Starting a Team Today - Luck or Wilson (1 Viewer)

[Touchdown Syndrome]

Can't go wrong. Both are robot, mutant, uber QB's years ahead of their time.

Luck's bad beard is the difference, voted Russell.

Lol, but Luck gets the edge in talking smack.

 

[ghostguy123]

I'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.

Then u probably shouldnt talk about sports

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.

you want "hard data" regarding who is better at a sport. Hard data would only work if they each took a turn with the same team, using a time machine so the other could go back and get the same exact chance.

I am objective as they come. I have no dog in this fight. I go by what I see. I see a superior QB in Luck over Wilson. So does basically everyone else.

I don't care who has more yards, i care who is better. Thats the point of the thread.

So you are saying if the NFL had to start over, the team with the #1 pick should take WIlson, right?

 

[ghostguy123]

THe best hard data I can give you is that the Colts were horrific prior to Luck getting there, as in all time bad. In three years now, with not that much better of a team from then (if even better at all), they have won a ton of games, made the playoffs every year, win their division, and went to the AFC championship game this year.

They won all these games because of Luck, and without him (if they had average QB play) they are picking top 5 the past two years. But wait, crap, that is an opinion not hard data.

I can only imagine how much more efficient Luck would be with a stud RB and an ALL TIME great defense. Wilson doesn't even sniff the opportunity to try and bring his team back last week without his ALL TIME great defense bailing him out the entire game against the current best QB in the game, plus the comeback itself wasn't exactly all Wilson, either. I would like to see the Colts try running with 3 minutes left down 12, or try stopping a good offense for a 3 and out when they have to have it.

And from whoever asked the question before, yes I take Rodgers for 5-6 years over whatever WIlson would have left in him.

 

[FUBAR]

Can't go wrong. Both are robot, mutant, uber QB's years ahead of their time.

Luck's bad beard is the difference, voted Russell.

Luck's beard is almost ultra runner worthy. http://www.trailrunnermag.com/people/culture/1397-the-beards-of-ultrarunning

Gotta love it

 

[biju]

I'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.

Then u probably shouldnt talk about sports

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.

you want "hard data" regarding who is better at a sport. Hard data would only work if they each took a turn with the same team, using a time machine so the other could go back and get the same exact chance.

I am objective as they come. I have no dog in this fight. I go by what I see. I see a superior QB in Luck over Wilson. So does basically everyone else.

I don't care who has more yards, i care who is better. Thats the point of the thread.

So you are saying if the NFL had to start over, the team with the #1 pick should take WIlson, right?

Something tells me you don't understand the meaning of "objective".

 

[cstu]

I'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.

Luck has won 11 games in three straight years with defenses that were 21, 9, and 19 in points allowed.

Wilson has had the #1 defense all three years.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Seattle Oline. Seattle WRs. Not by a lot of anything, but that's my pick.

Lynch or RIchardson/Herron??

Seattle all time great D or Indy crap D?

Again, as I said before, Seattle can win games without throwing a single pass. Indy would lose 50-0 to most teams doing that.

Losing credibility with that choice. Seattle can't pass block and I'm not sure if they have a legitimate WR2 on their team. Were they even drafted?

 

[Chaz McNulty]

THe best hard data I can give you is that the Colts were horrific prior to Luck getting there, as in all time bad. In three years now, with not that much better of a team from then (if even better at all), they have won a ton of games, made the playoffs every year, win their division, and went to the AFC championship game this year.

They won all these games because of Luck, and without him (if they had average QB play) they are picking top 5 the past two years. But wait, crap, that is an opinion not hard data.

I can only imagine how much more efficient Luck would be with a stud RB and an ALL TIME great defense. Wilson doesn't even sniff the opportunity to try and bring his team back last week without his ALL TIME great defense bailing him out the entire game against the current best QB in the game, plus the comeback itself wasn't exactly all Wilson, either. I would like to see the Colts try running with 3 minutes left down 12, or try stopping a good offense for a 3 and out when they have to have it.

And from whoever asked the question before, yes I take Rodgers for 5-6 years over whatever WIlson would have left in him.

