Luck vs. Wilson

[CaptainHook]

My point was that making snap judgments based on two years of stats are premature. I was not comparing Batch to Wilson and Manning to Luck.....

[Seahawks21]

I get that Luck is asked to do much, much more. I do. But the real question is whether or not Russell would be as productive if he was in Luck's place. I think he probably would be. He would have to fall off a complete cliff to go down to the efficiency numbers that Luck is putting up. Russell has done everything so well, and handled everything better than basically anybody has ever handled them. I know it is all personal opinion, but I believe he would be doing absolutely just as well as Luck if he were on that team. But for Luck's part, I think he would have very possibly won a Super Bowl with this Seahawks team too. But you never know. Would he have become anxious at times and thrown picks where Russell doesn't? Could he have survived behind Russell's line without any receivers getting open?

 

In order to think that this is a no-brainer, and it has to be Luck 100 times out of 100, you have to think that Russell would be performing worse than Luck has been if the situations were reversed. And I personally find that very hard to fathom. I don't think he can ever fail. I don't think there is a system on the planet that would have Russell completing at a 57% clip. Russell just might be that good.

 

That said, offer the trade and hold a gun to my head, I still take Luck. But I would have zero issue with anybody saying the opposite. Russell has been that magnificent, and plays best in the biggest games. You can't automatically assume Russell would fail with more on his plate. He has just done everything too well to this point.

[Shaman]

Take Wayne out, and you're left with Hilton, who is still better than any receiver the Seahawks have. Wilson was sacked more, in farrrrr less chances. His O-line is way worse than Luck's in the passing game, by any measurement you want to use.

 

 

Believe it or not, on the Seahawks board, I am actually playing the other side. It is basically 100 against 1, me being the one guy defending Luck. It is hard to do though, at least statistically. The one thing I am truly amazed at though, is that I come here, and the discussion is basically laughed off. It is like it is a one-sided, not even debatable topic. I do believe Wilson did better on the NFL network top 100 list, for what that is worth. Is the media really slanting things so much towards Luck that it blinds the conversation? I didn't know his completion percentage was so bad. I didn't know Russell was like 20 full points higher in quarterback rating. It has become clear to me that those saying Wilson is better may at least have a point and a very defensible argument.

 

Does Luck have better intangibles? Probably not, they're both awesome leaders and personalities. Does he have a stronger arm? Probably not. They both have great arm strength. Is he better in the pocket? Probably not, Wilson completes 67% of his passes from the pocket, Luck at 60%, with superior weapons and pass blocking. You can say Luck is more of a winner, taking a bad team to the playoffs in a short time, but Wilson took a mediocre team and won a Super Bowl two years later. At the very, very least, it is a lot closer debate than is being portrayed here.

 

At this point I'm really just curious as to how people explain why they would take Luck over Wilson. Height?

 

 

If you are the only one defending your position then that should be the first indicator that there must be something you are missing. Don't take my opinion, but by all means take DMD and the 26 NFL General Managers...

 

Also, you seem to not be posting other stats that would hurt what you are presenting Wilson to be. That alone hurts your opinion.

 

This QB had these average numbers in his 1st 2 years:

59% completion rate

52 TD's

43 INT's

36 Sacks

 

His name is Peyton Manning.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Shaman

[BA Baracus]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/17/2014-depth-chart-seattle-seahawks/

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/05/29/2014-depth-chart-indianapolis-colts/

 

Hopefully those links work...but they are the Pro Football Focus depth charts for both teams. It interestingly enough shows two things: Wilson is rated higher than Luck, and Seattle is clearly the superior team top to bottom on both sides of the ball.

 

I can't say that I completely agree with the ratings of the two players, but I do respect PFF's ratings. I really like Wilson, I think that he is a great player and person. He is intelligent, accurate, and mobile. I think the same can be said for Luck. We joke about height, but it does play a role. I remember reading somewhere that Denver would have drafted Wilson instead of Osweiler if Wilson weren't so short. I think that Wilson's height caps his upside to some extent.

 

Claims of Seattle being a "mediocre team" that Wilson led to a SB are way off base. He plays an important role in an extremely well built machine. Put him on the Colts and you are looking at a playoff bubble team that likely gets in due to being in a down division.

Edited July 6, 2014 by BA Baracus

[Seahawks21]

If you are the only one defending your position then that should be the first indicator that there must be something you are missing. Don't take my opinion, but by all means take DMD and the 26 NFL General Managers...

 

Also, you seem to not be posting other stats that would hurt what you are presenting Wilson to be. That alone hurts your opinion.

