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

[Yenrub]

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.

I think Wilson could lead the Colts to an AFC South title

 

[mr roboto]

Luck could do most of what Wilson does re:running and read option.

 

[T with T]

Luck and not even in the same ballpark

how many rings does luck have?

 

[T with T]

Luck may be more skilled and scout likable but Russell has Better intangibles and seems to be more of a fiery competitor, two things that are imperative to Super Bowl Winning qbs... Luck is the all bang for your buck stat guy with bad turnovers and crappy playoff performances up to this point... Russ has definately accomplished more but has had the better team for sure. Still like Russ Better at this point in time.

 

[T with T]

Luck has tons of media hype ala peyton manning, another career loser.....

 

[T with T]

Russ does everything better but gets no credit. Typical Fu***** media bs.

 

[Ghost Rider]

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.

I keep forgetting this isn't a team game.

Luck throws a screen pass to Richardson who gets 1 yard while Wilson throws a screen pass to Lynch who gets a 30 yard TD. Same play, same pass, worse stats for Luck.

Also much easier to throw when the defense actually has to acknowledge you have a run game.

Keep the stats coming though. After all, they are the only thing that matters.

Luck pretty clearly has better receivers than Wilson. Marshawn had a total of 367 yards receiving this year; Ahmad Bradshaw had 300, Richardson and Herron combined for over 400. And Hilton/Wayne/Fleener against Baldwin/Kearse/L.Wilson is not even close.

If you want to look at something other than stats, Seattle also got further than Indianapolis.

I'm really struggling to see why so many people think Luck has shown (on the NFL football field) that he's better than Wilson. Other than assertions, what do you have?

He's got nothing else, except his Lloyd Christmas impersonation ("la la la la la").

 

[Ghost Rider]

Carry on looking at box scores.

Yeah, if you take away stats, winning games, the eye test, and how they play on the field, Luck is clearly better, right?

 

[mr roboto]

Carry on looking at box scores.

Yeah, if you take away stats, winning games, the eye test, and how they play on the field, Luck is clearly better, right?

And if you think playing for Sea is comparable to playing for Indy I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Reegus]

Wilson is basically a darker more athletic Trent Dilfer.

 

[FUBAR]

Wilson is basically a darker more athletic Trent Dilfer.

Better looking too

 

[ghostguy123]

Luck and not even in the same ballpark

how many rings does luck have?

Same amount as Marino, why?

Half the qbs in the league win a ring with seattle last year

 

[Ghost Rider]

Carry on looking at box scores.

Yeah, if you take away stats, winning games, the eye test, and how they play on the field, Luck is clearly better, right?

And if you think playing for Sea is comparable to playing for Indy I've got a bridge to sell you.

I never said it was.

Luck and not even in the same ballpark

how many rings does luck have?

Same amount as Marino, why?

Half the qbs in the league win a ring with seattle last year

Ah, another subjective opinion that does nothing as far as this conversation goes.

 

[ghostguy123]

Best thread of the year so far.

 

[CalBear]

Wilson is basically a darker more athletic Trent Dilfer.

Stinky bait, no thanks.

 

[renesauz]

Went with Luck, but don't see how he's head and shoulders better. Wilson would be a heck of a consolation prize

 

[renesauz]

Wilson is basically a darker more athletic Trent Dilfer.

Stinky bait, no thanks.

That's not even bait. It's a dead fish left out in the sun for 3 days.

 

[Devine Intervention]

Wilson is in a system that is mostly play action, limited reads, that puts him in a position to not force throws. They run the ball great and depend on a number one defense. This is a huge factor, seeing that Wilson can take a sack or throw if out of bounds instead of forcing it.

Luck has no run game and an average defense. He gets wayyyy more put on his plate and has to carry his team which causes more risks taken.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Wilson is in a system that is mostly play action, limited reads, that puts him in a position to not force throws. They run the ball great and depend on a number one defense. This is a huge factor, seeing that Wilson can take a sack or throw if out of bounds instead of forcing it.

Luck has no run game and an average defense. He gets wayyyy more put on his plate and has to carry his team which causes more risks taken.

On the flip side, Wilson has much less skilled receivers to work with than Luck, a worse passing OL and has to run for his life behind the LOS to generate a passing game.