Losing more credibility. Are you saying that the scrub they had in before Luck (and after Peyton) gave them average QB play? That guy would have been lucky to pick up 5 wins on any team!

 

[biju]

I'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.

Luck has won 11 games in three straight years with defenses that were 21, 9, and 19 in points allowed.

Wilson has had the #1 defense all three years.

And that means what? You're telling me because Wilson has the #1 defense you know if they switched positions there would be a markedly different number of games won? I'm going to let you all in on a surprise--the Seahawks would still be a running team with Luck and he'd have the same "####ty" numbers Wilson does, but probably more INTs, a lower completion percentage, and more sacks.

It's weird that you want to compare something like that without taking into account the playcalling...

 

[Chaz McNulty]

THe best hard data I can give you is that the Colts were horrific prior to Luck getting there, as in all time bad. In three years now, with not that much better of a team from then (if even better at all), they have won a ton of games, made the playoffs every year, win their division, and went to the AFC championship game this year.

They won all these games because of Luck, and without him (if they had average QB play) they are picking top 5 the past two years. But wait, crap, that is an opinion not hard data.

I can only imagine how much more efficient Luck would be with a stud RB and an ALL TIME great defense. Wilson doesn't even sniff the opportunity to try and bring his team back last week without his ALL TIME great defense bailing him out the entire game against the current best QB in the game, plus the comeback itself wasn't exactly all Wilson, either. I would like to see the Colts try running with 3 minutes left down 12, or try stopping a good offense for a 3 and out when they have to have it.

And from whoever asked the question before, yes I take Rodgers for 5-6 years over whatever WIlson would have left in him.

It's really difficult to rate how bad the Colts were the prior year when they had that murderer's row of QB's in a retired Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter, and Dan Orlovsky.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I'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.

Then u probably shouldnt talk about sports

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.

you want "hard data" regarding who is better at a sport. Hard data would only work if they each took a turn with the same team, using a time machine so the other could go back and get the same exact chance.

I am objective as they come. I have no dog in this fight. I go by what I see. I see a superior QB in Luck over Wilson. So does basically everyone else.

I don't care who has more yards, i care who is better. Thats the point of the thread.

So you are saying if the NFL had to start over, the team with the #1 pick should take WIlson, right?

Something tells me you don't understand the meaning of "objective".

No kidding.

 

[ghostguy123]

I'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.

Then u probably shouldnt talk about sports

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.

you want "hard data" regarding who is better at a sport. Hard data would only work if they each took a turn with the same team, using a time machine so the other could go back and get the same exact chance.

I am objective as they come. I have no dog in this fight. I go by what I see. I see a superior QB in Luck over Wilson. So does basically everyone else.

I don't care who has more yards, i care who is better. Thats the point of the thread.

So you are saying if the NFL had to start over, the team with the #1 pick should take WIlson, right?

Something tells me you don't understand the meaning of "objective".

and you read that wrong.

I am objective. However, this is not a debate that can be settled based on facts. It's called sports.

You want a definitive answer to "who is better" based on facts?????? Doesnt exist. However, not too many people who know anything about football are going to side with Wilson here.

 

[ghostguy123]

Seattle Oline. Seattle WRs. Not by a lot of anything, but that's my pick.

Lynch or RIchardson/Herron??

Seattle all time great D or Indy crap D?

Again, as I said before, Seattle can win games without throwing a single pass. Indy would lose 50-0 to most teams doing that.

Losing credibility with that choice. Seattle can't pass block and I'm not sure if they have a legitimate WR2 on their team. Were they even drafted?

Does it matter if they were drafted? Luck has Nicks who sucks, Wayne who can barely run (dude got caught from behind when he was 10 yards ahead of someone after a catch), and Hilton who is decent but as someone said before, very comparable to a guy like Baldwin if he had a QB like Luck. Kearse is better than anyone other than Hilton on the Colts easily.

