Comparing Russell Wilson and Andrew Luck vs common opponents (1 Viewer)

[GregR]

I'm not a huge fan of doing the "look at how team A did against team B, and look at how Team C did against team B", and try to draw something meaningful from it.

But still, maybe the large number of games or whatever, but the results of this blew my mind a bit. Russell and Luck have played 7 common opponents. Russell's stats pretty much blow away Luck's. Though there's a lot of context missing (like how much they have to carry their team's offense), even with that the results surprised me. Follow the link to see the stats:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/83695/wilson-luck-vs-same-seven-opponents

 

[Kleck]

I agree. Different teams matchup differently. Still a good read and some interesting numbers.

 

[Ghost Rider]

What cannot be ignored is Wilson is supported by the 4th ranked defense, while Luck's COlts have the 21st ranked defense. You're under a lot less pressure to play well and not turn the ball over when you know your defense probably isn't gonna give up a lot of points.

For example, Luck had to bring his team back from 21-3 against the Packers, while Wilson saw his defense play absolutely lights out against the Packers offense, and yet he still needed a blown call to get more than 7 points on the board against the Packers D, the same D Luck lit up for 30 points.

Luck put up 20 on the Bears defense, but lost because they gave up 41. Meanwhile, Wilson put up less points in regulation against that same D, but because his D played great and also held the Bears to 17 points, Wilson was able to get to OT and get the win.

Plus, stats can sometimes be misleading. Wilson had a QBR of 90+ with 2 TDs and 0 INTs vs Miami, but led the offense to only 14 points in a 24-21 loss. Meanwhile, Luck had technically a lower QBR against Miami, despite also throwing 2 TDs and O INTs in leading the Colts to a 23-20 win over Miami.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Wilson continues to make people look stupid.

 

[ImTheScientist]

What cannot be ignored is Wilson is supported by the 4th ranked defense, while Luck's COlts have the 21st ranked defense. You're under a lot less pressure to play well and not turn the ball over when you know your defense probably isn't gonna give up a lot of points. For example, Luck had to bring his team back from 21-3 against the Packers, while Wilson saw his defense play absolutely lights out against the Packers offense, and yet he still needed a blown call to get more than 7 points on the board against the Packers D, the same D Luck lit up for 30 points.Luck put up 20 on the Bears defense, but lost because they gave up 41. Meanwhile, Wilson put up less points in regulation against that same D, but because his D played great and also held the Bears to 17 points, Wilson was able to get to OT and get the win.Plus, stats can sometimes be misleading. Wilson had a QBR of 90+ with 2 TDs and 0 INTs vs Miami, but led the offense to only 14 points in a 24-21 loss. Meanwhile, Luck had technically a lower QBR against Miami, despite also throwing 2 TDs and O INTs in leading the Colts to a 23-20 win over Miami.

Stats are the stats. Stop the excuses.

 

[Neofight]

These numbers show what their respective overall season numbers show: Luck wings it a lot more and is far less efficient in doing so. The one argument to be made for Luck in terms of the ROY is that he has had more thrown at him from day one in terms of play calling, packages and personnel. He actually has run a more multiple offense than Peyton Manning ran in Indy at any point in his carreer(and that's saying something); but he hasn't really progressed in terms of efficiency over the course of the season.

Wilson has not only improved week by week, but has had the playbook opened up for him in the process. A microcosm of Wilson's season can be seen in the closing of the last two games. In the loss to Miami the coaching staff went away from the zone option and basically took the ball out of Wilson's hands. They lost and Carroll took the blame. Against the best pass D in the league they let him do his thing in crunch time and he delivered, just as he has throughout the season when asked to. Wilson has shown he is capable of leading game winning drives since the first week of the season, but the coaching staff chose to bring him along slowly. Now the training wheels are off and he has been dominant for stretches against quality opponents.

The other thing I see mentioned is the advantage of Wilson having a superior defense. This is not an advantage at all in terms of passing attempts and scoring. Moreover, the Seahawks D has been just above average since the mid point of the season. As they have given away leads down the stretch Wilson has remained composed and given them the lead back... sometimes more than once.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

What cannot be ignored is Wilson is supported by the 4th ranked defense, while Luck's COlts have the 21st ranked defense. You're under a lot less pressure to play well and not turn the ball over when you know your defense probably isn't gonna give up a lot of points. For example, Luck had to bring his team back from 21-3 against the Packers, while Wilson saw his defense play absolutely lights out against the Packers offense, and yet he still needed a blown call to get more than 7 points on the board against the Packers D, the same D Luck lit up for 30 points.Luck put up 20 on the Bears defense, but lost because they gave up 41. Meanwhile, Wilson put up less points in regulation against that same D, but because his D played great and also held the Bears to 17 points, Wilson was able to get to OT and get the win.Plus, stats can sometimes be misleading. Wilson had a QBR of 90+ with 2 TDs and 0 INTs vs Miami, but led the offense to only 14 points in a 24-21 loss. Meanwhile, Luck had technically a lower QBR against Miami, despite also throwing 2 TDs and O INTs in leading the Colts to a 23-20 win over Miami.

