I didn't say luck was lacking in any of those those areas. Read a little bit more closely.No brainer.
All 32 NFL GMs would take Luck.
Colts are a 4 win team without Luck, yet they make the playoffs and are competitive every season with him at the helm.
Im a huuuge Wilson fan, but he has had the benefit of an all-time elite defense and a beast RB. I wouldnt argue if somoeone touted Wilson as the #2 franchise qb starting today, but Luck is the obvious pick.
The "brain heart drive" comment has me scratching my head, btw. When has Luck ever shown a lack of any of those things? Dude is as close to a one-man-team as there is in the league.
sorry if I wasn't clear, but i was a referring to a supposed lack of those qualities in comparison to Wilson. Imo, Luck has shown to have those qualities as much as anyone playing.I didn't say luck was lacking in any of those those areas. Read a little bit more closely.No brainer.
All 32 NFL GMs would take Luck.
Colts are a 4 win team without Luck, yet they make the playoffs and are competitive every season with him at the helm.
Im a huuuge Wilson fan, but he has had the benefit of an all-time elite defense and a beast RB. I wouldnt argue if somoeone touted Wilson as the #2 franchise qb starting today, but Luck is the obvious pick.
The "brain heart drive" comment has me scratching my head, btw. When has Luck ever shown a lack of any of those things? Dude is as close to a one-man-team as there is in the league.
My view exactly.WIlson has proven that he can manage a great team to get them over the hump when they need him, but has not yet proven that he can put a mediocre team on his back and carry it.
Luck has proven that he can put a mediocre team on his back and carry them, but has not yet proven that he can manage a great team to get them over the hump when they need him.
That's certainly not to say that either can't do they other, they just haven't had the opportunity yet (Wilson hasn't had to carry a bad team, Luck hasn't played with a great team). I think it's very likely that Luck could win it all with a great team. I think it's 50/50 whether Wilson could put a bad team on his back and carry them, and think it's less than 50/50 that he could do it to the extent that Luck has (3 straight playoff appearances and an AFC championship appearance with a pretty dreadful team).
I'd take Luck, by quite a bit. Hard to go wrong here, though.
Luck is amazing. I'm not sure who I'd rather have, and I'm comparing him to a guy who's had one of the most impressive starts to a career ever and is one win shy of his 2nd ring in his first 3 years. Being not as good as that guy's best traits is no slight.sorry if I wasn't clear, but i was a referring to a supposed lack of those qualities in comparison to Wilson. Imo, Luck has shown to have those qualities as much as anyone playing.I didn't say luck was lacking in any of those those areas. Read a little bit more closely.No brainer.
All 32 NFL GMs would take Luck.
Colts are a 4 win team without Luck, yet they make the playoffs and are competitive every season with him at the helm.
Im a huuuge Wilson fan, but he has had the benefit of an all-time elite defense and a beast RB. I wouldnt argue if somoeone touted Wilson as the #2 franchise qb starting today, but Luck is the obvious pick.
The "brain heart drive" comment has me scratching my head, btw. When has Luck ever shown a lack of any of those things? Dude is as close to a one-man-team as there is in the league.
If picking today:Luck and not even in the same ballpark
Luck needs WR's that can get open. Wilson doesn't.Why would anyone choose Wilson? Luck on that Seahawks team would be unfair.
Wilson on the Colts with actual good WRs would be, too.Why would anyone choose Wilson? Luck on that Seahawks team would be unfair.
Okay, what does potential mean? Luck has to turn it around in a HUGE way in the postseason to become a top 5 all-time QB, considering he already has 12 INTs in six playoff games.Nothing against Wilson, but Luck has the potential to be a top 5 all-time QB. This isn't close.
I'd take Wilson... His skillset is outrageous and I could see him doing easily as well on the Colts as Luck is. Luck, I don't think would make the Seahawks all that much better than they are with Wilson, because they'd still be feeding the ball to Marshawn Lynch. If anything, the numbers would be similar. Wilson has superior intangibles along with his incredible athletic skill.
Why is that funny? Seattle is 30-7 the last two seasons with Wilson. Luck would really make them that much better?I'd take Wilson... His skillset is outrageous and I could see him doing easily as well on the Colts as Luck is. Luck, I don't think would make the Seahawks all that much better than they are with Wilson, because they'd still be feeding the ball to Marshawn Lynch. If anything, the numbers would be similar. Wilson has superior intangibles along with his incredible athletic skill.
And Wilson just threw 4 in one game, yet won, because he plays on an actual NFL teamWilson on the Colts with actual good WRs would be, too.Why would anyone choose Wilson? Luck on that Seahawks team would be unfair.