 

This QB had these average numbers in his 1st 2 years:

59% completion rate

52 TD's

43 INT's

36 Sacks

 

His name is Peyton Manning.

 

Shaman, you're in the Luck camp, right? On the other board, I am the only one with the opinion that Luck is the better of the two, not sure if you read that right.

 

The Manning stats for his first two years are a good, and fair point. They pretty clearly illustrate that Wilson is much better in his first two years than even Peyton Manning, who was thought to be one of the best young QB's in the history of the game.

 

I realize the stats are one-sided. The other stats don't illustrate my point, I'll leave that for somebody else to bring up. Really though, I just copied them from the other thread and threw them into the discussion here.

 

BA, I think your post is broken.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Seahawks21

[Tripleshot]

Given my choice of the two, I take Luck hands down. Not that I don't believe Wilson is capable of carrying an offense, the guy can. Look at the 4th quarter comebacks he's had(at least three of which he didn't get credit for a comeback win because of all things, that Seahawks defense blew the lead - Detroit, Miami, Atlanta in the playoffs two years ago). The issue is, he doesn't need to do that very often, so I think he's never going to be seen as the team-carrying QB type. In my opinion, I see him being another Aikman, minus the concussions. Luck is always going to have to carry his team a la Manning, and not because he lacks talent around him, but rather because he's just wired that way and the Colts will let him.

[Lloyd Dobler]

 

 

32 racists

 

Is this a new huddler's league I'm just now hearing about?

[Shaman]

Is this a new huddler's league I'm just now hearing about?

 

 

[Shaman]

Shaman, you're in the Luck camp, right? On the other board, I am the only one with the opinion that Luck is the better of the two, not sure if you read that right.

 

Yes. And I did not read it right.

 

The Manning stats for his first two years are a good, and fair point. They pretty clearly illustrate that Wilson is much better in his first two years than even Peyton Manning, who was thought to be one of the best young QB's in the history of the game.

 

Right, so only time will tell.

[DMD]

Here is an telling metric.

 

In 2012, Wilson threw 393 passes. Not only was that 26th highest in the league, but no QB who played 16 games threw fewer passes than Wilson. No QB had to throw less. None. The only 16 game QB with fewer pass yards was Christian Ponder.

 

In 2013, Wilson threw 407 passes. Not only was that 22nd highest in the league, but no QB who played 16 games threw fewer passes than Wilson. No QB had to throw less. None.The only 16 game QBs with fewer pass yards were Colin Kaepernick and Geno Smith.

 

No QB has been asked to do less than Wilson. How that equates into a top tier QB eludes me. I can see comparing him with Ponder, Kaepernick and Smith I guess. If his receivers are mediocre as has been contended, why does he throw fewer passes than anyone per game? Because he doesn't have to do nearly as much or nearly as well as other QBs on lesser teams.

[Bobby Brown]

Here is an telling metric.

 

In 2012, Wilson threw 393 passes. Not only was that 26th highest in the league, but no QB who played 16 games threw fewer passes than Wilson. No QB had to throw less. None. The only 16 game QB with fewer pass yards was Christian Ponder.

 

In 2013, Wilson threw 407 passes. Not only was that 22nd highest in the league, but no QB who played 16 games threw fewer passes than Wilson. No QB had to throw less. None.The only 16 game QBs with fewer pass yards were Colin Kaepernick and Geno Smith.

 

No QB has been asked to do less than Wilson. How that equates into a top tier QB eludes me. I can see comparing him with Ponder, Kaepernick and Smith I guess. If his receivers are mediocre as has been contended, why does he throw fewer passes than anyone per game? Because he doesn't have to do nearly as much or nearly as well as other QBs on lesser teams.

 

 

There is little doubt that Andrew Luck would be the QB of choice to build a team around vs. Wilson. There was a reason Luck was picked first in the 2012 draft and Wilson was drafted 75th. Luck is bigger, better, stronger, and more prototypical. And he looks all the part of a one in a must get QB after two seasons. Wilson will never be that guy.

 

Is Andrew Luck being asked to do more than Russel Wilson? Of he is course. Is Andrew Luck more important to Indy than Russel Wilson is to Seattle? Most likely, Indy isn't a playoff team without Luck. But, there seems to be some insinuation that Seattle would have won the SB last year with Tarvaris Jackson or Trent Dilfer. I think that insinuation is rather silly.

 

Both Wilson and Luck have eight 4th quarter come from behind wins in their first two seasons. This is a pretty awesome stat for both when you look at QBs with way more seasoning (i.e..Romo has 20 in 10 seasons). So how much do we penalize Wilson for not being asked to do as much?