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous. For example:Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous. For example:Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

Agreed. It might be a better rating system than the passer rating (which doesn't factor in rushing by the QB or game situations or anything), but it is still deeply flawed. How can Luck and his 17-16 TD-INT ratio, his pitiful completion percentage and his mediocre YPA have a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers??

 

[comfortably numb]

Wilson continues to make people look stupid.

I have to give Herm Edwards a lot credit. He had said if the Jets wanted a wildcat QB they could have just drafted Wilson instead of the circus that is Tebow.Wilson is a lot more than just a Wildcat QB but would have been a good prospect without the circus.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Wilson continues to make people look stupid.

I have to give Herm Edwards a lot credit. He had said if the Jets wanted a wildcat QB they could have just drafted Wilson instead of the circus that is Tebow.Wilson is a lot more than just a Wildcat QB but would have been a good prospect without the circus.

When I read stuff like this I get the feeling not many have actually seen Wilson play.

 

[Vision6]

All this article proves is stats have a lot less importance than people give them.

For instance where's the stat that shows that Luck is carrying his team while Wilson is managing his. Not a shot at Wilson, the kid has been fantastic, but its laughable to suggest he's superior to Luck.

 

[CapnJB]

For instance where's the stat that shows that Luck is carrying his team while Wilson is managing his.

Are you suggesting that Wilson mearly managed his team to a 97 yard scoring drive with less than 4 minutes left in the game, on the road, in Chicago. Then simply mananged the team to another 80 yard drive on their next possesion for a gaming winning TD in OT? He's not exactly Dilfer if you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Quibbler]

Interesting, but let's not forget that the Seahawks were a playoff team last year, while the Colts were a hot mess.

The Seahawks O-line hasn't lived up to expectations this year, but it's been well above average; the Colts' is still horrible. That's a pretty big caveat when comparing Luck vs. Wilson.

 

[chinawildman]

It helps when you have the NFL's 2nd leading rusher playing in the backfield. Seriously do you seahawk fans actually PREFER Wilson over Luck?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Both are good but Luck is better.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Seriously do you seahawk fans actually PREFER Wilson over Luck?

I do. But I don't represent everyone. Then again, I was on the Wilson bus before he was drafted on the Hawks.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Interesting, but let's not forget that the Seahawks were a playoff team last year, while the Colts were a hot mess.

I must have missed that..... hawks and the playoffs last year. Lets not forget the Colts were a 10 win team 2 years ago, having a 3rd string QB throwing the ball last year wasn't good for the Colts record.

 

[CapnJB]

Interesting, but let's not forget that the Seahawks were a playoff team last year, while the Colts were a hot mess.

And who did they play in your world?

 

[DoubleG]

Seriously do you seahawk fans actually PREFER Wilson over Luck?

I do. But I don't represent everyone. Then again, I was on the Wilson bus before he was drafted on the Hawks.

"by"

 

[Neofight]

Interesting, but let's not forget that the Seahawks were a playoff team last year, while the Colts were a hot mess.

The Seahawks O-line hasn't lived up to expectations this year, but it's been well above average; the Colts' is still horrible. That's a pretty big caveat when comparing Luck vs. Wilson.

Their records last year aren't relevant. It only points out that each team had inferior QB's to this years version, for each particular team. Indy was simply not prepared to play without Peyton Manning and paid a steep price. Had Luck been there last year they would have won more games. Had Wilson been there last year they would have done the same. Painter was and is simply that bad.As far as O-line goes, according to Football Outsiders the Colts have a better pass protecting line this year.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

Wilson has been very good this year. He is 4th in the entire league (behind Rodgers, P. Manning and Griffin) in attempts per TD at 16.7. For comparison; Luck has thrown a TD once every 29.6 attempts.

Both Wilson and RGIII have been incredibly efficient QBs for QBs of any experience level. Luck has a ton of yards, but also a ton of attempts (3rd in the league). Even though he's thrown it a lot, he hasn't been particularly efficient.

