Average points per game started by each QB

[Scottemojo]

Cool stats, lots of HOF on those lists. Niner fans quibbling over Wilson winning with D don't have to look too far down those lists to find Montana and Young, just sayin.

Dan Marino and Dan Fouts, among others, can only wish they had ended up on teams that valued defense a lot more.

 

[Anthony!]

Yeah it's a bit of a false stat really, almost oranges and apples.

How false stat. Fact Wilson led the hawks to more points per game then Luck, despite luck playing in an easier division and conference. Despite Luck playing less top 10 defenses, despite luck having a better Wr corps and oline. Seems pretty cut and dry Wilson led his team to do more with less with regards to scoring.

You're obsessed with beating Luck now as well?

No just making a statement of fact.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

this is when people start arguing about andrew luck right?


edit: very cool stat thanks

Unless I'm confused this study is about our defense, not Wilson.

In fact, "average points allowed by QB" doesn't even make sense.

 

[volsunghawk]

Yeah it's a bit of a false stat really, almost oranges and apples.

How false stat. Fact Wilson led the hawks to more points per game then Luck, despite luck playing in an easier division and conference. Despite Luck playing less top 10 defenses, despite luck having a better Wr corps and oline. Seems pretty cut and dry Wilson led his team to do more with less with regards to scoring.

Well, first off, right in the opening paragraph of the blog post that talks about this stat, it mentions that it includes non-offensive scores.

http://www.footballperspective.com/aver ... arterback/

Aaron Rodgers has started 114 games (including playoffs) in his career. In those games, the Packers have averaged 28.5 points per game (including non-offensive scores), the highest average for any quarterback in his team’s starts in NFL history

In this list, Wilson ranks 10th with 25.84 points scored per game he has started. Luck ranks 18th with 24.8 points scored per game he has started.

If we work backward from the averages, we see that Wilson's team has scored 1447 points in his 56 starts. Luck's team has scored 1339 points in his 54 starts.

Now, let's remove all TDs scored by special teams and the defense (i.e., all kick and punt return TDs, all fumble and INT return TDs, all safeties, and all blocked punt/kick return TDs).

Wilson's Seahawks lose 17 TDs and 3 safeties from their totals - 125 points.

Luck's Colts lose 9 TDs and 2 safeties from their totals - 65 points.

Do the division again to get the averages, and the numbers look like this:

Wilson: 1322 points/56 games = 23.61 points per game.
Luck: 1274 points/54 games = 23.59 points per game.

Luck clearly has a better receiving corps, while Wilson's clearly got a better stable of RBs.

The O-lines - while you might try to suggest that Luck's is better - are actually similar, but geared toward different goals. From 2012-2014, Luck's O-lines have averaged 19th in the league in run blocking and 10th in the league in pass protection. Over the same time period, Wilson's O-lines have averaged 6th in the league in run blocking and 25th in the league in pass protection.

So, to sum up, we've got 2 QBs drafted in the same year who have both taken their teams to the postseason each year of their careers. One is a QB of a pass-heavy team and the other is the QB of a run-heavy team. Subtracting defensive and special teams scores, they have essentially led their offenses to the exact same number of points per game. Wilson's greater postseason success may have something to do with his team having a much better defense, or it may have to do with Wilson staying calmer and performing better under pressure.

But trying to use the stat in the link above as evidence that Wilson's a clearly better QB than Luck isn't a good call. It's not belittling Wilson to acknowledge that Luck is a great QB. They both are. And I'm damn glad that not only did we get one of the two great QBs from the 2012 class, but we spent significantly less to get ours.

 

[Laloosh]

Yeah it's a bit of a false stat really, almost oranges and apples.

How false stat. Fact Wilson led the hawks to more points per game then Luck, despite luck playing in an easier division and conference. Despite Luck playing less top 10 defenses, despite luck having a better Wr corps and oline. Seems pretty cut and dry Wilson led his team to do more with less with regards to scoring.

Well, first off, right in the opening paragraph of the blog post that talks about this stat, it mentions that it includes non-offensive scores.

http://www.footballperspective.com/aver ... arterback/

Aaron Rodgers has started 114 games (including playoffs) in his career. In those games, the Packers have averaged 28.5 points per game (including non-offensive scores), the highest average for any quarterback in his team’s starts in NFL history

In this list, Wilson ranks 10th with 25.84 points scored per game he has started. Luck ranks 18th with 24.8 points scored per game he has started.