Okay, what does potential mean? Luck has to turn it around in a HUGE way in the postseason to become a top 5 all-time QB, considering he already has 12 INTs in six playoff games.Nothing against Wilson, but Luck has the potential to be a top 5 all-time QB. This isn't close.
It's posts like this that make me wonder the same.Why is that funny? Seattle is 30-7 the last two seasons with Wilson. Luck would really make them that much better?I'd take Wilson... His skillset is outrageous and I could see him doing easily as well on the Colts as Luck is. Luck, I don't think would make the Seahawks all that much better than they are with Wilson, because they'd still be feeding the ball to Marshawn Lynch. If anything, the numbers would be similar. Wilson has superior intangibles along with his incredible athletic skill.
As for intangibles, Wilson's are as good as Luck's, if not better. Why is that LOL-worthy?
I sometimes wonder if people really watch games anymore. Wilson is fantastic; so is Luck. A good argument can be made for either here, but this thought that the no-brainer answer is Luck is kinda silly.
Or because the Packers had an epic collapse.And Wilson just threw 4 in one game, yet won, because he plays on an actual NFL teamWilson on the Colts with actual good WRs would be, too.Why would anyone choose Wilson? Luck on that Seahawks team would be unfair.
Okay, what does potential mean? Luck has to turn it around in a HUGE way in the postseason to become a top 5 all-time QB, considering he already has 12 INTs in six playoff games.Nothing against Wilson, but Luck has the potential to be a top 5 all-time QB. This isn't close.
Another great point. They will lose some players because he is about to increase his salary by like 2000%That said, AT THE MOMENT, what you can probably say about Russell Wilson is that he is the single greatest BARGAIN in football. That, of course, is about to change in a major way.
I can't say he outplayed him. When your team sucks you have to take chances. Luck has not had the benefit of any kind of run game or good D to keep him in playoff games against good competition, hence, has to take many chances that WIlson doesn't, hence, more INTs.Or because the Packers had an epic collapse.And Wilson just threw 4 in one game, yet won, because he plays on an actual NFL teamWilson on the Colts with actual good WRs would be, too.Why would anyone choose Wilson? Luck on that Seahawks team would be unfair.
Okay, what does potential mean? Luck has to turn it around in a HUGE way in the postseason to become a top 5 all-time QB, considering he already has 12 INTs in six playoff games.Nothing against Wilson, but Luck has the potential to be a top 5 all-time QB. This isn't close.
And despite last week, Wilson has still outplayed Luck over the course of their playoff careers.
Like I have said in other threads, Luck is a great player, and I love watching him play, but he needs to scale back on the turnovers. He still throws too many INTs. Wilson throwing 4 last week was a total anomaly.
Well then, I guess in 15 years we can consider discussing this. End thread//This is such a stupid argument. Simply put, there are things Wilson can do Luck hasn't shown yet, and there are things Luck has shown that Wilson hasn't had to yet. For anyone saying one can't do something the either can't based on 3 years of data is beyond idiotic.
The people in here claiming "it isn't close" either way are doing so without a full set of data and they know it.
Compared to Seattle, it is Luck and a bunch of bums.Indy has NOTHING but Luck? Yeah, Vontae Davis is just garbage. TY Hilton? What a bum. Look, we all know that Wilson has a better team around him than Luck, but this idea that the Colts are Luck and nothing but scrubs is total crap. Hell, the Colts running game wasn't as awful this year as everyone thinks.
EdIt: The link I read was wrong. Seattle had 1920 rushing yards without adding Wilson's numbers. I should have fact checked it on PFR first.
That aside, the Colts still do have other good players on their team. It's not just Luck and a bunch of bums.
So if you were starting an NFL team, would you take the Seattle O-line or the Indy O-line? The Seattle WRs or the Indy WRs?Compared to Seattle, it is Luck and a bunch of bums.Indy has NOTHING but Luck? Yeah, Vontae Davis is just garbage. TY Hilton? What a bum. Look, we all know that Wilson has a better team around him than Luck, but this idea that the Colts are Luck and nothing but scrubs is total crap. Hell, the Colts running game wasn't as awful this year as everyone thinks.
EdIt: The link I read was wrong. Seattle had 1920 rushing yards without adding Wilson's numbers. I should have fact checked it on PFR first.
That aside, the Colts still do have other good players on their team. It's not just Luck and a bunch of bums.
I just bet WIlson would make TY Hilton look awesome.
And sorry but, the Colts running game was horrific. I mean, horrific. What are you watching?
