Luck vs. Wilson

[Seahawks21]

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

 

I like those, and I think are a fair representation. The only problem, if I was playing devil's advocate, I could theorize that Luck had a hand in both of those situations.

[Bier Meister]

I could theorize that Luck had a hand in both of those situations.

 

 

you keep reffering to this. i do not think you comprehend the impact of subpar rushing attacks and defenses. indy is forced to throw. the world knows it. a qb who has more attempts will naturally throw more picks. the deficiencies of the other components of the team necesitates him throwing more and taking more risk in doing so.

[keggerz]

I like those, and I think are a fair representation. The only problem, if I was playing devil's advocate, I could theorize that Luck had a hand in both of those situations.

 

Or you could look at those games and base your response on facts too. Edited July 8, 2014 by keggerz

[QFFL]

I actually heard it on ESPN regarding Luck and Wilson. I have to agree with their assessment. Wilson is an average NFL QB, but Luck is close to Manning type of talents.

[Seahawks21]

I actually heard it on ESPN regarding Luck and Wilson. I have to agree with their assessment. Wilson is an average NFL QB, but Luck is close to Manning type of talents.

 

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but can anybody quantify this? I keep hearing things like "Luck has a higher ceiling", "Luck is more talented". What do you mean? Better arm talent? Smarter? More accurate? Better leader? More determined? Better decision maker? Taller?

[Seahawks21]

you keep reffering to this. i do not think you comprehend the impact of subpar rushing attacks and defenses. indy is forced to throw. the world knows it. a qb who has more attempts will naturally throw more picks. the deficiencies of the other components of the team necesitates him throwing more and taking more risk in doing so.

 

What is your definition of subpar rushing attack? Didn't Indy and Seattle both average 4.3 YPC? Isn't then Seattle's rushing attack subpar as well?

 

Indy had the 8th best scoring defense in the NFL last season, so it isn't like the defense was leaving Luck in holes and giving up a bunch of points. I'm not sure I fully understand your point here.

[Bier Meister]

What is your definition of subpar rushing attack? Didn't Indy and Seattle both average 4.3 YPC? Isn't then Seattle's rushing attack subpar as well?

 

Indy had the 8th best scoring defense in the NFL last season, so it isn't like the defense was leaving Luck in holes and giving up a bunch of points. I'm not sure I fully understand your point here.

 

 

you really do not understand the way the game of football is played.

do both teams have balanced offenses?

how often is sea playing from behind?

does indy control the game and clock with their rushing game?

 

please tell me about the strength of indy's schedule last year.

where other teams playing from behind or trying to hold onto a lead?

take a look at the their game log. they were fairly generous to most opponants.

[Shaman]

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.

 

 

You are jumping to ratings argument. Read my post again.

[DMD]

What is your definition of subpar rushing attack? Didn't Indy and Seattle both average 4.3 YPC? Isn't then Seattle's rushing attack subpar as well?

 

Indy had the 8th best scoring defense in the NFL last season, so it isn't like the defense was leaving Luck in holes and giving up a bunch of points. I'm not sure I fully understand your point here.

 

 

# carries favored Seattle offense by 100 so YPC not an accurate measure

 

SEA Def 7th in rush yards allowed, IND Def 24th

SEA Def #1 in pass yards allowed , IND 13th

 

What does DEF TDs have to do with anything? They only impact a couple of games if that. Being the #1 pass defense plays pretty huge when you have the lead.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Since nobody seems willing to point out the most important fact that should be taken from this heated discussion, let me enlighten you all to one unarguable fact: Neither of these two QB's is remotely worthy of holding Tebow's jock.

[Seahawks21]

# carries favored Seattle offense by 100 so YPC not an accurate measure

 

SEA Def 7th in rush yards allowed, IND Def 24th

SEA Def #1 in pass yards allowed , IND 13th

 

What does DEF TDs have to do with anything? They only impact a couple of games if that. Being the #1 pass defense plays pretty huge when you have the lead.

 

If you were joking, very funny. I was referring to scoring defense in terms of points given up. Andrew Luck's team only gave up the 8th most points per game. So how does that equate with him having to win put up huge numbers in order for them to have a chance to win? Seems to me he wouldn't have had to force the issue at all, since his defense did an awesome job of keeping their opponents off the score board.

[Seahawks21]

you really do not understand the way the game of football is played.

do both teams have balanced offenses?

how often is sea playing from behind?

does indy control the game and clock with their rushing game?

 

please tell me about the strength of indy's schedule last year.

where other teams playing from behind or trying to hold onto a lead?

take a look at the their game log. they were fairly generous to most opponants.

 

You're really going to bring strength of schedule into it? You're aware of the defenses in Luck's division and those in Wilson's right? And they have the same amount of come from behind 4th quarter victories?

