it Jon, he said "I was recently told by one of my fellow Jaguar fans that 9 out of 10 Seahawk fans would take Luck over Wilson, so I want to hear straight from the horse’s mouth; which QB would you rather have?" He is looking for who Hawk fans would prefer to take but I agree w/ your assessment that 95% would take Wilson.

This is wrong. The only Seahawks fans who would rather have Luck are the ones who just say they're Seahawks fans but don't watch three games and don't really know much about football at all.

That number is MUCH lower than 5%

Luck is hot garbage.

 

[kearly]

I think Wilson is definitely better statistically. I'd take it one step further and say he's the more talented QB as well. He's more elusive than Luck, runs faster (4.55 vs. 4.60), is more accurate (though Luck has a more impressive deep ball), and though he sometimes suffers from height, it also helps him because defenders have a hard time locating him or reading his eyes. In terms of "innate" talent Wilson is better; aka he has a better "feel for the game." He's also a legend in the making as a leader.

That said, both are very similar QBs. Both suffer against the blitz, yet shine on 3rd downs and in the red zone, both can make plays with their feet and they are both quite possibly the NFL's #1 and #2 most "wholesome" people to play QB in the NFL.

They play in different styles of offense yet in college they played in very similar styles of offense with very similar statistics (worth noting, Wilson's numbers were the better of the two in 2011). I think if Luck and Wilson swapped teams, its entirely possible that Luck would have the better numbers, though I think the gulf between their stats would be smaller than it is currently. Wilson is just a better QB.

 

[RolandDeschain]

This is not a very good argument. I don't think anyone would claim in their wildest dreams that Luck had the better team with him as they played the Hawks. Sure the Hawks were down some olinemen, but when you compare entire teams sans the QB, the Hawks were a much better team then and an even better team now versus the Colts.

Let me put it this way. Do you think the Seahawks would still be 10-1 right now if Andrew Luck had been our QB last year and this year? I don't. I think the games where our pass protection was particularly garbage, we'd have lost rather than have won at LEAST one of those. Think back to most of the sideline tiptoe amazing catches we've seen from Baldwin and others this year, most of those were thrown a mile from the pocket after Wilson scrambled around like a madman from almost instant pressure in most cases, if my memory serves me correctly. Luck is not a slow statue like Peyton and Brady, but he cannot scramble like DangeRuss Wilson can. Nobody can, frankly.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This is not a very good argument. I don't think anyone would claim in their wildest dreams that Luck had the better team with him as they played the Hawks. Sure the Hawks were down some olinemen, but when you compare entire teams sans the QB, the Hawks were a much better team then and an even better team now versus the Colts.

Let me put it this way. Do you think the Seahawks would still be 10-1 right now if Andrew Luck had been our QB last year and this year? I don't. I think the games where our pass protection was particularly garbage, we'd have lost rather than have won at LEAST one of those. Think back to most of the sideline tiptoe amazing catches we've seen from Baldwin and others this year, most of those were thrown a mile from the pocket after Wilson scrambled around like a madman from almost instant pressure in most cases, if my memory serves me correctly. Luck is not a slow statue like Peyton and Brady, but he cannot scramble like DangeRuss Wilson can. Nobody can, frankly.

Luck ran a 4.6 at the combine. Wilson? 4.55. Luck is every bit as good of a scrambler as Wilson, he just doesn't have to do it as often because his line actually blocks most of the time. Now maybe Russell's a little more crafty because he's shorter and can maneuver behind the line, but that's splitting hairs.

I do believe we'd still be 10-1 with Luck, and I believe the Colts would be about where they are now with Wilson. The difference in the Hawks and Colts records have nothing to do with QB play, it has to do with the Hawks having a better D, more depth and a better Home FIeld Advantage.

 

[Ozzy]

What? Straight line speed has little to do with scrambling and while I think Luck is very good he is not as good of scrambler as Wilson is. Wilson's ability to make people miss and make plays down the field are incredible. I love Luck but to say his scrambling ability is as good as Wilson's just isn't true in my opinion.

 

[TXHawkFan]

I'd take Russell Wilson all day, every day over Andrew Luck. Nothing against Luck who is a fine young QB, but Wilson is simply better, IMO.