In the history of rookie QBs, there is a good probability that RGIII is having the greatest rookie season ever. I didn't think Cam Netwon's rookie season would ever be topped. Wilson might be having the 3rd best rookie QB season ever. Luck's is comparable to that of Big Ben, Peyton, Ryan and Bradford. Although, with the pace Luck is on, he could end up with the 3rd or 4th best rookie QB season ever.

 

[chinawildman]

Russell is 7th in QB rating so far this year. There's a guy who's 3 spot above him at #4 who just got BENCHED. That should tell you just how irrelevant QB rating is in evaluation of a player's performance.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Russell is 7th in QB rating so far this year. There's a guy who's 3 spot above him at #4 who just got BENCHED. That should tell you just how irrelevant QB rating is in evaluation of a player's performance.

Smith didn't get benched because of his QB rating. Suggesting that is laughable.

 

[smackdaddies]

Russell is 7th in QB rating so far this year. There's a guy who's 3 spot above him at #4 who just got BENCHED. That should tell you just how irrelevant QB rating is in evaluation of a player's performance.

Smith didn't get benched because of his QB rating. Suggesting that is laughable.

not what he suggested.

 

[Neofight]

Russell is 7th in QB rating so far this year. There's a guy who's 3 spot above him at #4 who just got BENCHED. That should tell you just how irrelevant QB rating is in evaluation of a player's performance.

It might tell you more about the coach who may be second guessing that decision. But yeah, Smith is not the QB Wilson is.

 

[GregR]

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous. For example:Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

Agreed. It might be a better rating system than the passer rating (which doesn't factor in rushing by the QB or game situations or anything), but it is still deeply flawed. How can Luck and his 17-16 TD-INT ratio, his pitiful completion percentage and his mediocre YPA have a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers??

Actually one of my biggest beefs with QBR is their accounting for game situation too much. What they do on a third down conversion, and particularly different lengths of 3rd down conversion, should be taken into account."Clutch" situations and come from behind wins? Ludicrous to include in something like this. Which would you rather have? A QB who scores 28 points throughout a game or one who only manages 7 points then suddenly goes off for 21 in the last 7 minutes? The first QB either got you a lead, possibly making the other team one-dimensional and giving you options of balancing defense vs clock... or at worst he kept you in it so that you didn't have to be one dimensional. While the latter QB let the other team rack up a lead so you likely had to shut down the run and go one dimensional.If you are actually interested in winning football games, the former QB has the performance that put your team in the best position to win. Yet QBR will rate the latter QB higher is my understanding.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous. For example:Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

Agreed. It might be a better rating system than the passer rating (which doesn't factor in rushing by the QB or game situations or anything), but it is still deeply flawed. How can Luck and his 17-16 TD-INT ratio, his pitiful completion percentage and his mediocre YPA have a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers??

It is becaase the QBR factors in some sort of dumb rushing factor and this has given 22.2 points of his 71.6 total to rushing. That is THE main reason Luck is so high in the QBR rating. RG3 has 10.6 points of the QBR from rushing...not sure how Luck has 22.2.

 

[GregR]

Like I said in the OP, the stats by themselves are missing a lot of the context, which several others then interjected.

Though if you'd asked me to guess what their stats were, taking all of that into account, I just still don't think I'd have come up with anything so lopsided to the degree it is.

 

[Hang 10]

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous. For example:Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

Agreed. It might be a better rating system than the passer rating (which doesn't factor in rushing by the QB or game situations or anything), but it is still deeply flawed. How can Luck and his 17-16 TD-INT ratio, his pitiful completion percentage and his mediocre YPA have a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers??

It is becaase the QBR factors in some sort of dumb rushing factor and this has given 22.2 points of his 71.6 total to rushing. That is THE main reason Luck is so high in the QBR rating. RG3 has 10.6 points of the QBR from rushing...not sure how Luck has 22.2.

Prolly because the stat is stupid.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Like I said in the OP, the stats by themselves are missing a lot of the context, which several others then interjected.Though if you'd asked me to guess what their stats were, taking all of that into account, I just still don't think I'd have come up with anything so lopsided to the degree it is.

