How long are morons gonna say LUCK > WILSON...??!!

[Hawkpower]

Just thought I would throw my discussion from thehuddle.com in here for fun.

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?/ ... vs-wilson/

Got to, I think, Page 2...where you mentioned how you would take Luck in a trade... AFTER everything you said supporting Wilson, and I have come to the conclusion that you just like arguments. Weird AF.

Some posters think they are battling against "blind homerism" by hawk fans and playing the rational, intelligent role.

Apparently if you support a side that is supported by overwhelming statistical proof, you are a "blind homer" lol

Good thing we have a few of them in here to set the rest of us straight. Believing in an argument because the good ole boys do is much more intelligent. Who needs facts?

 

[Anthony!]

Just thought I would throw my discussion from thehuddle.com in here for fun.

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?/ ... vs-wilson/

Got to, I think, Page 2...where you mentioned how you would take Luck in a trade... AFTER everything you said supporting Wilson, and I have come to the conclusion that you just like arguments. Weird AF.

Agreed plus if he bothered to put all the stats and facts we have supplied in the other forum it might have changed a few things, but likely not since it is obvious they are not going by facts or stats, only their own media driven opinion.

Just read all the posts on that board, basically tis this is what they think though no fact supports them, and most are Indy fans. They ignore what facts were put in front of then that shows luck is not as good, but have no facts to support them, sounds a lot like Prisco. At some point unless Luck make huge strides with complt% and QB rating it will catch up to him, it already is with some experts.

 

[Tical21]

The problem is that you guys are trying to use stats to prove an argument that is purely theoretical. No matter what stats you come up with, you will never, ever be able to prove that Andrew Luck wouldn't be playing better than Russell Wilson has if Luck was a Seahawk. Likewise, nobody will ever be able to prove that Russell Wilson wouldn't be better than Luck has been if Russell was a Colt.

 

[Anthony!]

The problem is that you guys are trying to use stats to prove an argument that is purely theoretical. No matter what stats you come up with, you will never, ever be able to prove that Andrew Luck wouldn't be playing better than Russell Wilson has if Luck was a Seahawk. Likewise, nobody will ever be able to prove that Russell Wilson wouldn't be better than Luck has been if Russell was a Colt.

I am not trying to prove if Luck would do better if he was a Hawk than Rw, or Rw would be better as a Colt than Luck. I am proving who is playing right now period, and the facts and stats show it is RW. As we have proved through facts and stats, but once again

Defense edge Seattle (both are top 10 in scoring though)
Offense line pass blocking Edge INDY (Indy top 10, Seattle last)
Run game Edge Seattle (Thougg both avg the same ypa)
WR edge Indy OPEN and shut
QB orientated offense edge Indy open and shut

pretty cut and dry Luck has the advantage but his play and his stats show RW has the advantage.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

The problem is that you guys are trying to use stats to prove an argument that is purely theoretical. No matter what stats you come up with, you will never, ever be able to prove that Andrew Luck wouldn't be playing better than Russell Wilson has if Luck was a Seahawk. Likewise, nobody will ever be able to prove that Russell Wilson wouldn't be better than Luck has been if Russell was a Colt.

Oh for God's sake, just stop Tical. Wilson is better, the stats and every metric prove it. You're just being a troll now.

 

[Sac]

I was going to start a new thread, but this one's still live and kicking. So I'm just going to leave this here.

Russell Wilson Versus Andrew Luck - The Advanced Stats

Most posters on .NET would agree at this point that Russell Wilson is at least as good as Andrew Luck, if not better. There are still a few here that would rather have Andrew Luck, a sentiment that is shared by most people in sports media.

Before we begin, let's dispel a few myths, right off the bat.

1) The Colts average starting field position was their own 28 yard line. The Seahawks Average starting field position was their own 31 yard line. So stow the argument that the Seahawks defense gave Wilson a substantially shorter distances to travel for his touchdowns, because it just isn't true. Here's the link:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

2) Both Seattle and Indianapolis suffered critical injuries all along their offensive lines during the course of the season. The fact that these teams did as well as they did is a credit to both quarterbacks. Any edge in this category is minimal until you start to consider the strength of the defenses they played during the year.