If we work backward from the averages, we see that Wilson's team has scored 1447 points in his 56 starts. Luck's team has scored 1339 points in his 54 starts.

Now, let's remove all TDs scored by special teams and the defense (i.e., all kick and punt return TDs, all fumble and INT return TDs, all safeties, and all blocked punt/kick return TDs).

Wilson's Seahawks lose 17 TDs and 3 safeties from their totals - 125 points.

Luck's Colts lose 9 TDs and 2 safeties from their totals - 65 points.

Do the division again to get the averages, and the numbers look like this:

Wilson: 1322 points/56 games = 23.61 points per game.
Luck: 1274 points/54 games = 23.59 points per game.

Luck clearly has a better receiving corps, while Wilson's clearly got a better stable of RBs.

The O-lines - while you might try to suggest that Luck's is better - are actually similar, but geared toward different goals. From 2012-2014, Luck's O-lines have averaged 19th in the league in run blocking and 10th in the league in pass protection. Over the same time period, Wilson's O-lines have averaged 6th in the league in run blocking and 25th in the league in pass protection.

So, to sum up, we've got 2 QBs drafted in the same year who have both taken their teams to the postseason each year of their careers. One is a QB of a pass-heavy team and the other is the QB of a run-heavy team. Subtracting defensive and special teams scores, they have essentially led their offenses to the exact same number of points per game. Wilson's greater postseason success may have something to do with his team having a much better defense, or it may have to do with Wilson staying calmer and performing better under pressure.

But trying to use the stat in the link above as evidence that Wilson's a clearly better QB than Luck isn't a good call. It's not belittling Wilson to acknowledge that Luck is a great QB. They both are. And I'm damn glad that not only did we get one of the two great QBs from the 2012 class, but we spent significantly less to get ours.

First, I agree with your last paragraph completely. That said, I see different point totals for the two when looking purely at offensive scoring but regardless, if you were to break it down to points per drive, the numbers really shift in Seattle's favor. Which is why some of us talk about how the two coaching philosophies / offensive styles play a significant role in how many people view the two offenses.

Wilson: 527 offensive drives at 2.51 points per.
Luck: 753 offensive drives at 2.22 points per.

Using your point totals, flop the drive count and you wind up with Wilson at 1,438 and Luck at 1,169.

If you apply the same logic to Indy's defense (same per drive results but with seattle's drive count), they give up 17.8 points per game which is good for 4th in the league rather than the 23.1 or 19th ranked that they gave up in 2014.

Alternatively, given Indy's drive count, Seattle's defense would have given up 17.28 points per game based on their per drive performance.

You're right that they're both really good young QBs but a lot of people don't give any thought to how the offense and defense impact one another's numbers. Throwing the ball all over the field results in a bunch of yards and touchdowns but it also results in more clock stopping incompletions as well as interceptions, both of which result in opposing offenses with more drives.

 

[Anthony!]

Yeah it's a bit of a false stat really, almost oranges and apples.

How false stat. Fact Wilson led the hawks to more points per game then Luck, despite luck playing in an easier division and conference. Despite Luck playing less top 10 defenses, despite luck having a better Wr corps and oline. Seems pretty cut and dry Wilson led his team to do more with less with regards to scoring.

Well, first off, right in the opening paragraph of the blog post that talks about this stat, it mentions that it includes non-offensive scores.

http://www.footballperspective.com/aver ... arterback/

Aaron Rodgers has started 114 games (including playoffs) in his career. In those games, the Packers have averaged 28.5 points per game (including non-offensive scores), the highest average for any quarterback in his team’s starts in NFL history

In this list, Wilson ranks 10th with 25.84 points scored per game he has started. Luck ranks 18th with 24.8 points scored per game he has started.

If we work backward from the averages, we see that Wilson's team has scored 1447 points in his 56 starts. Luck's team has scored 1339 points in his 54 starts.

Now, let's remove all TDs scored by special teams and the defense (i.e., all kick and punt return TDs, all fumble and INT return TDs, all safeties, and all blocked punt/kick return TDs).

Wilson's Seahawks lose 17 TDs and 3 safeties from their totals - 125 points.

Luck's Colts lose 9 TDs and 2 safeties from their totals - 65 points.

Do the division again to get the averages, and the numbers look like this:

Wilson: 1322 points/56 games = 23.61 points per game.
Luck: 1274 points/54 games = 23.59 points per game.