 

[-The Glove-]

What? Straight line speed has little to do with scrambling and while I think Luck is very good he is not as good of scrambler as Wilson is. Wilson's ability to make people miss and make plays down the field are incredible. I love Luck but to say his scrambling ability is as good as Wilson's just isn't true in my opinion.

Just look at Vick. Fast as hell but I don't think I've ever seen him pull off some of the scrambles Wilson is capable of.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What? Straight line speed has little to do with scrambling and while I think Luck is very good he is not as good of scrambler as Wilson is. Wilson's ability to make people miss and make plays down the field are incredible. I love Luck but to say his scrambling ability is as good as Wilson's just isn't true in my opinion.

Just look at Vick. Fast as hell but I don't think I've ever seen him pull off some of the scrambles Wilson is capable of.

Then you didn't pay much attention to Vick in his early years.

[youtube]d35rPD_bBgc[/youtube]

 

[-The Glove-]

What? Straight line speed has little to do with scrambling and while I think Luck is very good he is not as good of scrambler as Wilson is. Wilson's ability to make people miss and make plays down the field are incredible. I love Luck but to say his scrambling ability is as good as Wilson's just isn't true in my opinion.

Just look at Vick. Fast as hell but I don't think I've ever seen him pull off some of the scrambles Wilson is capable of.

Then you didn't pay much attention to Vick in his early years.

[youtube]d35rPD_bBgc[/youtube]

Vick was one of my favorite players when he first came out. Got a little carried away with my comment but I consider smarts and ability to avoid hits as part of scrambling ability

 

[plyka]

This is not a very good argument. I don't think anyone would claim in their wildest dreams that Luck had the better team with him as they played the Hawks. Sure the Hawks were down some olinemen, but when you compare entire teams sans the QB, the Hawks were a much better team then and an even better team now versus the Colts.

Let me put it this way. Do you think the Seahawks would still be 10-1 right now if Andrew Luck had been our QB last year and this year? I don't. I think the games where our pass protection was particularly garbage, we'd have lost rather than have won at LEAST one of those. Think back to most of the sideline tiptoe amazing catches we've seen from Baldwin and others this year, most of those were thrown a mile from the pocket after Wilson scrambled around like a madman from almost instant pressure in most cases, if my memory serves me correctly. Luck is not a slow statue like Peyton and Brady, but he cannot scramble like DangeRuss Wilson can. Nobody can, frankly.

It's impossible to say. Wilson has worked with this team for 2 years in this system for 2 years. If you drop Luck into this team, with the way it has been setup for two years, that's not a very good comparison is it? It would be like saying, if you throw Wilson into the Colts right now, would they be as good as they are? No, I don't think so. Wilson hasn't had 2 years to get comfortable with their style, with their team, with their receivers, etc.

The question is, in a vacuum, which one is better?

Regarding scramble, Wilson is better than Luck, but not by as wide a margin as you think. Luck is built like a LB. In college, he once threw an INT to an opposing LB, I still remember it clearly to this day --the guy then tackled the LB by decleating him. It was an awesome tackle. Point is, he is bigger and stronger than Wilson, and thus wouldn't have to scramble as much. He is also quicker in his decision making, he can get the ball out faster, and again, would mean he wouldn't need to scramble as much. All that said, who cares about scrambling? I mean, it's a factor, but 1 out of a 100 regarding NFL QBs. Passing, decision making, these are all much more important factors than scrambling.

What? Straight line speed has little to do with scrambling and while I think Luck is very good he is not as good of scrambler as Wilson is. Wilson's ability to make people miss and make plays down the field are incredible. I love Luck but to say his scrambling ability is as good as Wilson's just isn't true in my opinion.

Just look at Vick. Fast as hell but I don't think I've ever seen him pull off some of the scrambles Wilson is capable of.

Um, WHAT>!>!?? You must have only been watching over the last year as Vick is in his 30's. In Vick's prime, there was no one that could hold a candle to him --in getting away from defenders, scrambling and running that is. But why are we held up on scrambling? It is one factore in a million. Wilson is far better than Vick in his prime, even though Vick in his prime would leave Wilson in the dust scrambling wise. The only person in the NFL who looked as fast as Vick was Deon Sanders, and even that is debatable. Or maybe Bo.