I have been paying close attention to Luck and RW stats quite a bit throughout the season, and this article does not surprise me in the slightest. You have the RW bandwagon which points to efficiency and you have the Luck bandwagon dismissing that because of other factors of the team (i.e. defense and running game).You have the Luck bandwagon which points to his passing yards and team record, and you have the RW bandwagon dismissing it based on high number of pass attempts and a weak schedule. The argument will rage on. P.S. RG3 or RW should win the Offensive ROY. If Luck wins, it is a 100% popularity contest.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous. For example:Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

Agreed. It might be a better rating system than the passer rating (which doesn't factor in rushing by the QB or game situations or anything), but it is still deeply flawed. How can Luck and his 17-16 TD-INT ratio, his pitiful completion percentage and his mediocre YPA have a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers??

Actually one of my biggest beefs with QBR is their accounting for game situation too much. What they do on a third down conversion, and particularly different lengths of 3rd down conversion, should be taken into account."Clutch" situations and come from behind wins? Ludicrous to include in something like this. Which would you rather have? A QB who scores 28 points throughout a game or one who only manages 7 points then suddenly goes off for 21 in the last 7 minutes? The first QB either got you a lead, possibly making the other team one-dimensional and giving you options of balancing defense vs clock... or at worst he kept you in it so that you didn't have to be one dimensional. While the latter QB let the other team rack up a lead so you likely had to shut down the run and go one dimensional.If you are actually interested in winning football games, the former QB has the performance that put your team in the best position to win. Yet QBR will rate the latter QB higher is my understanding.

Completely agree. A QB who scores 28 points in the 4th quarter of every game shouldn't be more valued than a QB who can score 40 points in the first half of every game.

 

[DevilintheDetail]

So, if Seattle's CB's get suspended so their defense is as bad as the Colts but Wilson keeps doing what he's doing (statistically besting Luck), everyone here will agree Wilson (or RGIII) deserves ROY? Great.

 

[MarcO]

I'd suspect that if opponents were asked which is the "better" QB that they faced - 9 of 10 would say Luck. From what I've seen, he beats their defenses straight up - meaning for the most part he is effective at moving the ball against a defense that is schemed to stop his offense. He's very good at making the right reads to break down the defense.

Wilson has done this too (but I don't think he has done it as well or as much as Luck)- but when he is most dangerous is when the defense has taken away those initial reads (or he doesn't find them - two plays in a row in CHI he didn't see his TE wide open) and he gets out of the pocket - he now has the advantage over the defense that doesn't get enough practice at defending these situations - and he's been making them pay. Both drives against Chicago he had the DEF on their heels, rolling out and throwing or keeping the ball picking up big gains on the ground.

I could be wrong but it's my observation from watching all of Wilson's games and a handful of Luck's.

disclaimer - I'm a Seahawk fan. I LOVE Wilson, and love the Hawks with Wilson as their QB. But if I was starting a franchise with a QB, it sure wouldn't be Wilson over RG3 or Luck.

 

[bonesman]

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous.

For example:

Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5

Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

Agreed. It might be a better rating system than the passer rating (which doesn't factor in rushing by the QB or game situations or anything), but it is still deeply flawed. How can Luck and his 17-16 TD-INT ratio, his pitiful completion percentage and his mediocre YPA have a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers??

Actually one of my biggest beefs with QBR is their accounting for game situation too much. What they do on a third down conversion, and particularly different lengths of 3rd down conversion, should be taken into account."Clutch" situations and come from behind wins? Ludicrous to include in something like this. Which would you rather have? A QB who scores 28 points throughout a game or one who only manages 7 points then suddenly goes off for 21 in the last 7 minutes? The first QB either got you a lead, possibly making the other team one-dimensional and giving you options of balancing defense vs clock... or at worst he kept you in it so that you didn't have to be one dimensional. While the latter QB let the other team rack up a lead so you likely had to shut down the run and go one dimensional.

If you are actually interested in winning football games, the former QB has the performance that put your team in the best position to win. Yet QBR will rate the latter QB higher is my understanding.

A QB can't let the other team rack up a lead unless he's turning it over which will make his QBR lower.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I'd suspect that if opponents were asked which is the "better" QB that they faced - 9 of 10 would say Luck. From what I've seen, he beats their defenses straight up - meaning for the most part he is effective at moving the ball against a defense that is schemed to stop his offense. He's very good at making the right reads to break down the defense.

wrong.

 

[Hooper31]

It helps when you have the NFL's 2nd leading rusher playing in the backfield. Seriously do you seahawk fans actually PREFER Wilson over Luck?

Please don't blanket all Seattle fans with the ramblings of one blind homer.

 

[Slider]

They're both very good. I think Wilson will get a little better while Luck will master the league.

 

[Hooper31]

Wilson continues to make people look stupid.