 

Wilson didn't pass for many yards in the SB, but he was 5 for 7 passing on 3rd downs when the game still mattered in the first half. Previous year when the Hawks lost to Atlanta in the playoffs, Russel threw for 385 yards before the vaunted Seattle defense blew the lead with 30 seconds left on the clock. Soidier Field December 2012...ask Bear fans how many yards Wilson put together and how many TDs he scored for what was essentially two game winning drives in the last two minutes of regulation + OT.

 

Tripleshot already mentioned the games against where Wilson brought the Hawks on a brink of a come from behind win against Detroit and Miami (I'd also add Week 1 in 2012 against Arizona where Braylon Edwards didn't catch the pass in the endzone) to have the defense give up a loss.

 

 

It's wrong to assume Wilson succeeds only because the reigning Super Bowl champions are loaded. He's managed back-to-back seasons with at least a 100 passer rating. No one has ever done that. And his offensive line has allowed a troubling amount of pass rush.

 

To clarify...I think everyone still takes Luck over Wilson to build a franchise; but I think the better QB thus far is debatable. I'm not anointing Wilson as an elite QB; Luck has the more likely path. Yes Luck is throwing a lot more comparatively, but I'm not exactly sure how that equates into a telling metric about their skill as much as it does about situations. Wilson is averaging over a yard more per throw than Luck so far in their two careers. Time will tell and I think that some fans who were mostly wowed about Seattle's defense during the end of last year; will surprised how well Wilson thrives when his team needs him to.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Bobby Brown

[Seahawks21]

Here is an telling metric.

 

In 2012, Wilson threw 393 passes. Not only was that 26th highest in the league, but no QB who played 16 games threw fewer passes than Wilson. No QB had to throw less. None. The only 16 game QB with fewer pass yards was Christian Ponder.

 

In 2013, Wilson threw 407 passes. Not only was that 22nd highest in the league, but no QB who played 16 games threw fewer passes than Wilson. No QB had to throw less. None.The only 16 game QBs with fewer pass yards were Colin Kaepernick and Geno Smith.

 

No QB has been asked to do less than Wilson. How that equates into a top tier QB eludes me. I can see comparing him with Ponder, Kaepernick and Smith I guess. If his receivers are mediocre as has been contended, why does he throw fewer passes than anyone per game? Because he doesn't have to do nearly as much or nearly as well as other QBs on lesser teams.

 

I get the argument, but if Russell wasn't so darn amazing in the first three quarters, he would probably have to pass more in the 4th. You can't hold it against him that he likes to blow people out. Does Luck end up having to pass a lot more because he throws too many picks and incomplete passes and finds himself behind?

[irish]

 

 

There is little doubt that Andrew Luck would be the QB of choice to build a team around vs. Wilson. There was a reason Luck was picked first in the 2012 draft and Wilson was drafted 75th. Luck is bigger, better, stronger, and more prototypical. And he looks all the part of a one in a must get QB after two seasons. Wilson will never be that guy.

 

Is Andrew Luck being asked to do more than Russel Wilson? Of he is course. Is Andrew Luck more important to Indy than Russel Wilson is to Seattle? Most likely, Indy isn't a playoff team without Luck. But, there seems to be some insinuation that Seattle would have won the SB last year with Tarvaris Jackson or Trent Dilfer. I think that insinuation is rather silly.

 

Both Wilson and Luck have eight 4th quarter come from behind wins in their first two seasons. This is a pretty awesome stat for both when you look at QBs with way more seasoning (i.e..Romo has 20 in 10 seasons). So how much do we penalize Wilson for not being asked to do as much?

 

Wilson didn't pass for many yards in the SB, but he was 5 for 7 passing on 3rd downs when the game still mattered in the first half. Previous year when the Hawks lost to Atlanta in the playoffs, Russel threw for 385 yards before the vaunted Seattle defense blew the lead with 30 seconds left on the clock. Soidier Field December 2012...ask Bear fans how many yards Wilson put together and how many TDs he scored for what was essentially two game winning drives in the last two minutes of regulation + OT.

 

Tripleshot already mentioned the games against where Wilson brought the Hawks on a brink of a come from behind win against Detroit and Miami (I'd also add Week 1 in 2012 against Arizona where Braylon Edwards didn't catch the pass in the endzone) to have the defense give up a loss.

 

 

It's wrong to assume Wilson succeeds only because the reigning Super Bowl champions are loaded. He's managed back-to-back seasons with at least a 100 passer rating. No one has ever done that. And his offensive line has allowed a troubling amount of pass rush.