You can go back and forth a million times on this. They are different QBs on different teams and asked to do different things. For every stat and argument to be made for/against Luck another one can be made for/against Wilson.

 

[Freelove]

Wilson is in a system that is mostly play action, limited reads, that puts him in a position to not force throws. They run the ball great and depend on a number one defense. This is a huge factor, seeing that Wilson can take a sack or throw if out of bounds instead of forcing it.

Luck has no run game and an average defense. He gets wayyyy more put on his plate and has to carry his team which causes more risks taken.

On the flip side, Wilson has much less skilled receivers to work with than Luck, a worse passing OL and has to run for his life behind the LOS to generate a passing game.

You can go back and forth a million times on this. They are different QBs on different teams and asked to do different things. For every stat and argument to be made for/against Luck another one can be made for/against Wilson.

Which must be why the vote is so close.

 

[Raider Nation]

I see that 20 Seahawks fans have weighed in so far.

 

[CalBear]

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2014/12/29/sorry-colts-andrew-luck-isnt-as-good-as-you-think/21001689/

And when the numbers are broken down, they reveal that Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck isn't as good as some might think.

"From an advanced metrics perspective, Andrew Luck is not elite," says JJ Zachariason, who wrote an article on NumberFire called "Why Andrew Luck Isn't As Good As You Think." "He's not a top-five quarterback. He's a very, very good passer who has an incredible ceiling. But let's not confuse his potential with what he's doing on the field right now."

...

"The fact is, Luck's on-field performance isn't as good as some of his peers," said Zachariason. "And the perception surrounding his play doesn't equate to the reality of his actual performance."

 

[Raider Nation]

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2014/12/29/sorry-colts-andrew-luck-isnt-as-good-as-you-think/21001689/

And when the numbers are broken down, they reveal that Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck isn't as good as some might think.

"From an advanced metrics perspective, Andrew Luck is not elite," says JJ Zachariason, who wrote an article on NumberFire called "Why Andrew Luck Isn't As Good As You Think." "He's not a top-five quarterback. He's a very, very good passer who has an incredible ceiling. But let's not confuse his potential with what he's doing on the field right now."

...

"The fact is, Luck's on-field performance isn't as good as some of his peers," said Zachariason. "And the perception surrounding his play doesn't equate to the reality of his actual performance."

He went to Stanford or something, right?

 

[ghostguy123]

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2014/12/29/sorry-colts-andrew-luck-isnt-as-good-as-you-think/21001689/

And when the numbers are broken down, they reveal that Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck isn't as good as some might think.

"From an advanced metrics perspective, Andrew Luck is not elite," says JJ Zachariason, who wrote an article on NumberFire called "Why Andrew Luck Isn't As Good As You Think." "He's not a top-five quarterback. He's a very, very good passer who has an incredible ceiling. But let's not confuse his potential with what he's doing on the field right now."

...

"The fact is, Luck's on-field performance isn't as good as some of his peers," said Zachariason. "And the perception surrounding his play doesn't equate to the reality of his actual performance."

He went to Stanford or something, right?

It's awesome that a RB who can take a screen 40 yards for a TD makes you better than a RB who has the same pass bounce off his face (not saying this the case with Luck and Wilson specifically, but "advanced metrics" ignore those discrepencies.

People can talk about Seattle and Indy having similar average WRs and pass blocking, but just the running game alone of Seattle keeps the DE's from only pass rushing like they do against Indy with their horrific running game. A 1st down run for Indy is a wasted down.

 

[JamesTheScot]

This is about starting a team today, who do you take. The answer is Luck by a ridiculous landslide.

Wilson is excellent, and is a total perfect fit for a team with a great D, great RB, and innovative coach, plus what appears to be a great locker room. Even though I still think Luck would make Seattle better than WIlson does, it's very close because of that fit.

If Wilson was on Indy, they would struggle quite a bit. They have NOTHING but Luck, and I don't think Wilson stacks up to Luck's ability as an NFL QB.

If you added Luck to any NFL team or situation, he would be better than Wilson, even the Seattle situation which is perfectly set up for WIlson (and again, dont get me wrong, WIlson is very very good).