3) The Colts ran 64 plays per game on average, Seattle ran around 60. Both middle of the road numbers for volume. That play difference does more to highlight the difference in offensive philosophy than anything else. That 4 play per game difference equates out to an additional 64 plays over the year. Even that number is dwarfed by the sheer difference in passing attempts (163) between Wilson and Luck.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/plays-per-game

4) Even though Seattle had more of a balanced attack, the two teams had identical yards per carry at 4.3, tied for 12th in the NFL. Seattle simply had more rushing attempts, by exactly 100.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/ ... ushAttempt

5) Yes, I'm aware Reggie Wayne was injured for a chunk of last year. Were you aware that Wilson was on his 3rd, 4th, and 5th string receivers by week two. (Baldwin, Tate, Kearse) after Sidney Rice went out and with Percy being all but out until the Super Bowl.

With those points out of the way, let's begin.

Here, we'll take a look at their performances by overall DVOA of opposing defenses within their divisons, how they did against common opponents, and how the overall strength of their opponents impacted them.

If you don't know what DVOA is, here is a little blurb and a linky thingy where you can find more information.

DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on situation. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent. DVOA is a percentage, so a team with a DVOA of 10.0% is 10 percent better than the average team, and a quarterback with a DVOA of -20.0% is 20 percent worse than the average quarterback. Because DVOA measures scoring, defenses are better when they are negative. For more detail, read below.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

Basically zero (0) is average. For defenses, anything below zero is better than average. Seattle's historic defense was #1 in defensive DVOA at -25.8

Here is a chart I put together. Pardon the crappy quality.


First, we'll take a look at how each performed in their respective divisions.

Russell Wilson
NFC West - Not including the Seahawks
Average Defensive DVOA: -8.73
Completions: 77
Attempts: 141
Yards: 995
Completion Rate: 55%
TD: 9
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 89.4

Andrew Luck
AFC South - Not including the Colts
Average Defensive DVOA: 5.97
Completions: 124
Attempts: 212
Yards: 1422
Completion Rate: 58%
TD: 8
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 85.45

What we see here is that Russell Wilson plays in a division whose average defensive DVOA (-8.73) would be good enough to tie for 7th best in the league, and that's not including the Seahawks. Andrew Luck plays in a division whose average defense is well...below average (5.97). A score good for 9th worst. I actually fully expected to see Lucks numbers really stand out here considering the disparity of talent in the two divisions. Instead, we see Luck with a marginally better completion rate (3%), one fewer touchdown, and a passer rating four points lower than Wilson's, while throwing the ball 63 more times and gaining 427 more yards. The Yards and attempts can be explained away by offensive scheme; The shocking efficiency with which Wilson produces against far more competent division foes, cannot.

Against common opponents, the picture starts to get a little clearer. Keep in mind that Wilson has to play the Forty Niners, Cardinals, and Rams twice each while Luck got to throw against Houston, Jacksonville and Tennessee twice. The two divisions also played each other, so that's 9 common opponents. Common opponents are highlighted in blue in the chart above.

Russell Wilson Versus common opponents.

Completions: 126
Attempts: 216
Yards: 1577.00
Completion Rate: 58.33%
TD: 13
INT:5
Passer Rating: 91.53

Andrew Luck versus common opponents.

Completions: 190
Attempts: 324
Yards: 2097.00
Completion Rate: 58.64%
TD: 10
INT: 7
Passer Rating: 79.2

Clearly, Andrew Luck struggled against the rest of the NFC West, posting 675 yards, 2 TDs, 4INTs and a passer rating of 67.37.

This really brought down his common opponents score while Wilson's 582 yards, 4TDs and 2 INTs with a 95.52 passer rating against the rest of the south shot his up.

It's pretty evident that Wilson has been more efficient against much stiffer competition, and when factoring all common opponents is clearly the better player.

 

[RiverDog]

I don't understand why there are people that are still complaining about this. We have the trophy, Luck doesn't, seems pretty clear to me.

On the other hand perhaps its the same fans that used to complain that the Seahawks don't get enough attention from the media.

Probably one of those.