I have to give Herm Edwards a lot credit. He had said if the Jets wanted a wildcat QB they could have just drafted Wilson instead of the circus that is Tebow.Wilson is a lot more than just a Wildcat QB but would have been a good prospect without the circus.

When I read stuff like this I get the feeling not many have actually seen Wilson play.

Scientist brings up a good point.Wilson is NOT a running quarterback. I still don't believe he's very good at it. They have been using the read option a bunch lately, but if you watch closely he's just guessing and guessing correctly. A quarterback that is skilled at the read option will hold the ball in the running back's gut until the last moment while focusing on the defensive end. If the defensive end is crashing down on the play the quarterback will keep the ball. I believe the success of this play in Seattle is more coach Bevell making the call ahead of time. Wilson is doing more of a fake to Lynch on the play and just taking off into wide open space.I'm not saying Wilson is a poor runner, but he's not a skilled option read quarterback. Also, I think some are assuming Wilson ran that sort of offense in college. That's certainly not the case. If anything its ironic that he's having success with a play that he never ran in college that he's running poorly in the pros (and getting a bit lucky). That's just my opinion.

 

[Hooper31]

So, if Seattle's CB's get suspended so their defense is as bad as the Colts but Wilson keeps doing what he's doing (statistically besting Luck), everyone here will agree Wilson (or RGIII) deserves ROY? Great.

Seattle will miss Sherman a lot, but Browner not as much. They have a young kid named Lane on the sidelines that has major potential IMO. He's big and fast with a nasty attitude. Also, they just got Walter Thurmond back from injury. I don't think the missing CBs will be as big a deal as some want it to be. Further, I would guess that if there are suspensions they won't occur simultaneously throughout. One of them is likely to be delayed. I know a hearing for Browner is next week while the Sherman hearing isn't even set yet (I might have those backwards).

 

[GregR]

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous.

For example:

Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5

Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

Agreed. It might be a better rating system than the passer rating (which doesn't factor in rushing by the QB or game situations or anything), but it is still deeply flawed. How can Luck and his 17-16 TD-INT ratio, his pitiful completion percentage and his mediocre YPA have a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers??

Actually one of my biggest beefs with QBR is their accounting for game situation too much. What they do on a third down conversion, and particularly different lengths of 3rd down conversion, should be taken into account."Clutch" situations and come from behind wins? Ludicrous to include in something like this. Which would you rather have? A QB who scores 28 points throughout a game or one who only manages 7 points then suddenly goes off for 21 in the last 7 minutes? The first QB either got you a lead, possibly making the other team one-dimensional and giving you options of balancing defense vs clock... or at worst he kept you in it so that you didn't have to be one dimensional. While the latter QB let the other team rack up a lead so you likely had to shut down the run and go one dimensional.

If you are actually interested in winning football games, the former QB has the performance that put your team in the best position to win. Yet QBR will rate the latter QB higher is my understanding.

A QB can't let the other team rack up a lead unless he's turning it over which will make his QBR lower.

Sure he can. If he's Tim Tebow-esque and rarely scores in the first 3 quarters to keep pace with the opponent, he's let them rack up a lead compared to the QB who scores identical but does it throughout the game. And playing with a lead, or playing against an opponent with a lead can have consequences.

 

[bonesman]

I'm a big fan of ESPN's attempt to come up with a better statistic for QB performance than QB rating, but their unwillingness to make adjustments to how their QBR stat is calculated amidst legitimate complaints is ridiculous.

For example:

Aaron Rodgers vs. the Rams in Week 7: 30/37, 342 passing yards, 3 passing TDs. QBR of 95.5

Colin Kaepernick vs. the Jets in Week 2: 0/1, 0 passing yards, 50 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. QBR of 100.0

Agreed. It might be a better rating system than the passer rating (which doesn't factor in rushing by the QB or game situations or anything), but it is still deeply flawed. How can Luck and his 17-16 TD-INT ratio, his pitiful completion percentage and his mediocre YPA have a better QBR than Aaron Rodgers??

Actually one of my biggest beefs with QBR is their accounting for game situation too much. What they do on a third down conversion, and particularly different lengths of 3rd down conversion, should be taken into account."Clutch" situations and come from behind wins? Ludicrous to include in something like this. Which would you rather have? A QB who scores 28 points throughout a game or one who only manages 7 points then suddenly goes off for 21 in the last 7 minutes? The first QB either got you a lead, possibly making the other team one-dimensional and giving you options of balancing defense vs clock... or at worst he kept you in it so that you didn't have to be one dimensional. While the latter QB let the other team rack up a lead so you likely had to shut down the run and go one dimensional.