Hence, if starting a team, I take Luck, and it isn't even close enough for me to believe there is a thread about it.

I think what people are not considering is how Wilson absolutely extends drives that a QB without his running ability could not extend. So it then boils down to a question of whether some other QB wouldn't be in that down and distance position in the first place because of superior passing skill.

If we put Luck on the Seahawks, is he going to complete passes to those Seattle WR's that Wilson isn't? Is he going to get the same attempts that Wilson gets on those extended drives that Wilson now isn't there to extend with his legs?

Is Wilson going to miss completions that Luck makes to those Indy WR's? Is Wilson going to extend drives in Indy that Luck can't?

For me it's a tough call because they are asked to do such different things. It almost comes down to the Elway versus Marino debate from back in the day. Marino was asked to throw it a lot, and he did successfully. Elway not near so much, but was still very effective. In some ways the compiler gets the benefit of the doubt because the sample size is large. He's a safe pick. You know what you get with him. And you are comfortable with the idea that he can do the same thing if his attempts are scaled back. But we aren't ever as comfortable extrapolating the other direction.

The question for me, which remains unanswered, is which guy is better at reading the defense, manipulating the DB's and watching the play develop and then throwing an accurate ball. I've seen both guys throw very accurate balls and I've seen both guys miss on some throws. I haven't yet seen someone with the requisite knowledge really pick apart both guys' games with specific evidence of one being better than the other at reading the defense and making better decisions with the ball.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Wilson is in a system that is mostly play action, limited reads, that puts him in a position to not force throws. They run the ball great and depend on a number one defense. This is a huge factor, seeing that Wilson can take a sack or throw if out of bounds instead of forcing it.

Luck has no run game and an average defense. He gets wayyyy more put on his plate and has to carry his team which causes more risks taken.

On the flip side, Wilson has much less skilled receivers to work with than Luck, a worse passing OL and has to run for his life behind the LOS to generate a passing game.

You can go back and forth a million times on this. They are different QBs on different teams and asked to do different things. For every stat and argument to be made for/against Luck another one can be made for/against Wilson.

Which must be why the vote is so close.

The vote results have nothing to do with how I view each of them to start a team. Throw a bunch of fantasy football players into a room for a discussion on who is a better player and 10/10 times it will be the player with better fantasy stats.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

People can talk about Seattle and Indy having similar average WRs and pass blocking, but just the running game alone of Seattle keeps the DE's from only pass rushing like they do against Indy with their horrific running game. A 1st down run for Indy is a wasted down.

Seattle and Indy have similar WRs and pass blocking? Don't think so.

You realize that Wilson's ability to run is a big reason why DEs have to be hesitant vs Seattle, right? Wilson is a HUGE part of the Seattle run game.

 

[JamesTheScot]

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.

Does it?

In 2014, Ryan Fitzpatrick had a higher td%, passer rating, and y/a than Russell. Equal ay/a and completion % and lower sack % than Russell.

is Fitzpatrick a better passer than Wilson? Is he a better qb?

I hope this post does not get over looked. Sometimes stats don't tell the whole story.

The problem is that if we ignore the stats, what are we using as evidence?

So far, all I am seeing from Luck fans is that we should ignore the stats because they don't tell the whole story, and then, once you ignore the stats, it's obvious that Luck is better. Of course, no one states how he is better. It's just somehow obvious that he is.

I'm OK with throwing stats out the window. But it's the stats that say that Seattle has a better D than Indy. So are we using stats or not?

So then, if we throw out the stats, someone is going to have to actually break down these guys' games and explain how Luck is better at this particualr thing than Wilson is. And vice versa. But no one is. Why? Because we don't really know. We've got an opinion, and we just scramble around trying to find evidence to support that opinion rather than find evidence to inform our opinion.

 

[ghostguy123]

People can talk about Seattle and Indy having similar average WRs and pass blocking, but just the running game alone of Seattle keeps the DE's from only pass rushing like they do against Indy with their horrific running game. A 1st down run for Indy is a wasted down.

Seattle and Indy have similar WRs and pass blocking? Don't think so.

You realize that Wilson's ability to run is a big reason why DEs have to be hesitant vs Seattle, right? Wilson is a HUGE part of the Seattle run game.