:roll:

That's as close to my opinion as I've read. Why get your briefs in a bunch over stuff like this? Besides, I really don't care if Russell doesn't get any love from any of the pundits as it won't affect his play on the field nor my enjoyment of the game. Just keep raising that Lombardi, that's all I care about. Besides, the talking heads will eventually come around if he keeps winning.

 

[Smellyman]

I was going to start a new thread, but this one's still live and kicking. So I'm just going to leave this here.

Russell Wilson Versus Andrew Luck - The Advanced Stats

Most posters on .NET would agree at this point that Russell Wilson is at least as good as Andrew Luck, if not better. There are still a few here that would rather have Andrew Luck, a sentiment that is shared by most people in sports media.

Before we begin, let's dispel a few myths, right off the bat.

1) The Colts average starting field position was their own 28 yard line. The Seahawks Average starting field position was their own 31 yard line. So stow the argument that the Seahawks defense gave Wilson a substantially shorter distances to travel for his touchdowns, because it just isn't true. Here's the link:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

2) Both Seattle and Indianapolis suffered critical injuries all along their offensive lines during the course of the season. The fact that these teams did as well as they did is a credit to both quarterbacks. Any edge in this category is minimal until you start to consider the strength of the defenses they played during the year.

3) The Colts ran 64 plays per game on average, Seattle ran around 60. Both middle of the road numbers for volume. That play difference does more to highlight the difference in offensive philosophy than anything else. That 4 play per game difference equates out to an additional 64 plays over the year. Even that number is dwarfed by the sheer difference in passing attempts (163) between Wilson and Luck.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/plays-per-game

4) Even though Seattle had more of a balanced attack, the two teams had identical yards per carry at 4.3, tied for 12th in the NFL. Seattle simply had more rushing attempts, by exactly 100.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/ ... ushAttempt

5) Yes, I'm aware Reggie Wayne was injured for a chunk of last year. Were you aware that Wilson was on his 3rd, 4th, and 5th string receivers by week two. (Baldwin, Tate, Kearse) after Sidney Rice went out and with Percy being all but out until the Super Bowl.

With those points out of the way, let's begin.

Here, we'll take a look at their performances by overall DVOA of opposing defenses within their divisons, how they did against common opponents, and how the overall strength of their opponents impacted them.

If you don't know what DVOA is, here is a little blurb and a linky thingy where you can find more information.

DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on situation. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent. DVOA is a percentage, so a team with a DVOA of 10.0% is 10 percent better than the average team, and a quarterback with a DVOA of -20.0% is 20 percent worse than the average quarterback. Because DVOA measures scoring, defenses are better when they are negative. For more detail, read below.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

Basically zero (0) is average. For defenses, anything below zero is better than average. Seattle's historic defense was #1 in defensive DVOA at -25.8

Here is a chart I put together. Pardon the crappy quality.


First, we'll take a look at how each performed in their respective divisions.

Russell Wilson
NFC West - Not including the Seahawks
Average Defensive DVOA: -8.73
Completions: 77
Attempts: 141
Yards: 995
Completion Rate: 55%
TD: 9
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 89.4

Andrew Luck
AFC South - Not including the Colts
Average Defensive DVOA: 5.97
Completions: 124
Attempts: 212
Yards: 1422
Completion Rate: 58%
TD: 8
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 85.45

What we see here is that Russell Wilson plays in a division whose average defensive DVOA (-8.73) would be good enough to tie for 7th best in the league, and that's not including the Seahawks. Andrew Luck plays in a division whose average defense is well...below average (5.97). A score good for 9th worst. I actually fully expected to see Lucks numbers really stand out here considering the disparity of talent in the two divisions. Instead, we see Luck with a marginally better completion rate (3%), one fewer touchdown, and a passer rating four points lower than Wilson's, while throwing the ball 63 more times and gaining 427 more yards. The Yards and attempts can be explained away by offensive scheme; The shocking efficiency with which Wilson produces against far more competent division foes, cannot.

Against common opponents, the picture starts to get a little clearer. Keep in mind that Wilson has to play the Forty Niners, Cardinals, and Rams twice each while Luck got to throw against Houston, Jacksonville and Tennessee twice. The two divisions also played each other, so that's 9 common opponents. Common opponents are highlighted in blue in the chart above.