 

Luck has a better line, better receivers, played against weaker defenses, ran for the same YPC and had a defense that held opponents to small point totals. And Indy ran the ball a lot more than you think they did. Should he probably have not been as efficient as Wilson? Sure. But to be near the bottom of the NFL in a stat like rating, and still the overriding opinion of him be that he is so much better than Wilson that it isn't even a topic that should be open for debate? I dunno.

[Bier Meister]

W 21-17 vs OAK

L 20-24 vs MIA

W 27-7 @ SF

W 37-3 @ JAX

W 34-28 vs SEA

L 9-19 @ SD

W 39-33 vs DEN

W 27-24 @ HOU

L 8-38 vs STL

W 30-27 @ TEN

L 11-40 vs AZ

W 22-14 vs TEN

L 28-42 @ CIN

W 25-3 vs HOU

W 23-7 @ KCC

W 30-10 vs JAX

[Seahawks21]

# carries favored Seattle offense by 100 so YPC not an accurate measure

 

SEA Def 7th in rush yards allowed, IND Def 24th

SEA Def #1 in pass yards allowed , IND 13th

 

What does DEF TDs have to do with anything? They only impact a couple of games if that. Being the #1 pass defense plays pretty huge when you have the lead.

 

I do agree with the rushing stats. The Seattle defense has to face 8 in the box almost all day long, which makes it a lot easier on Russell. Indy's running game doesn't scare anybody enough to bring a safety into the box, and he has to throw against secondaries only worried about stopping him. There's some ammo for Luck crowd.

[Seahawks21]

W 21-17 vs OAK

L 20-24 vs MIA

W 27-7 @ SF

W 37-3 @ JAX

W 34-28 vs SEA

L 9-19 @ SD

W 39-33 vs DEN

W 27-24 @ HOU

L 8-38 vs STL

W 30-27 @ TEN

L 11-40 vs AZ

W 22-14 vs TEN

L 28-42 @ CIN

W 25-3 vs HOU

W 23-7 @ KCC

W 30-10 vs JAX

 

point being?

[Big John]

I do agree with the rushing stats. The Seattle defense has to face 8 in the box almost all day long, which makes it a lot easier on Russell.

 

[Bier Meister]

You're really going to bring strength of schedule into it? You're aware of the defenses in Luck's division and those in Wilson's right? And they have the same amount of come from behind 4th quarter victories?

 

we were talking about defensive rankings. the generally weak schedule inflates indy's defensive stats. and while the NFC West may be the best division in football, i would not say that they have offensive jugernauts

 

Luck has a better line, better receivers, played against weaker defenses, ran for the same YPC and had a defense that held opponents to small point totals. And Indy ran the ball a lot more than you think they did. Should he probably have not been as efficient as Wilson? Sure. But to be near the bottom of the NFL in a stat like rating, and still the overriding opinion of him be that he is so much better than Wilson that it isn't even a topic that should be open for debate? I dunno.

 

i do not believe that indy has a better line. i am not convinced that he has better wr (or if luck is making them better). your ypc is distorted... sea had the the ability to effectively move the ball even when teams knew they are a run first team. luck made 25 or more passing attempts 15 times last year, over 30=13 . wilson 10/4.

 

[Bier Meister]

point being?

 

 

take a guess or two

[CaptainHook]

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but can anybody quantify this? I keep hearing things like "Luck has a higher ceiling", "Luck is more talented". What do you mean? Better arm talent? Smarter? More accurate? Better leader? More determined? Better decision maker? Taller?

 

yes

[Bobby Brown]

Interesting write up. And kind of shows that Hawks21 isn't necessarily talking out of his arse:

 

http://www.fieldgull...in-a-tight-game

 

Luck had more attempts when behind than the rest of the quarterbacks and Wilson had more attempts when ahead than the rest of the quarterbacks. Luck did better when behind, partially due to big plays and some higher risk throws. Strangely Luck's yards per attempt decreased when ahead, this included low yards/attempt against Denver, Houston, and Kansas City as well as 2 strong performances against Jacksonville. As far as Wilson is concerned, his worse performances in close games coincides with his poor performance in the first quarter and the Arizona game.

 

Luck had some awful games when he fell behind quality defenses, but he also threw the ball a lot so some of his interceptions get hidden by the shear amount of times that he threw the ball. Conversely, one could argue that he was bound to throw an interception given so many throws with his team behind. I'd just say that he threw so many interceptions that some games were over by halftime and point out that two of his worst games came against divisional foes of the Seahawks.

 

 

[Bobby Brown]

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

 

 

This is a very impressive stat.

[Bobby Brown]

And another attempt at normalizing data that shows Wilson and Luck doing very well ..but with a big surprise tip of the hat to Kaep who apparently is playing his best against tough opponents:

 

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/6/15/5811722/defense-adjusted-ypa-efficiency-for-playoff-qbs

 

As you might expect, most of these QBs struggle more against quality opponents. This normalizes the data significantly, and brings the average among these elites to just over 101%. Luck and Wilson do actually get a bit better against tough opponents, but where we see the biggest change in the face of tough opponents is--woah!--Holy Moly, Mr. Kaepernick! Hang on, lemme check that a sec...