Neither Oline is particularly good, but I will take the one that is BARELY a lesser pass blocking line and a better run blocking line. And last I checked a great run game tends to help a QB. Maybe I am wrong there. I think I heard that once. Then again, I am losing credibility by the post.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think Hilton is a little better than "decent." Nearly every game I watch of theirs, he is open all day.

 

[ghostguy123]

THe best hard data I can give you is that the Colts were horrific prior to Luck getting there, as in all time bad. In three years now, with not that much better of a team from then (if even better at all), they have won a ton of games, made the playoffs every year, win their division, and went to the AFC championship game this year.

They won all these games because of Luck, and without him (if they had average QB play) they are picking top 5 the past two years. But wait, crap, that is an opinion not hard data.

I can only imagine how much more efficient Luck would be with a stud RB and an ALL TIME great defense. Wilson doesn't even sniff the opportunity to try and bring his team back last week without his ALL TIME great defense bailing him out the entire game against the current best QB in the game, plus the comeback itself wasn't exactly all Wilson, either. I would like to see the Colts try running with 3 minutes left down 12, or try stopping a good offense for a 3 and out when they have to have it.

And from whoever asked the question before, yes I take Rodgers for 5-6 years over whatever WIlson would have left in him.

Losing more credibility. Are you saying that the scrub they had in before Luck (and after Peyton) gave them average QB play? That guy would have been lucky to pick up 5 wins on any team!

No, that isnt what I said. Not sure what's up with me constantly losing credibility when you are responding to things I didn't say.

The scrub before Luck did NOT give them average QB play, which is why they go the #1 pick. Not the #5 pick. An average QB would have given them about the #5 pick. They were a terrible team. Average QBs don't win much on terrible teams. Bad QBs get the #1 pick on terrible teams.

So you take WIlson over Luck too then eh?

 

[ghostguy123]

I'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.

Luck has won 11 games in three straight years with defenses that were 21, 9, and 19 in points allowed.

Wilson has had the #1 defense all three years.

And that means what? You're telling me because Wilson has the #1 defense you know if they switched positions there would be a markedly different number of games won? I'm going to let you all in on a surprise--the Seahawks would still be a running team with Luck and he'd have the same "####ty" numbers Wilson does, but probably more INTs, a lower completion percentage, and more sacks.

It's weird that you want to compare something like that without taking into account the playcalling...

i uhhhhh, thought we were supposed to be objective here??? jesus straw dog

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think we need to remember that that 2011 Indy team was handicapped by Manning's injury not hitting them till late summer; it's not like they had all offseason to prepare for it. They were not a true 2-14 team.

 

[Freelove]

I'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.

Luck has won 11 games in three straight years with defenses that were 21, 9, and 19 in points allowed.

Wilson has had the #1 defense all three years.

And that means what? You're telling me because Wilson has the #1 defense you know if they switched positions there would be a markedly different number of games won? I'm going to let you all in on a surprise--the Seahawks would still be a running team with Luck and he'd have the same "####ty" numbers Wilson does, but probably more INTs, a lower completion percentage, and more sacks.

It's weird that you want to compare something like that without taking into account the playcalling...

Finally, something objective.

 

[ghostguy123]

Things I never thought would happen to be:

- lose credibility saying Luck is a better QB than WIlson.

Great thread

 

[ghostguy123]

51-5?? That is way more votes than I expected for Wilson

 

[Ghost Rider]

Things I never thought would happen to be:

- lose credibility saying Luck is a better QB than WIlson.

Great thread

I think Luck will be better than Wilson sooner rather than later, once he cuts down on the turnovers, but so far, after three years, Wilson has been just a tad better, IMO. However, Luck can still get better, and I think he will, but with him, we are still talking about potential to some extent, especially when you consider how the Colts generally beat up on bad teams this year and lost to most of the good teams they played (and got a lucky draw in the playoffs, getting to play the Bengals who are never good in the playoffs, and then the Broncos with an injured Manning). I know it's accepted to say, "Luck got an otherwise bad Colts team," to the AFCCG, but playing in a bad division and getting a fortunate playoff draw was a pretty big reason, too.