Russell Wilson Versus common opponents.

Completions: 126
Attempts: 216
Yards: 1577.00
Completion Rate: 58.33%
TD: 13
INT:5
Passer Rating: 91.53

Andrew Luck versus common opponents.

Completions: 190
Attempts: 324
Yards: 2097.00
Completion Rate: 58.64%
TD: 10
INT: 7
Passer Rating: 79.2

Clearly, Andrew Luck struggled against the rest of the NFC West, posting 675 yards, 2 TDs, 4INTs and a passer rating of 67.37.

This really brought down his common opponents score while Wilson's 582 yards, 4TDs and 2 INTs with a 95.52 passer rating against the rest of the south shot his up.

It's pretty evident that Wilson has been more efficient against much stiffer competition, and when factoring all common opponents is clearly the better player.

wow. nice work man

 

[TXHawk]

I was going to start a new thread, but this one's still live and kicking. So I'm just going to leave this here.

Russell Wilson Versus Andrew Luck - The Advanced Stats

Most posters on .NET would agree at this point that Russell Wilson is at least as good as Andrew Luck, if not better. There are still a few here that would rather have Andrew Luck, a sentiment that is shared by most people in sports media.

Before we begin, let's dispel a few myths, right off the bat.

1) The Colts average starting field position was their own 28 yard line. The Seahawks Average starting field position was their own 31 yard line. So stow the argument that the Seahawks defense gave Wilson a substantially shorter distances to travel for his touchdowns, because it just isn't true. Here's the link:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

2) Both Seattle and Indianapolis suffered critical injuries all along their offensive lines during the course of the season. The fact that these teams did as well as they did is a credit to both quarterbacks. Any edge in this category is minimal until you start to consider the strength of the defenses they played during the year.

3) The Colts ran 64 plays per game on average, Seattle ran around 60. Both middle of the road numbers for volume. That play difference does more to highlight the difference in offensive philosophy than anything else. That 4 play per game difference equates out to an additional 64 plays over the year. Even that number is dwarfed by the sheer difference in passing attempts (163) between Wilson and Luck.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/plays-per-game

4) Even though Seattle had more of a balanced attack, the two teams had identical yards per carry at 4.3, tied for 12th in the NFL. Seattle simply had more rushing attempts, by exactly 100.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/ ... ushAttempt

5) Yes, I'm aware Reggie Wayne was injured for a chunk of last year. Were you aware that Wilson was on his 3rd, 4th, and 5th string receivers by week two. (Baldwin, Tate, Kearse) after Sidney Rice went out and with Percy being all but out until the Super Bowl.

With those points out of the way, let's begin.

Here, we'll take a look at their performances by overall DVOA of opposing defenses within their divisons, how they did against common opponents, and how the overall strength of their opponents impacted them.

If you don't know what DVOA is, here is a little blurb and a linky thingy where you can find more information.

DVOA is a method of evaluating teams, units, or players. It takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on situation. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down: Five yards on third-and-4 are worth more than five yards on first-and-10 and much more than five yards on third-and-12. Red zone plays are worth more than other plays. Performance is also adjusted for the quality of the opponent. DVOA is a percentage, so a team with a DVOA of 10.0% is 10 percent better than the average team, and a quarterback with a DVOA of -20.0% is 20 percent worse than the average quarterback. Because DVOA measures scoring, defenses are better when they are negative. For more detail, read below.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods

Basically zero (0) is average. For defenses, anything below zero is better than average. Seattle's historic defense was #1 in defensive DVOA at -25.8

Here is a chart I put together. Pardon the crappy quality.


First, we'll take a look at how each performed in their respective divisions.