Agreed, but like I mentioned above, I think the things that Luck hasn't yet proven are more likely to be true but just unproven than the things that Wilson hasn't yet proven. I think it's much more likely that Luck could win on Seattle than it is that Wilson could put up MVP numbers and take a horrible Colts team to the conference championship. We don't know for sure either way, of course.This is such a stupid argument. Simply put, there are things Wilson can do Luck hasn't shown yet, and there are things Luck has shown that Wilson hasn't had to yet. For anyone saying one can't do something the either can't based on 3 years of data is beyond idiotic.
The people in here claiming "it isn't close" either way are doing so without a full set of data and they know it.
I think if the Seahawks had drafted Hilton and the Colts had taken Baldwin, you'd be saying the exact same thing about Baldwin right now instead because Luck would have made him look better.Indy has NOTHING but Luck? Yeah, Vontae Davis is just garbage. TY Hilton? What a bum. Look, we all know that Wilson has a better team around him than Luck, but this idea that the Colts are Luck and nothing but scrubs is total crap. Hell, the Colts running game wasn't as awful this year as everyone thinks.
EdIt: The link I read was wrong. Seattle had 1920 rushing yards without adding Wilson's numbers. I should have fact checked it on PFR first.
That aside, the Colts still do have other good players on their team. It's not just Luck and a bunch of bums.
84 yards a game from their RBs isn't great, but it's not completely horrific. They had six games this year where they ran for 120+ as a team, and even had three games in the 169-175 range. That's not totally horrific. The games against Denver, NE and Dallas, games in which they fell behind early and abandoned the run, killed their team average. Don't get me wrong, they need to improve their running game, but they had plenty of good team rushing games this season, and Bradshaw was a great dual threat before getting hurt.
It's funny because there isn't room for the Seahawks to be much better.Why is that funny? Seattle is 30-7 the last two seasons with Wilson. Luck would really make them that much better?I'd take Wilson... His skillset is outrageous and I could see him doing easily as well on the Colts as Luck is. Luck, I don't think would make the Seahawks all that much better than they are with Wilson, because they'd still be feeding the ball to Marshawn Lynch. If anything, the numbers would be similar. Wilson has superior intangibles along with his incredible athletic skill.
As for intangibles, Wilson's are as good as Luck's, if not better. Why is that LOL-worthy?
I sometimes wonder if people really watch games anymore. Wilson is fantastic; so is Luck. A good argument can be made for either here, but this thought that the no-brainer answer is Luck is kinda silly.
Totally agree.I think if the Seahawks had drafted Hilton and the Colts had taken Baldwin, you'd be saying the exact same thing about Baldwin right now instead because Luck would have made him look better.Indy has NOTHING but Luck? Yeah, Vontae Davis is just garbage. TY Hilton? What a bum. Look, we all know that Wilson has a better team around him than Luck, but this idea that the Colts are Luck and nothing but scrubs is total crap. Hell, the Colts running game wasn't as awful this year as everyone thinks.
EdIt: The link I read was wrong. Seattle had 1920 rushing yards without adding Wilson's numbers. I should have fact checked it on PFR first.
That aside, the Colts still do have other good players on their team. It's not just Luck and a bunch of bums.
Hilton is a solid NFL WR. He's below average as a team's #1 WR, and there isn't much behind him.
/end thread. Luck is so good he would make Harvin 1st team All Pro on the Jets!If Luck were on this Seahawk team, the '72 Dolphins would be sweating bullets, the "Best ever?" talk would be heating up, and Percy Harvin would be a first team All Pro.
If Wilson were on the Colts, they'd win 4. Aaron Rodgers might be the only other guy who would have led the Colts to double digit wins.
Then u probably shouldnt talk about sportsI'm curious for those who are "Luck by a landslide" to try to ground this with hard data. I mean, the guy throws the ball a lot more so he's going to have more yardage. But outside of the attempts/yardage angle I don't see the efficiency metrics you think you'd see from someone miles better.
I'm more than willing to be wrong, but I'm going to need something more than your subjective (and likely biased) viewpoint.
Yeah, I assumed some sort of retort in that fashion. Funny, I tend to think if you want to have a debate on this subject you probably need to have an objective viewpoint. Sounds like you don't have the capacity for it.Then u probably shouldnt talk about sportsI'm curious for those who are "Luck by a landslide" to try to ground this with hard data. I mean, the guy throws the ball a lot more so he's going to have more yardage. But outside of the attempts/yardage angle I don't see the efficiency metrics you think you'd see from someone miles better.
I'm more than willing to be wrong, but I'm going to need something more than your subjective (and likely biased) viewpoint.