 

[ghostguy123]

Things I never thought would happen to be:

- lose credibility saying Luck is a better QB than WIlson.

Great thread

I think Luck will be better than Wilson sooner rather than later, once he cuts down on the turnovers, but so far, after three years, Wilson has been just a tad better, IMO. However, Luck can still get better, and I think he will, but with him, we are still talking about potential to some extent, especially when you consider how the Colts generally beat up on bad teams this year and lost to most of the good teams they played (and got a lucky draw in the playoffs, getting to play the Bengals who are never good in the playoffs, and then the Broncos with an injured Manning). I know it's accepted to say, "Luck got an otherwise bad Colts team," to the AFCCG, but playing in a bad division and getting a fortunate playoff draw was a pretty big reason, too.

Seems you are saying that since Wilson has won more games and had less turnovers that he is better??

While not taking into account that QBs are forced into things at times due to the "talent" around them.

One day, maybe very soon, Wilson will lose Lynch and a few elite defenders, get to play with a so-so supporting cast, and this thread will be bumped (certainly not by me, but I will appreciate it) to see how insane some people were.

 

[proninja]

I think the reason people think luck is obviously better is because he's taller and was drafted earlier. I can buy luck being better, but not as much as people seem to think. At least we've reached the point where everyone thinks Wilson is better than any punter.

 

[proninja]

I also think it's weird that people crucify Manning because he didn't have much success in the playoffs after dragging bad teams in a bad division there every year, and that same scenario is somehow proof that luck is better than a guy who has a ring and is playing for another one along with better rate stats.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

Nothing against Wilson, but Luck has the potential to be a top 5 all-timedon't entailisn't close.

The poll is as lopsided as I expected. Put luck on the Seahawks and they are even more dominant than they are now. Put Wilson on Indy and they don't even make the playoffs.

 

[ghostguy123]

I also think it's weird that people crucify Manning because he didn't have much success in the playoffs after dragging bad teams in a bad division there every year, and that same scenario is somehow proof that luck is better than a guy who has a ring and is playing for another one along with better rate stats.

There is really no "proof" of anything.

Going by what i see, luck is a far better qb and should be the #1 pick if the entire NFL had to start over. I think Luck would thrive in any situation, while wilson would not.

I guess i cant prove that though can I.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

THe best hard data I can give you is that the Colts were horrific prior to Luck getting there, as in all time bad. In three years now, with not that much better of a team from then (if even better at all), they have won a ton of games, made the playoffs every year, win their division, and went to the AFC championship game this year.

They won all these games because of Luck, and without him (if they had average QB play) they are picking top 5 the past two years. But wait, crap, that is an opinion not hard data.

I can only imagine how much more efficient Luck would be with a stud RB and an ALL TIME great defense. Wilson doesn't even sniff the opportunity to try and bring his team back last week without his ALL TIME great defense bailing him out the entire game against the current best QB in the game, plus the comeback itself wasn't exactly all Wilson, either. I would like to see the Colts try running with 3 minutes left down 12, or try stopping a good offense for a 3 and out when they have to have it.

And from whoever asked the question before, yes I take Rodgers for 5-6 years over whatever WIlson would have left in him.

Losing more credibility. Are you saying that the scrub they had in before Luck (and after Peyton) gave them average QB play? That guy would have been lucky to pick up 5 wins on any team!

No, that isnt what I said. Not sure what's up with me constantly losing credibility when you are responding to things I didn't say.

The scrub before Luck did NOT give them average QB play, which is why they go the #1 pick. Not the #5 pick. An average QB would have given them about the #5 pick. They were a terrible team. Average QBs don't win much on terrible teams. Bad QBs get the #1 pick on terrible teams.

So you take WIlson over Luck too then eh?

I would on Seattle. I wouldn't in a more conventional offense.

Even after Wilson gets paid next year they will be able to keep their defense because they spend next to nothing on TE's and WR's. And that is because Wilson can produce points in an unconventional manner.

And the people who say that Wilson benefits because of a great running game have to remember that he is responsible for half of that running game. Besides the yards he piles up, how much of an advantage to the running back is not having the Right or Left End crash down on each play (have to stay put to respect Wilson). Is that worth 1/2 yard per carry over the season?