Would wilson be able to run as well if Lynch was not the RB and say, richardson or herron was?

 

[CalBear]

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2014/12/29/sorry-colts-andrew-luck-isnt-as-good-as-you-think/21001689/

And when the numbers are broken down, they reveal that Indianapolis Colts quarterback Andrew Luck isn't as good as some might think.

"From an advanced metrics perspective, Andrew Luck is not elite," says JJ Zachariason, who wrote an article on NumberFire called "Why Andrew Luck Isn't As Good As You Think." "He's not a top-five quarterback. He's a very, very good passer who has an incredible ceiling. But let's not confuse his potential with what he's doing on the field right now."

...

"The fact is, Luck's on-field performance isn't as good as some of his peers," said Zachariason. "And the perception surrounding his play doesn't equate to the reality of his actual performance."

He went to Stanford or something, right?

It's awesome that a RB who can take a screen 40 yards for a TD makes you better than a RB who has the same pass bounce off his face (not saying this the case with Luck and Wilson specifically, but "advanced metrics" ignore those discrepencies.

People can talk about Seattle and Indy having similar average WRs and pass blocking, but just the running game alone of Seattle keeps the DE's from only pass rushing like they do against Indy with their horrific running game. A 1st down run for Indy is a wasted down.

Yeah, it's awesome for Luck that he has Ahmad Bradshaw (6 receiving TDs in just 10 games) while Wilson has to struggle with Lynch (4 receiving TDs in 16 games).

Indianapolis has a better WR1, WR2, TE1, and better receiving RB than Seattle, and yes, those advantages that Luck has are not accounted for by advanced stats. And Wilson still kicks Luck's butt.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe if wilson was better then lynch would have more TDs. Hmmmmm

 

[ghostguy123]

Who is Indys wr2?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Thought this was interesting. Seattle's WRs caught the second least amount of TDs in the NFL with 7. The lowest was of course the Chiefs with zero.

Hilton caught 7 TDs himself.

 

[ghostguy123]

This is such an interesting convo.

It's impossible to somehow try and "prove" that Luck is a better QB, and that he is the QB to take if starting a franchise (which is the topic of the thread) since his statistics seemingly appear inferior to WIlson's.........................yet the vote is so horribly lopsided, and any and every GM and coach out there would take Luck. I guess I can't "prove" that either, but if the GMs and coaches around the league did a secret ballot on who they would take between the two guys, and you had to bet your life on it, are you actually going to bet that more than 2 (that probably are affiliated with Seattle) would take Wilson?

It's probably a good thing GMs don't just look at the numbers when drafting QBs. It is somewhat similar to this. Some of those QBs play with a better team and better coaches, but are not as good or talented as some other QBs who had lesser stats because they play with lesser talent or different schemes or play against worse defenses.....

People also keep talking about Wilson running. Wilson is a good running QB, but those numbers are made better having Lynch in the backfield with him. It helps. It helps Lynch some also, but you can't deny there are some plays each game where the D is keyed on Lynch and Wilson takes advantage. That will happen far less with an average or below average RB. That's just common sense that doesn't need proof.

Wilson is an excellent QB. He would make most (probably all but maybe 5) of the teams in the league better.

But when I sit there and watch on Sunday, Luck is the guy who jumps out as the guy who could lead any team with any style offense with sub par players around him. He makes plays in and out of the pocket that not many can make, not even Mr Wilson. Give me the first pick in a fantasy start up draft, give me Luck, and my team is going to finish ahead of whatever team takes Wilson.

Again, sorry for not "proving" anything. We might get a better idea of the real story here when Wilson is making 25 million a year and several of those other super cheap players get their paydays for other teams in a year or so. There is a perfect storm that has brewed in Seattle with mid-late round picks hitting that are cheap. That is ending soon, maybe even as early as 2015.

If we see similar stats and metrics at that point I will change my tune, but at this point in time when a QB has a great RB and an all time great defense, his efficiency metrics SHOULD be better than just about everyone, otherwise he wouldn't be a top 10 QB.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Who is Indys wr2?

As bad as Reggie may be at this time, he is still better than Jermaine Kearse and that's all that matters to this discussion.