Okay yeah, looking a little deeper into these numbers we see that Colin Kaepernick goes from an astounding 137% against ten non-playoff teams, to just 83.72% defense adjusted yard-attempt efficiency against playoff-bound opponents. Thankfully for the 49ers, he actually stepped it up in the playoffs, averaging 98.56% by this measure, and this says nothing of his outstanding rushing performance. However, unfortunately for them, Wilson's 25 attempts in the NFC Championship Game against the 5.8 yards per pass average 49ers, should have meant just 145 yards, but he instead netted 215, for over 148% in a game where pass defense made all the difference.

 

[stevegrab]

If you were joking, very funny. I was referring to scoring defense in terms of points given up. Andrew Luck's team only gave up the 8th most points per game. So how does that equate with him having to win put up huge numbers in order for them to have a chance to win? Seems to me he wouldn't have had to force the issue at all, since his defense did an awesome job of keeping their opponents off the score board.

 

First I believe you meant 8th FEWEST, not most and it was actually 9th according to the stats I'm looking at on Pro Football Reference. Second Wilson' team game up the gave up the fewest points, 100 less than Lucks, or about 6 points per game. So to win his offense needed to score 6 fewer points.

 

I see another post where you agree with DMD's point, but right before that you're still using the "same YPC for both teams means they have equally good rushing games."

 

I'm not sure why I or anybody else is bothering to post anymore. It was clear to me on page 1 you were just looking to stir up a debate/discussion and obviously don't believe you are right since you're taking the opposite side of the argument on Seahawks board. Or you just like being a contrarian and arguing.

[Seahawks21]

First I believe you meant 8th FEWEST, not most and it was actually 9th according to the stats I'm looking at on Pro Football Reference. Second Wilson' team game up the gave up the fewest points, 100 less than Lucks, or about 6 points per game. So to win his offense needed to score 6 fewer points.

 

I see another post where you agree with DMD's point, but right before that you're still using the "same YPC for both teams means they have equally good rushing games."

 

I'm not sure why I or anybody else is bothering to post anymore. It was clear to me on page 1 you were just looking to stir up a debate/discussion and obviously don't believe you are right since you're taking the opposite side of the argument on Seahawks board. Or you just like being a contrarian and arguing.

 

I know 6 points is a lot more than it seems, but would it really necessitate taking a bunch of risks?

 

I'm kind of caught in it on this one. I'm really, really high on both guys. The only argument I can't agree with on either count is that one is the clear choice and that the other doesn't even deserve to be in the discussion. I would personally take Luck, but if 30 out of 30 people are going to say that Luck is a much better choice without giving any tangible reason whatsoever for having that belief, I'm going to stick up for Russell, and at least dig to try to find out why so many people feel that way. Same thing on the Seahawks board but for the other player. I guess in the end I'll just have to say that people here are really high on Luck for basically no reason that they can put into words.

 

I get it, Luck has to put his team on his back. But to be anointed as the next great one, and be held so much higher than a young kid that has a rating over 100 and just won a Super Bowl, shouldn't Luck at least have mediocre efficiency statistics? I guess, in the end, I just don't agree with anybody that won't admit that both of them are just about as good of young quarterbacks as this league has ever seen.

[stevegrab]

I know 6 points is a lot more than it seems, but would it really necessitate taking a bunch of risks?

 

I'm kind of caught in it on this one. I'm really, really high on both guys. The only argument I can't agree with on either count is that one is the clear choice and that the other doesn't even deserve to be in the discussion. I would personally take Luck, but if 30 out of 30 people are going to say that Luck is a much better choice without giving any tangible reason whatsoever for having that belief, I'm going to stick up for Russell, and at least dig to try to find out why so many people feel that way. Same thing on the Seahawks board but for the other player. I guess in the end I'll just have to say that people here are really high on Luck for basically no reason that they can put into words.

 

I get it, Luck has to put his team on his back. But to be anointed as the next great one, and be held so much higher than a young kid that has a rating over 100 and just won a Super Bowl, shouldn't Luck at least have mediocre efficiency statistics? I guess, in the end, I just don't agree with anybody that won't admit that both of them are just about as good of young quarterbacks as this league has ever seen.

 

I can agree with that point but that isn't the question or debate/discussion. Which is better, who would you build a franchise around. The opinions of the GMs are pretty clear on that. Wilson is a very good young QB, and he along with the best defense and a strong running game just won a Super Bowl. But that doesn't make him a Manning type QB you'd build around. Somebody before equated him to Aikman, which is a pretty good analogy.