 

[ghostguy123]

Not sure the question is which qb you would take for seattle.

Though i still take luck

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I also think it's weird that people crucify Manning because he didn't have much success in the playoffs after dragging bad teams in a bad division there every year, and that same scenario is somehow proof that luck is better than a guy who has a ring and is playing for another one along with better rate stats.

There is really no "proof" of anything.

Going by what i see, luck is a far better qb and should be the #1 pick if the entire NFL had to start over. I think Luck would thrive in any situation, while wilson would not.

I guess i cant prove that though can I.

I believe Wilson would thrive in most situations. The guy knows how to win and knows what it takes. Both guys have a ton of late come from behind wins.

 

[Niles Standish]

Why would anyone choose Wilson? Luck on that Seahawks team would be unfair.

Wilson on the Colts with actual good WRs would be, too.

Nothing against Wilson, but Luck has the potential to be a top 5 all-time QB. This isn't close.

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.

Would you rather have very good (maybe not great) WRs and an at best mediocre defense or what might go down as the best defense of all time and bad WRs?

 

[Niles Standish]

I also think it's weird that people crucify Manning because he didn't have much success in the playoffs after dragging bad teams in a bad division there every year, and that same scenario is somehow proof that luck is better than a guy who has a ring and is playing for another one along with better rate stats.

There is really no "proof" of anything.

Going by what i see, luck is a far better qb and should be the #1 pick if the entire NFL had to start over. I think Luck would thrive in any situation, while wilson would not.

I guess i cant prove that though can I.

I believe Wilson would thrive in most situations. The guy knows how to win and knows what it takes. Both guys have a ton of late come from behind wins.

My opinion is with that defense you shouldn't have too many comebacks. You lead your team to 14 points in the first 3 quarters and you don't need a comeback. They've allowed 730 points over the last 3 years or 15 ppg. In today's NFL that's unreal.

 

[ghostguy123]

Lot of qbs would know how to win with an all time great defense.

Wilson is really good, but just sayin.

Even looking at this year seattle hadnt played a playoff team in like the past 10 weeks. Cant say carolina really counts. And green bay had the game in a game wilson was terrible.

However some good fortune this year along with that incredible D has gotten them back in the super bowl.

A good qb looks one heck of a lot better playing with a historic D

 

[biju]

I'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.

Luck has won 11 games in three straight years with defenses that were 21, 9, and 19 in points allowed.

Wilson has had the #1 defense all three years.

And that means what? You're telling me because Wilson has the #1 defense you know if they switched positions there would be a markedly different number of games won? I'm going to let you all in on a surprise--the Seahawks would still be a running team with Luck and he'd have the same "####ty" numbers Wilson does, but probably more INTs, a lower completion percentage, and more sacks.

It's weird that you want to compare something like that without taking into account the playcalling...

Finally, something objective.

Good one!

 

[Ghost Rider]

Things I never thought would happen to be:

- lose credibility saying Luck is a better QB than WIlson.

Great thread

I think Luck will be better than Wilson sooner rather than later, once he cuts down on the turnovers, but so far, after three years, Wilson has been just a tad better, IMO. However, Luck can still get better, and I think he will, but with him, we are still talking about potential to some extent, especially when you consider how the Colts generally beat up on bad teams this year and lost to most of the good teams they played (and got a lucky draw in the playoffs, getting to play the Bengals who are never good in the playoffs, and then the Broncos with an injured Manning). I know it's accepted to say, "Luck got an otherwise bad Colts team," to the AFCCG, but playing in a bad division and getting a fortunate playoff draw was a pretty big reason, too.

Seems you are saying that since Wilson has won more games and had less turnovers that he is better??

While not taking into account that QBs are forced into things at times due to the "talent" around them.

One day, maybe very soon, Wilson will lose Lynch and a few elite defenders, get to play with a so-so supporting cast, and this thread will be bumped (certainly not by me, but I will appreciate it) to see how insane some people were.