Russell Wilson
NFC West - Not including the Seahawks
Average Defensive DVOA: -8.73
Completions: 77
Attempts: 141
Yards: 995
Completion Rate: 55%
TD: 9
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 89.4

Andrew Luck
AFC South - Not including the Colts
Average Defensive DVOA: 5.97
Completions: 124
Attempts: 212
Yards: 1422
Completion Rate: 58%
TD: 8
INT: 3
Passer Rating: 85.45

What we see here is that Russell Wilson plays in a division whose average defensive DVOA (-8.73) would be good enough to tie for 7th best in the league, and that's not including the Seahawks. Andrew Luck plays in a division whose average defense is well...below average (5.97). A score good for 9th worst. I actually fully expected to see Lucks numbers really stand out here considering the disparity of talent in the two divisions. Instead, we see Luck with a marginally better completion rate (3%), one fewer touchdown, and a passer rating four points lower than Wilson's, while throwing the ball 63 more times and gaining 427 more yards. The Yards and attempts can be explained away by offensive scheme; The shocking efficiency with which Wilson produces against far more competent division foes, cannot.

Against common opponents, the picture starts to get a little clearer. Keep in mind that Wilson has to play the Forty Niners, Cardinals, and Rams twice each while Luck got to throw against Houston, Jacksonville and Tennessee twice. The two divisions also played each other, so that's 9 common opponents. Common opponents are highlighted in blue in the chart above.

Russell Wilson Versus common opponents.

Completions: 126
Attempts: 216
Yards: 1577.00
Completion Rate: 58.33%
TD: 13
INT:5
Passer Rating: 91.53

Andrew Luck versus common opponents.

Completions: 190
Attempts: 324
Yards: 2097.00
Completion Rate: 58.64%
TD: 10
INT: 7
Passer Rating: 79.2

Clearly, Andrew Luck struggled against the rest of the NFC West, posting 675 yards, 2 TDs, 4INTs and a passer rating of 67.37.

This really brought down his common opponents score while Wilson's 582 yards, 4TDs and 2 INTs with a 95.52 passer rating against the rest of the south shot his up.

It's pretty evident that Wilson has been more efficient against much stiffer competition, and when factoring all common opponents is clearly the better player.

Great work SacHawk. The more you dig into the stats the stronger the case is for Russell Wilson. It's mind boggling how many people choose to ignore them for crap arguments like "Wilson doesn't really have to do much" or "if they were on opposite teams Luck would have won the Super Bowl and Wilson wouldn't have been as successful with the Colts." You know as if there is some parallel universe where that hypotheses has been tested and proven.

 

[RiverDog]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Russell does get some degree of statistical benefit from passing less often on a run orientated, defense dominated team, much like Alex Smith was able to do with the Niners for 1.5 years. I'm not comparing Russell to Smith, but you do have to take into account what the quarterback is being asked to do, the overall team composition, and the style of offense they play in rather than making a purely statistical argument.

 

[Scottemojo]

By showing those stats, I was not placing any importance on yards or volume stats, simply showing that Luck is asked to do about 1/3 more than Russell is. Russell has probably the easiest job of any QB in the NFL. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare him to any other QB in more average situations, it just is. Would we all think Russell would be great if he had to be a completely different player? Sure we do, he hasn't shown us any reason to think he wouldn't. But I don't think it is fair to give him credit for being that type of player when he hasn't had to do it. Luck has had to pass for 300 yards in a game 9 times or his team had no chance to win those games. Russell just isn't put in that situation very often. They also both have just about identical interception percentages.

The sad part about this debate is that it creates a lot of attacks against Andrew Luck. If this thread was along the lines of "Andrew Luck is one of the best young QB's to ever play the game, but Russell is even a little better", that's super to easy to buy. I can get on board. Fine. But implying that Andrew Luck is anything short of sensational is horribly inaccurate and makes us look like a bad group of fans. I do acknowledge that some here aren't taking that angle. But many here are, and I will fight for the kid. The job he is asked to do is ridiculously more difficult than the job that Russell is asked to do, and he deserves a lot of credit for what he has done.

There was a fantastic stat from Luck's first season about how many should be interceptions he had just plain dropped. It was 14! Bruce Arians might have won an award for 2013, but I actually thought he did a lot to hurt Luck's development by making him carry too much. It was no coincidence that Luck's mistake numbers went down dramatically under Pep's tutelage. Pep does not want Luck trusting his arm more than his head.