 

To clarify...I think everyone still takes Luck over Wilson to build a franchise; but I think the better QB thus far is debatable. I'm not anointing Wilson as an elite QB; Luck has the more likely path. Yes Luck is throwing a lot more comparatively, but I'm not exactly sure how that equates into a telling metric about their skill as much as it does about situations. Wilson is averaging over a yard more per throw than Luck so far in their two careers. Time will tell and I think that some fans who were mostly wowed about Seattle's defense during the end of last year; will surprised how well Wilson thrives when his team needs him to.

 

 

I get the argument, but if Russell wasn't so darn amazing in the first three quarters, he would probably have to pass more in the 4th. You can't hold it against him that he likes to blow people out. Does Luck end up having to pass a lot more because he throws too many picks and incomplete passes and finds himself behind?

 

 

 

Russell having that defense is a major luxury. How many come from behind wins were just him finishing what the defense started or placed onto a silver platter for him? Luck isn't so lucky.

Edited July 7, 2014 by irish

[Bobby Brown]

How many come from behind wins were just him finishing what the defense started or placed onto a silver platter for him?

 

 

Did Luck maybe have more chances for a come from behind win than Wilson did? I don't know...I'm asking..I think it's quite plausible.

 

 

Here are Russel Wilson's 4th quarter winning game winning drive stats I manually compiled since you motivated me to:

 

20 for 30 367 yards 5 TDs

8 for 51 yards 1 TD

 

Thank you Richard Sherman!

 

some fans who were mostly wowed about Seattle's defense during the end of last year; will surprised how well Wilson thrives when his team needs him to

 

 

I reiterate this again. There were many games that Wilson played over the last two years that many NFL fans didn't watch.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Bobby Brown

[CaptainHook]

I get the argument, but if Russell wasn't so darn amazing in the first three quarters, he would probably have to pass more in the 4th. You can't hold it against him that he likes to blow people out. Does Luck end up having to pass a lot more because he throws too many picks and incomplete passes and finds himself behind?

 

Yeah, that's the reason. Not the fact the Seahawks have an awesome running game and #1 defense.

[jlwaters1]

"And you keep glossing over the fact Luck has thrown 330 more balls in his career. Why is that, you think?"

 

And yet Luck thrown 6 fewer TD's, why is that, you think? Wilson is the more efficient QB of the 2 and quite frankly efficiency is all that matters. People keep saying Seattle has this dominant running attack. That's not really true, sure Seattle ran it a lot more than Indy, but in terms of efficiency Seattle and Indy had the same yards/ carry @ 4.3.

 

Your right, Indy's OL isn't great, but Seattle's was just as bad or worse. Injuries of course being a major factor for seattle. The fact that Wilson has been sacked more than Luck and yet has thrown as you say 330 less passes should illustrate the ineptitude of the Seahawks pass blocking.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jlwaters1

[stevegrab]

Who's opinion did I attack? I've been accused of being a lot of things, but being a blind homer has never been one of them. I'm simply playing devil's advocate. Trying to get some conversation going. Luck is much better. "It's not even a conversation." Okay. Better at what? Better leader? Better passer? Better in the pocket? What makes you feel that way?

 

If Russell Wilson retired today, he would have the second highest QB rating in NFL history. With a bad O-line and "pedestrian" receivers. And he plays even better in the playoffs.

 

Andrew Luck's completion percentage is below Jake Locker's, with a HOF WR, a decent pass blocking line, a running game that gets 4.3 YPC, and another emerging WR.

 

How about better at carrying his team, as the only chance they have at winning is his ability to throw the ball frequently and do it well. Not true for Wilson with a great defense and strong running game. This sounds a lot like those who wanted to anoint Big Ben after the Steelers success.

 

You may think you're playing devil's advocate but it seems more like you are are just

 

So on the Hawks board you're saying Luck is better than Wilson and here you're saying its the other way around. Yep, just looking for an argument discussion during the off season. And sighting the NFLN top 100 list, it ain't worth squat and you know it.

 

Sounds like somebody was stuck inside over the 4th of July Weekend and needed some entertainment. Can't believe so many played along.

[stevegrab]

In order to think that this is a no-brainer, and it has to be Luck 100 times out of 100, you have to think that Russell would be performing worse than Luck has been if the situations were reversed. And I personally find that very hard to fathom. I don't think he can ever fail. I don't think there is a system on the planet that would have Russell completing at a 57% clip. Russell just might be that good.

 

That said, offer the trade and hold a gun to my head, I still take Luck. But I would have zero issue with anybody saying the opposite. Russell has been that magnificent, and plays best in the biggest games. You can't automatically assume Russell would fail with more on his plate. He has just done everything too well to this point.

 

 

Yep no blind homerism going on here.