Do you not think Wilson would do well with a lesser supporting cast (in regards to Lynch and that D, not his wretched WRs)?

 

[Ghost Rider]

I should say, too, that I think both Luck and Wilson are absolutely fantastic. There really is no wrong answer to this question. Both should be great for a long time.

 

[ghostguy123]

Things I never thought would happen to be:

- lose credibility saying Luck is a better QB than WIlson.

Great thread

I think Luck will be better than Wilson sooner rather than later, once he cuts down on the turnovers, but so far, after three years, Wilson has been just a tad better, IMO. However, Luck can still get better, and I think he will, but with him, we are still talking about potential to some extent, especially when you consider how the Colts generally beat up on bad teams this year and lost to most of the good teams they played (and got a lucky draw in the playoffs, getting to play the Bengals who are never good in the playoffs, and then the Broncos with an injured Manning). I know it's accepted to say, "Luck got an otherwise bad Colts team," to the AFCCG, but playing in a bad division and getting a fortunate playoff draw was a pretty big reason, too.

Seems you are saying that since Wilson has won more games and had less turnovers that he is better??

While not taking into account that QBs are forced into things at times due to the "talent" around them.

One day, maybe very soon, Wilson will lose Lynch and a few elite defenders, get to play with a so-so supporting cast, and this thread will be bumped (certainly not by me, but I will appreciate it) to see how insane some people were.

Do you not think Wilson would do well with a lesser supporting cast (in regards to Lynch and that D, not his wretched WRs)?

I dont think he would do nearly as well as Luck, which is the point of the thread.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I was way wrong about Wilson when he entered the league. He has proven me wrong time and time again. I don't think anyone here could say one way or another how successful Wilson would be in other systems, but I would not bet against him. He is a dual threat QB, one that is unique and he has so many positive characteristics. He is a winner, a great player and a great teammate and tough to root against. In saying that Luck is the most gifted young QB in the game and would win in a landslide as to who the GM's would take with the number 1 pick.

Luck has already proven that he can win and put up elite stats with a sub par team. He has carried the Colts and he masks just how bad that team actually is. The Colts are not a super bowl contender quite yet, but if they continue to build a competent D and add some pieces Luck will win a super bowl in time and be considered one of the best ever. Just because we do have results with Luck being great with a very sub par team is reason enough to pick him over Wilson. Look at another comparable situation to Luck... the Atlanta Falcons. A terrible D, a bad O line, no run game but have a good QB in Ryan and some pretty dam good WR's on that team. The Falcons have been bad the last 2 years with an above average QB. Take an above average QB, like Matt Ryan and the Colts would be that bad too, but look at what Luck is doing in that situation.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Lot of qbs would know how to win with an all time great defense.

Wilson is really good, but just sayin.

Even looking at this year seattle hadnt played a playoff team in like the past 10 weeks. Cant say carolina really counts. And green bay had the game in a game wilson was terrible.

However some good fortune this year along with that incredible D has gotten them back in the super bowl.

A good qb looks one heck of a lot better playing with a historic D

Seattle had the fifth toughest schedule in the NFL based on the season records of their opponents this year but if you "looked" at their schedule and say it was easy then the facts probably don't matter. Seattle also played the cardinals in week 16. The cardinals made the playoffs if you weren't aware.

Keep up the good work.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I think many don't realize Seattle had the 9th best offense in the NFL this year. When you hear an argument about Wilson everyone just points to the defense being the reason they win. The Seahawks were a top 10 offense in the NFL this year. How many knew that?

 

[mr roboto]

I think many don't realize Seattle had the 9th best offense in the NFL this year. When you hear an argument about Wilson everyone just points to the defense being the reason they win. The Seahawks were a top 10 offense in the NFL this year. How many knew that?

I agree with you here but it's all connected. When you're rarely down by more than a touchdown cause your defense rocks then it's easier to stay committed to the run and stay in control. And Seattle played several 'good' teams when they had their bad QBs playing so SOS is a bit of a red herring. Both AZ and PHI lost their starters.