I have watched about 3/4 of Lucks games. I think Luck is one of 4 or 5 QBs custom built to give our defense trouble. He has the arm and accuracy to take advantage of the looks we give to QBs in press. No DC in the league wants to face Luck more than Wilson, to put it plainly. You are right, he deserves credit for what he has done and for being a tough matchup. But does he deserve the anointing he is getting in the press as a top 5 QB in the league? And does Wilson deserve the 3rd tier rating he is getting in the media right now?

The problem with your he has been asked to do more argument is that he hasn't done more. Other QBs have been asked to do more, why aren't we saying they are better than Wilson? Matt Stafford and Matt Ryan were asked to do more last year, and pretty much no one is arguing they are better than Wilson. Ryan Tannehill had an even worse line than Luck, and a terrible run game, put up similar YPA and TD, but no one is going to try and say he is even in the same league.

So, lets do this thing without stats.

I buy that Luck is a more coveted player. You can't mush rush Luck and mess up his timing, and sending players up the gaps play after play doesn't affect him like it does Wilson. Luck is more scheme proof. I even buy that if Luck were in Seattle and Wilson in Indy, Luck would probably sport a ring and Wilson would not. Which ends the who has more talent around him argument. Though I also think Wilson would have the gaudy yards totals if roles were reversed.

But watching the two makes it plain to me that Wilson is ahead of Luck as a red zone QB. Wilson is more likely than Luck to throw a ball away when he doesn't see an open guy, which makes his high completion percentage and YPA even more crazy. Wilson throws a more catchable ball, and Luck, like Elway before him, sometimes puts too much rip on passes that he does not have to. Throwing deep balls and accuracy in the red zone is Wilson's true talent, and he is top 5 in those two categories.

The reality for Seattle fans is that Luck will always be the more coveted player. Just like Elway was more coveted than Joe Montana.

 

[Hawkpower]

The problem is that you guys are trying to use stats to prove an argument that is purely theoretical. No matter what stats you come up with, you will never, ever be able to prove that Andrew Luck wouldn't be playing better than Russell Wilson has if Luck was a Seahawk. Likewise, nobody will ever be able to prove that Russell Wilson wouldn't be better than Luck has been if Russell was a Colt.

So we can never ever compare athletes because they play for different teams??? Quick, someone tell the last 60 years that we have been wasting our time!!! LOL

Here is the real translation for your statement: I have been thoroughly and soundly proven wrong 26 times in this thread so I'm going to now claim that it's impossible to compare the two.

 

[Hawkpower]

I don't understand why there are people that are still complaining about this. We have the trophy, Luck doesn't, seems pretty clear to me.

On the other hand perhaps its the same fans that used to complain that the Seahawks don't get enough attention from the media.

Probably one of those.

:roll:

That's as close to my opinion as I've read. Why get your briefs in a bunch over stuff like this? Besides, I really don't care if Russell doesn't get any love from any of the pundits as it won't affect his play on the field nor my enjoyment of the game. Just keep raising that Lombardi, that's all I care about. Besides, the talking heads will eventually come around if he keeps winning.

Valid, but you know the 6'5 white guy QB bias runs deep when there are even multiple hawk fans blinded by it, even after RW does what he does in front of their eyes every Sunday.

Sometimes it takes a bit of repeated "enlightening" by way of numbers to overcome this good ole boy mentality.

 

[TXHawk]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Russell does get some degree of statistical benefit from passing less often on a run orientated, defense dominated team, much like Alex Smith was able to do with the Niners for 1.5 years. I'm not comparing Russell to Smith, but you do have to take into account what the quarterback is being asked to do, the overall team composition, and the style of offense they play in rather than making a purely statistical argument.

What specifically is the statistical benefit gained by throwing fewer passes and wouldn't that be more than offset by the much stronger defenses that Wilson faced?

Out of curiosity I looked up Troy Aikman's stats who had a similar situation in Dallas where he benefited from a great defense and running game. He never needed to throw the ball a lot and, in fact, exceeded Russell Wilson's 2013 passing yardage only once in his career. Aikman was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2006.

When did throwing the ball 35-40 times a game become a prerequisite for becoming an elite quarterback? I think it's primarily been in the last ten years or so with the rule changes that made passing easier along with the rise of fantasy football and the video game mentality of the Madden generation. Personally, I see no statistical reason to believe that Luck's larger number of passing attempts somehow trumps Wilson's significantly better efficiency ratings.