 

[ghostguy123]

Thought this was interesting. Seattle's WRs caught the second least amount of TDs in the NFL with 7. The lowest was of course the Chiefs with zero.

Hilton caught 7 TDs himself.

Interesting in what way?

 

[ghostguy123]

Who is Indys wr2?

As bad as Reggie may be at this time, he is still better than Jermaine Kearse and that's all that matters to this discussion.

I do not concur. Wayne has been just, he's like an old man out there. He had a 10 yard lead on the D a few weeks back and couldnt get to the end zone for cryin out loud.

At this point with Wayne, raw talent surpasses whatever knowledge advantage he has.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Thought this was interesting. Seattle's WRs caught the second least amount of TDs in the NFL with 7. The lowest was of course the Chiefs with zero.

Hilton caught 7 TDs himself.

Interesting in what way?

Interesting in that you say that Seattle and Indy have similarly skilled WRs. You love to point out that Wilson has a better RB but for some reason keep neglecting the receivers. Its probably just an oversight on your part though.

 

[proninja]

This is such an interesting convo.

It's impossible to somehow try and "prove" that Luck is a better QB, and that he is the QB to take if starting a franchise (which is the topic of the thread) since his statistics seemingly appear inferior to WIlson's.........................yet the vote is so horribly lopsided, and any and every GM and coach out there would take Luck. I guess I can't "prove" that either, but if the GMs and coaches around the league did a secret ballot on who they would take between the two guys, and you had to bet your life on it, are you actually going to bet that more than 2 (that probably are affiliated with Seattle) would take Wilson?

It's probably a good thing GMs don't just look at the numbers when drafting QBs. It is somewhat similar to this. Some of those QBs play with a better team and better coaches, but are not as good or talented as some other QBs who had lesser stats because they play with lesser talent or different schemes or play against worse defenses.....

People also keep talking about Wilson running. Wilson is a good running QB, but those numbers are made better having Lynch in the backfield with him. It helps. It helps Lynch some also, but you can't deny there are some plays each game where the D is keyed on Lynch and Wilson takes advantage. That will happen far less with an average or below average RB. That's just common sense that doesn't need proof.

Wilson is an excellent QB. He would make most (probably all but maybe 5) of the teams in the league better.

But when I sit there and watch on Sunday, Luck is the guy who jumps out as the guy who could lead any team with any style offense with sub par players around him. He makes plays in and out of the pocket that not many can make, not even Mr Wilson. Give me the first pick in a fantasy start up draft, give me Luck, and my team is going to finish ahead of whatever team takes Wilson.

Again, sorry for not "proving" anything. We might get a better idea of the real story here when Wilson is making 25 million a year and several of those other super cheap players get their paydays for other teams in a year or so. There is a perfect storm that has brewed in Seattle with mid-late round picks hitting that are cheap. That is ending soon, maybe even as early as 2015.

If we see similar stats and metrics at that point I will change my tune, but at this point in time when a QB has a great RB and an all time great defense, his efficiency metrics SHOULD be better than just about everyone, otherwise he wouldn't be a top 10 QB.

This sounds like it was written by one of the old scouts in "moneyball"

Also, in 2015, the best player that's probably gone is Byron Maxwell. And they get a new draft class to play with, and players like Mebane/Hill back. Pretty much the whole defense is signed long term. The cap is going up. They'll pay Wilson and be fine for a couple years.

 

[ghostguy123]

Thought this was interesting. Seattle's WRs caught the second least amount of TDs in the NFL with 7. The lowest was of course the Chiefs with zero.

Hilton caught 7 TDs himself.

Interesting in what way?

Interesting in that you say that Seattle and Indy have similarly skilled WRs. You love to point out that Wilson has a better RB but for some reason keep neglecting the receivers. Its probably just an oversight on your part though.

WIlson had 20 Tds. Luck had 40. How many TDs did Indy WRs catch total?

 

[proninja]

If Wilson was 6'2'', coming off the year he had at Wisconsin, this conversation three years later would sound very different.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I don't think there is much appreciable difference in the Seattle and Indy WR corps, and I think if all of them had ended up on opposite teams (Baldwin on Indy, Hilton on Sea, etc) people would be making the exact same argument about Seattle having "weaker" WRs.