 

I get the argument, but if Russell wasn't so darn amazing in the first three quarters, he would probably have to pass more in the 4th. You can't hold it against him that he likes to blow people out. Does Luck end up having to pass a lot more because he throws too many picks and incomplete passes and finds himself behind?

 

And more stinky

[jlwaters1]

Russell having that defense is a major luxury. How many come from behind wins were just him finishing what the defense started or placed onto a silver platter for him? Luck isn't so lucky.

 

How may of Luck's comeback wins were a result of his blunders earlier in the game? I can think of 2 immediately- Detroit in 2012 and against KC in the playoffs last year. In both cases he managed to throw 3 picks only to dig out of that with a miraculous comeback. Would you rather have a QB who avoids mistakes in the first place and doesn't have to have a miracle to win?

 

Luck has 8 4th QTR comebacks, 11 game winning drives

Wilson has 8 4th QTR Comebacks, 10 game winning drives

 

However, in those 11 for Luck 5 of those 11 he threw a pick. In 3 of those games it was multiple picks.- In other words in 45% of those comebacks there were self inflicted wounds. In only 5 of those 11 comebacks did he complete more than 60% of his passes In those 11 games he totaled 56.7% completion % with 24 TD's, 10 Int's.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=LuckAn00

 

Wilson in his 10 games only 2 involved interceptions. Only 1 had multiple picks. Over the 10 games he was 64.9% completions 13 TD's, 3 Picks.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=WilsRu00

[Shaman]

I get the argument, but if Russell wasn't so darn amazing in the first three quarters, he would probably have to pass more in the 4th. You can't hold it against him that he likes to blow people out. Does Luck end up having to pass a lot more because he throws too many picks and incomplete passes and finds himself behind?

 

 

Your picks argument is getting ridiculous:

 

Luck has 1197 pass attempts and 27 interceptions for a 0.022 rate

Wilson has 800 pass attempts and 19 interceptions for a 0.023 rate

[bud29]

Just my

 

I am usually in the "wilson-is-underrated" camp - I think he frequently gets less credit than he deserves - however, I would have a hard time choosing against Luck if I were to pick one as my franchise QB. They may have comparable stats right now, but several years down the road? Luck's ceiling seems much higher IMO.

[Seahawks21]

Your picks argument is getting ridiculous:

 

Luck has 1197 pass attempts and 27 interceptions for a 0.022 rate

Wilson has 800 pass attempts and 19 interceptions for a 0.023 rate

 

Or is it? Luck had a 80.5 passer rating in the 1st half with only 12 TD's in 371 attempts, which would put him somewhere in the 25-27 range out of 32 starters. Luckily, his 92 second half rating saves him a bit, and brings him around the top 20 or so overall.

 

Wilson's 1st half rating of 108.6 would put him second to Foles.

 

Luck gets his team behind and then has to try to bail them out. Wilson comes out executing, putting his team in a fantastic position to run the ball and use his defense to put them to bed.

[DMD]

...

 

Luck gets his team behind and then has to try to bail them out. Wilson comes out executing, putting his team in a fantastic position to run the ball and use his defense to put them to bed.

 

 

Honestly, I read it twice to make sure I was understanding it and all the while a song was playing in my head.

 

 

"Magic Man"

 

 

 

 

Cold late night so long ago

When I was the 13^th man you know

A Wilson came to me

Never seen eyes so blue

 

 

 

I could not run away

It seemed we'd seen each other in a dream

It seemed like he knew me

He threw right to me

 

 

 

"Come on home, Seahawks21" he said with a smile

"You don't have to love me yet

Let's get high awhile

But try to understand

Try to understand

Try try try to understand

I'm a magic man."

 

Winter nights we laughed at Luck

Smiled as the defense struck

Never think of never

Let this spell last forever

 

 

 

Summer over passed to fall

Decided to ignore it all

Mama wants JR to throw

At least more than Christian Ponder, yo!

 

"Come on home, Seahawks21" mama cried on the phone

"Too soon to lose my baby to the shortest guy in the dome!"

"But try to understand, try to understand

Try try try to understand

He's a magic man, mama

He's a magic man"

 

"Come on home, Seahawks21" he said with a smile

"I cast my spell of love on you homer by a mile!

But try to understand, try to understand

I'm a magic man!"

 

 

[Seahawks21]

That may have been the most epic thing I've ever seen on these boards.

[keggerz]

Since 2012, Luck is 3-3 when down by 17 points in a game...the rest of the NFL is 5-91.

 

Starts where team allowed 40+ points:

Andrew Luck - 6/35 (17.1%)

Tom Brady & Joe Montana combined - 6/404

Edited July 8, 2014 by keggerz