 

[pocketprotector]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Russell does get some degree of statistical benefit from passing less often on a run orientated, defense dominated team, much like Alex Smith was able to do with the Niners for 1.5 years. I'm not comparing Russell to Smith, but you do have to take into account what the quarterback is being asked to do, the overall team composition, and the style of offense they play in rather than making a purely statistical argument.

The Colts had 4.3 yards per rush. The Seahawks had 4.3 yards per rush.

Wilson threw for 8.2 yards per attempt, Luck threw for 6.7 yards per attempt. Wilson had a passer efficiency rating of 101.2, Luck had a rating of 87.0

Maybe if Luck was as efficient as Wilson, the Colts could stick to the running game longer. The Colts coaching staff wanted to change their identity to a ball control offense. Why didn't this work? As already shown, both teams gained the same average yards per rush play. The Colts had a top ten scoring defense. The difference folks, is that Wilson ranked 6th (among qbs who played in at least 8 games) in yards per attempt whereas Luck ranked 26th. Luck simply was not efficient enough.

This year Luck threw 7 interceptions in two playoff games, and yet when speaking of his postseason the commentators focus on his comeback against the Chiefs. That tells you all you need to know about how these two qbs are ranked. Luck is judged not by what he is, but by what people think he could be. Wilson, on the opposite end of the spectrum, is judged not by what he is, but by the limitations people believe he has.

 

[Tical21]

The Colts ran the ball for 4.3 YPC with all 11 players on the defense ignoring the run, never seeing 8 in the box.. The Seahawks ran for 4.3 YPC with all 11 defensive players keying the run, facing 8 or even 9 in the box. Who can't see a difference here?

Andrew Luck threw for 4000 yards and got his team into the playoffs with all 11 players on defense trying to stop him from doing so, with no benefit of the defense thinking he was going to run. Russell Wilson received a QB rating of over 100 with 9 players on the defense concerned more about the run than they were concerned about him, with a safety coming up into the box, except in 3rd and long situations. Who can't see a difference here?

If you want to try to compare the two players, you need to compare situations. How was Luck when his team had a 21 point lead, was running all over the opposition, and his defense was completely shutting down the opposition's offense? Don't worry, I'll wait.

We can compare passer rating until we're blue in the face, but without being put in a similar context, they are apples and oranges.

 

[pocketprotector]

Hard to get a 21 point lead when you are in the bottom half of the league in passing efficiency every year.

I mean really, forget the Luck vs Wilson comparison. When is Luck going to finish in the top half of the league in passer rating?

 

[Hasselbeck]

Why do so many Seahawk fans feel the need to compare these two? It just blows my mind that so many people hate Andrew Luck simply because people say he's better than Russell Wilson.

 

[Hasselbeck]

If you want to try to compare the two players, you need to compare situations. How was Luck when his team had a 21 point lead, was running all over the opposition, and his defense was completely shutting down the opposition's offense? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Absolutely, 110% correct.

When we suddenly have Marshawn Lynch struggling to get out of the backfield and a defense that hemorrhages yards and points .. all while having one target in the passing game.. then we can compare Luck and Wilson on a completely level playing field.

Until this happens, can we just admit Andrew Luck is a special talent just like Russell Wilson is a special talent?

 

[pocketprotector]

If you want to try to compare the two players, you need to compare situations. How was Luck when his team had a 21 point lead, was running all over the opposition, and his defense was completely shutting down the opposition's offense? Don't worry, I'll wait.

Absolutely, 110% correct.

When we suddenly have Marshawn Lynch struggling to get out of the backfield and a defense that hemorrhages yards and points .. all while having one target in the passing game.. then we can compare Luck and Wilson on a completely level playing field.

Until this happens, can we just admit Andrew Luck is a special talent just like Russell Wilson is a special talent?

The Colts and the Seahawks averaged the same yards per rush, and both teams were top ten scoring defenses. Not enough to account for the ENORMOUS differences in efficiency. When Rivers passer rating jumped from 88.6 in 2012 to 105.5 in 2013, he won comeback player of the year. Luck's 87.0 rating to Wilson's 101.2 is a HUGE difference to ignore.