Here's the murder's row of opposing QBs since week 7...

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=seattle-seahawks&id=11355&src=desktop

WEEK QB SEASON QBR

7 Austin Davis STL 37.6

8 Cam Newton CAR 56.9

9 Derek Carr OAK 38.4

10 Eli Manning NYG 70.9

11 Alex Smith KC 49.4

12 Drew Stanton ARI 58.0

13 Colin Kaepernick SF 55.9

14 Mark Sanchez PHI 58.2

15 Kaepernick SF 55.9

16 Ryan Lindley ARI 37.8

17 Shaun Hill STL 38.1

Div Newton CAR 56.9

 

[Bucky86]

Luck and it's really not close.

Unfortunately, I think the scouting/management on the Colts is one of the worst in the league. Besides drafting Luck, what has that GM done that has helped? Trich? What's happened to their last few first rounders?

 

[biju]

I think many don't realize Seattle had the 9th best offense in the NFL this year. When you hear an argument about Wilson everyone just points to the defense being the reason they win. The Seahawks were a top 10 offense in the NFL this year. How many knew that?

I agree with you here but it's all connected. When you're rarely down by more than a touchdown cause your defense rocks then it's easier to stay committed to the run and stay in control.And Seattle played several 'good' teams when they had their bad QBs playing so SOS is a bit of a red herring. Both AZ and PHI lost their starters.

Here's the murder's row of opposing QBs since week 7...

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=seattle-seahawks&id=11355&src=desktop

WEEK QB SEASON QBR

7 Austin Davis STL 37.6

8 Cam Newton CAR 56.9

9 Derek Carr OAK 38.4

10 Eli Manning NYG 70.9

11 Alex Smith KC 49.4

12 Drew Stanton ARI 58.0

13 Colin Kaepernick SF 55.9

14 Mark Sanchez PHI 58.2

15 Kaepernick SF 55.9

16 Ryan Lindley ARI 37.8

17 Shaun Hill STL 38.1

Div Newton CAR 56.9

Just so we're doing this both ways, here's the full list of Luck's opponents:

1: Manning (L)

2: Foles (L)

3: Bortles

4: Locker

5: Flacco

6: Someone from Houston

7: Dalton

8: Roethlisberger (L)

9: Eli

10: Brady (L)

11: Bortles again

12: Someone from Washington

13: Cleveland QB

14: More from Houston

15: Romo (L)

16: Tennessee punching bag

Wildcard: Dalton

Divisional: Manning, on half an arm and a torn thigh

Conference: Brady (L)

Looks like Luck beats up on garbage and loses to the big boys. Oh, but I'm sure this is due to the "terrible" team around him.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I think many don't realize Seattle had the 9th best offense in the NFL this year. When you hear an argument about Wilson everyone just points to the defense being the reason they win. The Seahawks were a top 10 offense in the NFL this year. How many knew that?

I agree with you here but it's all connected. When you're rarely down by more than a touchdown cause your defense rocks then it's easier to stay committed to the run and stay in control. And Seattle played several 'good' teams when they had their bad QBs playing so SOS is a bit of a red herring. Both AZ and PHI lost their starters.

Here's the murder's row of opposing QBs since week 7...http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=seattle-seahawks&id=11355&src=desktop

WEEK QB SEASON QBR

7 Austin Davis STL 37.6

8 Cam Newton CAR 56.9

9 Derek Carr OAK 38.4

10 Eli Manning NYG 70.9

11 Alex Smith KC 49.4

12 Drew Stanton ARI 58.0

13 Colin Kaepernick SF 55.9

14 Mark Sanchez PHI 58.2

15 Kaepernick SF 55.9

16 Ryan Lindley ARI 37.8

17 Shaun Hill STL 38.1

Div Newton CAR 56.9

I don't follow your logic. If a team is within a touchdown how does that make their offense better?

 

[mr roboto]

I think many don't realize Seattle had the 9th best offense in the NFL this year. When you hear an argument about Wilson everyone just points to the defense being the reason they win. The Seahawks were a top 10 offense in the NFL this year. How many knew that?

