Andrew Luck or Russell Wilson?

[-The Glove-]

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.

I explained myself in my last post. Keep up

 

[SalishHawkFan]

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

No, the question is would you rather have Luck instead of Wilson on THIS team?

No wonder you're rambling on and on. Reading comprehension is tech 8)

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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

No, the question is would you rather have Luck instead of Wilson on THIS team?

No wonder you're rambling on and on. Reading comprehension is tech 8)

Isn't that the same question? Unless you think some people think Wilson's a worse QB, but still want him here.

 

[plyka]

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

No, the question is would you rather have Luck instead of Wilson on THIS team?

No wonder you're rambling on and on. Reading comprehension is tech 8)

I know the subtlety of the question may elude you, so I'll reprint the original posters question and explain it to you as simply as I can. I've bolded the important sections, as too much information may just overload your ability to comprehend. No where in the bolded parts below does he say which QB would Seahawk fans want on this specific team with everything else exactly the same. He asks two questions, which is better at this point in their careers, and which would Seahawk fans rather have on their team. You see, if the Hawk fans would rather have Luck on their team, there is no reason why the coaching staff could not make different decisions along the line --what offense to build, playcalling, personel, etc. And the most important point, Luck would have built chemistry with the players around him. Understanding where WRs are going to go, getting in sync with his offensive coordinator on playcalling, etc. If your question is, who would be better for an offense tailor made for Russell Wilson, while giving Luck zero time to get to know his teammates? Russell Wilson or Andrew Luck? The answer is obvious but the question is idiotic.

---------
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?
---------------------

 

[pmedic920]

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?

I tell you what.. Make a new thread with a poll asking the Seahawks fans on .Net what QB that they would take out of ANY current players. I'm willing to put money on it, that 8 out of 10 or better pick Russell Wilson.
GoHawks.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

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

No, the question is would you rather have Luck instead of Wilson on THIS team?

No wonder you're rambling on and on. Reading comprehension is tech 8)

I know the subtlety of the question may elude you, so I'll reprint the original posters question and explain it to you as simply as I can. I've bolded the important sections, as too much information may just overload your ability to comprehend. No where in the bolded parts below does he say which QB would Seahawk fans want on this specific team with everything else exactly the same. He asks two questions, which is better at this point in their careers, and which would Seahawk fans rather have on their team. You see, if the Hawk fans would rather have Luck on their team, there is no reason why the coaching staff could not make different decisions along the line --what offense to build, playcalling, personel, etc. And the most important point, Luck would have built chemistry with the players around him. Understanding where WRs are going to go, getting in sync with his offensive coordinator on playcalling, etc. If your question is, who would be better for an offense tailor made for Russell Wilson, while giving Luck zero time to get to know his teammates? Russell Wilson or Andrew Luck? The answer is obvious but the question is idiotic.

---------
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?
---------------------

The team wasn't "tailor made" for Russell Wilson. The exact opposite occured by design in fact. PC built an offense tailor made for a scrambling, mobile QB. THEN, after implementing his offensive scheme and getting the kinds of players to execute it, he FINALLY went out and got himself a QB to fit it.

Peyton Manning is BETTER than any other QB in the NFL, but I wouldn't want HIM on our team. He'd get murdered.

Btw, the stats, the eye test, everything has already proven Wilson IS better than Luck, why are you still rambling?

 

[MontanaHawk05]

It makes you wonder whether the Seahawks would actually decline if Luck were to step in here, and how much of his success has been Reggie Wayne. I have a hard time thinking there'd be a dropoff. They're both brilliant QB's.

That said, don't actually ask me to project an alternate reality. It feels like we've dodged a million bullets by getting the QB we have, and I'm not about to complain. Also, armadillos.

 

[c_hawkbob]

with thanks to NoCal hawk fan:

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Thank you for that c_hawkbob.

 

[dontbelikethat]

I think they're pretty equal, and arguments can be made on both sides which would never end. At this point, I would stick with Wilson just cause he's done wonders and has pulled us out of situations where pretty much everyone thought we were screwed and has done it over and over again to the point where there is no doubt 24/7. Not saying Luck couldn't do it, and if Luck were on this team, I wouldn't think there would be any drop off in terms of play, but I know what I'm getting with Wilson and I wouldn't take anyone aside from the obvious elite for him right now. Dude is an awesome QB, but an even better person outside of football.

 

[DavidSeven]

with thanks to NoCal hawk fan:

*drop the mic*

 

[KK84]

with thanks to NoCal hawk fan:

That should be a huge eye-opener to the Luck bandwagon. But it won't be. They'll take one look, see that the stats don't support their argument, and mumble something about "eye test" and "inferior team".

 

[kearly]

It's just my definition, but I've always thought of a QB scramble as mobility to extend a passing play, at least initially. Vick was never a scrambler, IMO. Awesome runner, but more in the mold of Kaepernick. A rushing QB, not a scrambling QB.

 

[c_hawkbob]

with thanks to NoCal hawk fan:

*drop the mic*

I don't know what that means ... I'm not as hip as I was in the 70's ...

Thank you for that c_hawkbob.

You're quite welcome

 

[drdiags]

with thanks to NoCal hawk fan:

*drop the mic*

I don't know what that means ... I'm not as hip as I was in the 70's ...

He is saying you basically ended the discussion by dropping knowledge and exiting the stage. And I am 58 going on 59 with all my hipness faded with the past. Come on Man! "Ice Up Son!" :thirishdrinkers:

 

[scutterhawk]

With Luck, you need to have a few more pieces in place, and working smoothly for him to be successful.
Wilson has proven that he can get more done with less than perfect situations.
Even though Wilson has been pressured more than ANY other Quarterback in the League, he's proven to be both resilient, and reliable.
These aren't just flowery words from a 'Homer' (although I unapologetically admit to being) just consider how many wins he has accumulated so far over the last two Seasons, and we still have 5 more games.
With all that's been touted? Russell Wilson is still improving.

 

[c_hawkbob]

with thanks to NoCal hawk fan:

*drop the mic*

I don't know what that means ... I'm not as hip as I was in the 70's ...

He is saying you basically ended the discussion by dropping knowledge and exiting the stage. And I am 58 going on 59 with all my hipness faded with the past. Come on Man! "Ice Up Son!" :thirishdrinkers:

Cool, thanks for the clue ... now I got at least one!

 

[Hawkboi]

By the way it's a stupid question, and I didn't think there were stupid questions... This one filled that boat..... Russell Wilson is our QB and we need to feel special we have him... Luck is out of Luck especially on this board....GO HAWKS!!!

 

[Tical21]

#5 and #6 QB's in the NFL currently, which is saying a ton in their second seasons.

I didn't know it until I just closed my eyes and thought it through, but if the Colts called tomorrow and offered Luck for Wilson, I would take the deal. I see championships in both. I think with a similar roster, which would be different up-front if we didn't have Wilson, Luck would have the same record, if not, better. Who is better, Manning or Brady? It is one of those kinds of arguments.

 

[MANUNITED23]

I would pick Luck just because I think he is a complete QB prototype. Will probably go down as top 3 QB of all time.