If you are actually interested in winning football games, the former QB has the performance that put your team in the best position to win. Yet QBR will rate the latter QB higher is my understanding.

A QB can't let the other team rack up a lead unless he's turning it over which will make his QBR lower.

Sure he can. If he's Tim Tebow-esque and rarely scores in the first 3 quarters to keep pace with the opponent, he's let them rack up a lead compared to the QB who scores identical but does it throughout the game. And playing with a lead, or playing against an opponent with a lead can have consequences.

That was a unique situation and I think it had much more to do with the playcalling throughout the game than the actual play of Tebow. They would barely pass the ball through the first few quarters then chuck it in the 4th.But yea, of course everyone wants QB1 in your scenario and QBR is flawed.

 

[Ryan99]

If you look at RoY as a "most valuable" type award it should still go to Luck over Wilson. Wilson may have had a better seen from an efficiency standpoint, but Luck is a more valuable part of his team's success.

 

[Neofight]

If you look at RoY as a "most valuable" type award it should still go to Luck over Wilson. Wilson may have had a better seen from an efficiency standpoint, but Luck is a more valuable part of his team's success.

How are you quantifying that?

 

[Hang 10]

Luck is a one man gang! His team is complete gutter trash and he's the only reason they've scored a single point this season. He's even willed the defense to get stops on 3rd downs by virtue of his neckbeard. And the only reason he's given the other team the ball 20+ times is so he can come back in the 4th quarter to strengthen his total QBR clutch score!

 

[chinawildman]

If you look at RoY as a "most valuable" type award it should still go to Luck over Wilson. Wilson may have had a better seen from an efficiency standpoint, but Luck is a more valuable part of his team's success.

How are you quantifying that?

Russell is playing with the NFL's 3rd ranked scoring defense and the NFL's 2nd leading rusher. Their passing offense ranks 30th in the league and their team is 7-5.Luck is playing with the 24th scoring defense and the 18th ranked rushing offense. Their passing offense ranks 5th in the league and they have a record of 8-4.I think it's pretty obvious who's been more valuable to their team's success.

 

[Neofight]

If you look at RoY as a "most valuable" type award it should still go to Luck over Wilson. Wilson may have had a better seen from an efficiency standpoint, but Luck is a more valuable part of his team's success.

How are you quantifying that?

Russell is playing with the NFL's 3rd ranked scoring defense and the NFL's 2nd leading rusher. Their passing offense ranks 30th in the league and their team is 7-5.Luck is playing with the 24th scoring defense and the 18th ranked rushing offense. Their passing offense ranks 5th in the league and they have a record of 8-4.I think it's pretty obvious who's been more valuable to their team's success.

Are you factoring the competition into any of this?

 

[packseasontix]

For instance where's the stat that shows that Luck is carrying his team while Wilson is managing his.

Are you suggesting that Wilson mearly managed his team to a 97 yard scoring drive with less than 4 minutes left in the game, on the road, in Chicago. Then simply mananged the team to another 80 yard drive on their next possesion for a gaming winning TD in OT? He's not exactly Dilfer if you haven't been paying attention.

Did you watch the overtime?3 Passes and 9 RushesAlso in the Q4 drive he is lucky he didnt throw an interception. Another note on that drive as I re-watched it pretty much every pass on that drive except the one down the middle to Rice was a short dump off. Not saying that it still wasnt an accomplishment as it was against the Bears as the same time the OT was not Wilson.You are trying to put that whole game on Wilson's shoulders when it was not. He led a late TD drive where he looked good....At this point in his career Wilson is the Bentley of game managers and as his chains come off might be one of the better quarterbacks out there. Wilson is a great fit for teams like Seattle/49ers/Jets/RavensLuck is a great fit for teams like Colts/Packers/Patriots/Saints

 

[EBF]

Wilson - 317 pass attempts

Luck - 503 pass attempts

No comparison.

Wilson only throws when it's favorable.

Luck always throws.

For that reason, you can't compare their stats. Put Luck in a game manager role and he would probably much more efficient than he is in his current role.

 

[Neofight]

EBF is on his game tonight.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Wilson - 317 pass attemptsLuck - 503 pass attemptsNo comparison.Wilson only throws when it's favorable.Luck always throws. For that reason, you can't compare their stats. Put Luck in a game manager role and he would probably much more efficient than he is in his current role.

Wilson - 19passing TDs, 8intsLuck - 17passing TDs, 16intsNo comparison.