I agree with you here but it's all connected. When you're rarely down by more than a touchdown cause your defense rocks then it's easier to stay committed to the run and stay in control. And Seattle played several 'good' teams when they had their bad QBs playing so SOS is a bit of a red herring. Both AZ and PHI lost their starters.

Here's the murder's row of opposing QBs since week 7...http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=seattle-seahawks&id=11355&src=desktop

WEEK QB SEASON QBR

7 Austin Davis STL 37.6

8 Cam Newton CAR 56.9

9 Derek Carr OAK 38.4

10 Eli Manning NYG 70.9

11 Alex Smith KC 49.4

12 Drew Stanton ARI 58.0

13 Colin Kaepernick SF 55.9

14 Mark Sanchez PHI 58.2

15 Kaepernick SF 55.9

16 Ryan Lindley ARI 37.8

17 Shaun Hill STL 38.1

Div Newton CAR 56.9

I don't follow your logic. If a team is within a touchdown how does that make their offense better?

It makes their offense more versitile. Wilson is rarely asked to win the game down 10 by throwing 30 times in the second half. Wilson is a very good QB. Very good. And a great leader. On a much better team.

He'll look at Flacco and Alex Smith (neither are as good as Wilson). When they've been on great teams with solid organizations they've been servicable and 'winning'. Teams win games. SEA is a bear historicly great defense with a probable HOF RB. And a very good QB. Which is why they are in their 2 SB in 2 years.

 

[Hooper31]

Luck, but I'm very grateful having Wilson as our QB in Seattle.

 

[habsfan]

Seattle fan and Wilson fan but I would trade him for Luck in a microsecond.

 

[CalBear]

Man, the mythology is amazing.

YPA: Wilson 7.9, Luck 7.1

AY/A: Wilson 8.2, Luck 7.0

Passer rating: Wilson 98.6, Luck 86.6

Rushing YPA: Wilson 6.1, Luck 4.8

TD%: Wilson 5.8%, Luck 4.7%

INT%: Wilson 1.5%, Luck 2.5%

Wilson has performed better in virtually every passing stat than Luck, not even including the playoff differential.

 

[Hooper31]

Man, the mythology is amazing.

YPA: Wilson 7.9, Luck 7.1

AY/A: Wilson 8.2, Luck 7.0

Passer rating: Wilson 98.6, Luck 86.6

Rushing YPA: Wilson 6.1, Luck 4.8

TD%: Wilson 5.8%, Luck 4.7%

INT%: Wilson 1.5%, Luck 2.5%

Wilson has performed better in virtually every passing stat than Luck, not even including the playoff differential.

Seriously? Why would anyone bother with this?

 

[CalBear]

Man, the mythology is amazing.

YPA: Wilson 7.9, Luck 7.1

AY/A: Wilson 8.2, Luck 7.0

Passer rating: Wilson 98.6, Luck 86.6

Rushing YPA: Wilson 6.1, Luck 4.8

TD%: Wilson 5.8%, Luck 4.7%

INT%: Wilson 1.5%, Luck 2.5%

Wilson has performed better in virtually every passing stat than Luck, not even including the playoff differential.

Seriously? Why would anyone bother with this?

Because it speaks to how they've actually performed on the field, as opposed to how they were expected to perform on the field coming out of college.

 

[ghostguy123]

Lot of qbs would know how to win with an all time great defense.

Wilson is really good, but just sayin.

Even looking at this year seattle hadnt played a playoff team in like the past 10 weeks. Cant say carolina really counts. And green bay had the game in a game wilson was terrible.

However some good fortune this year along with that incredible D has gotten them back in the super bowl.

A good qb looks one heck of a lot better playing with a historic D

Seattle had the fifth toughest schedule in the NFL based on the season records of their opponents this year but if you "looked" at their schedule and say it was easy then the facts probably don't matter.Seattle also played the cardinals in week 16. The cardinals made the playoffs if you weren't aware.

Keep up the good work.

The Cardinals were maybe the worst playoff team in the past decade given their injuries and QB situation.