Luck clearly has a better receiving corps, while Wilson's clearly got a better stable of RBs.

The O-lines - while you might try to suggest that Luck's is better - are actually similar, but geared toward different goals. From 2012-2014, Luck's O-lines have averaged 19th in the league in run blocking and 10th in the league in pass protection. Over the same time period, Wilson's O-lines have averaged 6th in the league in run blocking and 25th in the league in pass protection.

So, to sum up, we've got 2 QBs drafted in the same year who have both taken their teams to the postseason each year of their careers. One is a QB of a pass-heavy team and the other is the QB of a run-heavy team. Subtracting defensive and special teams scores, they have essentially led their offenses to the exact same number of points per game. Wilson's greater postseason success may have something to do with his team having a much better defense, or it may have to do with Wilson staying calmer and performing better under pressure.

But trying to use the stat in the link above as evidence that Wilson's a clearly better QB than Luck isn't a good call. It's not belittling Wilson to acknowledge that Luck is a great QB. They both are. And I'm damn glad that not only did we get one of the two great QBs from the 2012 class, but we spent significantly less to get ours.

Ahh never said Luck was not a great QB but it does show Wilson is as good if not better. Your analysis proves it.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Yeah it's a bit of a false stat really, almost oranges and apples.

How false stat. Fact Wilson led the hawks to more points per game then Luck, despite luck playing in an easier division and conference. Despite Luck playing less top 10 defenses, despite luck having a better Wr corps and oline. Seems pretty cut and dry Wilson led his team to do more with less with regards to scoring.

It's a false stat because this stat is talking about average points per game "allowed" by QB's..........which in itself doesn't even make sense.

But Wilson is ahead of Luck in points scored if you click back to the previous stat study.

http://www.footballperspective.com/aver ... arterback/

Still, these stats are dumb because points scored and/or allowed in a team game yet applied to one player is about as dumb as it gets.

It's like when they said "Russell Wilson's 10-0 against Elite QB's!" Dumb.

 

[Anthony!]

Yeah it's a bit of a false stat really, almost oranges and apples.

How false stat. Fact Wilson led the hawks to more points per game then Luck, despite luck playing in an easier division and conference. Despite Luck playing less top 10 defenses, despite luck having a better Wr corps and oline. Seems pretty cut and dry Wilson led his team to do more with less with regards to scoring.

It's a false stat because this stat is talking about average points per game "allowed" by QB's..........which in itself doesn't even make sense.

But Wilson is ahead of Luck in points scored if you click back to the previous stat study.

http://www.footballperspective.com/aver ... arterback/

Still, these stats are dumb because points scored and/or allowed in a team game yet applied to one player is about as dumb as it gets.

It's like when they said "Russell Wilson's 10-0 against Elite QB's!" Dumb.

:lol:

 

[farhat]

The reason why time of possession matters is it limits the other team's number of possessions. For example, if the Seahawks (this is just to make a point) held the ball for 29 minutes in both the first and second halves, and scored two TDs, then the score would be 14-0 and the opponents would only have a 1 minute in each half to match what we did. Each one of those touchdowns is much more demoralizing then let's say if we scored in a hurry up offense in a minute.

Since possessions are so precious in this style of football, takeaways become even more important. The Seahawks' program is built upon time of possession (running the ball) and takeaways (defense).

This style of football is also important when you want to put away another team. Let's say you have a lead and you want to eat the clock up. If you are a passing team, you cannot eat the clock up very well. An incomplete pass stops the clock. A running team can eat up the clock well.

This is why the Run n' Shoot offense of the Warren Moon Houston Oilers was a fad and did not stick around but the West Coast Offense has stood the test of time. This will also be the reason why Chip Kelly's hurry up offense will never win him a Super Bowl. He can't match up against teams like us. If you remember, we dominated time of possession. And the Eagle's foolishly hurried up on offense prior to the end of the first half, only to hurry up and punt it back to us so we could score before half time.

A running team that can play defense will beat a passing team 9 times out of 10.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

I don't think most people argue as they do in an argument like Luck vs. Wilson for the sake of determining some absolute truth about their play. I think we're arguing because it's just amusing to pick a guy (or have that guy picked for us in the case of Seahawks and Colts fans) and boast about his abilities through referencing stats, presenting counter-arguments, just being a complete homer, etc.

I wouldn't trade RW for Luck but if there was some alternate universe where that happened and we could watch it unfold on television, I'm sure we would all watch with some extreme curiosity.