 

[ghostguy123]

I don't think there is much appreciable difference in the Seattle and Indy WR corps, and I think if all of them had ended up on opposite teams (Baldwin on Indy, Hilton on Sea, etc) people would be making the exact same argument about Seattle having "weaker" WRs.

But but but.....you cant prove that.

Leave the opinions at the door

 

[Freelove]

If Wilson was 6'2'', coming off the year he had at Wisconsin, this conversation three years later would sound very different.

Yeah, he'd be taller, have more leverage on his throws (and thus probably have a stronger arm), probably have been a four-year starter at a single, better football program, and then be drafted earlier by a worse team, run less due to decreased quickness, and have a totally different pro resume.

Or maybe he'd just stick to baseball.

Shall we also bless this version of him with x-ray vision?

We could, but even 6'2" Super-Wilson still wouldn't grade out as high as the real world Andrew Luck.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If Wilson was 6'2'', coming off the year he had at Wisconsin, this conversation three years later would sound very different.

Right, if only he were a better prospect we'd all view him totally differently. That's true, because in that case he would have been drafted by the Browns and might not have won a single playoff game by this point.

In all seriousness, were he taller and more highly drafted he probably would be viewed about the same as the 6'5" #7 overall pick Ben Roethlisberger was with a similar resume at this point in his career. Which is to say...basically the exact same way Russell Wilson is viewed now.

And to bring this all full circle with a fun fact for the day, Big Ben has never won a playoff game when his defense wasn't #1 in the league.

 

[Road Warriors]

I sure wouldnt change my opinion

That much is obvious.

well yeah. I dont decide how much I like a guy based on where he was drafted. Not three years later after watching them both play.

You see me sitting here saying 10 other guys are better than Tom Brady from that draft class?

no, but at years 3-5, when Brady had won multiple SB, playing a lesser role as QB on a team that had other pieces, and being compared to the best QB prospect since 1983, most people had the same opinion of Brady that you have of Wilson... he's good, but that other guy... OMG. And a good portion of that perception was based on Brady being a low round QB. He can't be "THAT" good, or he would have done A, B, or C somewhere along the line.

I sense a similar arc for Wilson. I think he's capable of carrying a team, if that's whats asked of him. Hard to know at this point, as he hasn't been asked to. But I've seen enough poise under pressure and stepping up when the team around him needs him to to think he could very well develop into a that QB if that is the direction the team takes.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I sure wouldnt change my opinion

That much is obvious.

well yeah. I dont decide how much I like a guy based on where he was drafted. Not three years later after watching them both play.

You see me sitting here saying 10 other guys are better than Tom Brady from that draft class?

no, but at years 3-5, when Brady had won multiple SB, playing a lesser role as QB on a team that had other pieces, and being compared to the best QB prospect since 1983, most people had the same opinion of Brady that you have of Wilson... he's good, but that other guy... OMG. And a good portion of that perception was based on Brady being a low round QB. He can't be "THAT" good, or he would have done A, B, or C somewhere along the line.

I sense a similar arc for Wilson. I think he's capable of carrying a team, if that's whats asked of him. Hard to know at this point, as he hasn't been asked to. But I've seen enough poise under pressure and stepping up when the team around him needs him to to think he could very well develop into a that QB if that is the direction the team takes.

That's true, but Brady eventually proved he could carry a team on his own too. He's the exception in that regard, as most of the guys that played with great defenses and "won" (Sanchez, Roethlisberger, Flacco, Orton, and on and on and on) have failed in that regard.

Brady was one of the few elite players that can carry a team that just happened to be playing on a team where he didn't need to do that early in his career. Russell Wilson may very well be the same, but winning on a great team early in your career is in no way indicative of that. Historically, it's very rare even amongst players that win early on great teams.

Wilson will likely either end up like Brady (all-time great, can have huge success with whatever garbage you roll him out there with) or Roethlisberger (can win when he's not asked to do too much, and can play pretty well when asked to carry the team but not well enough to actually carry the team). He reminds me more of Roethlisberger, but that's neither here nor there. Either way, we're arguing about whether or not he will one day be capable of doing what Luck can already do.

 

[ghostguy123]

I sure wouldnt change my opinion

That much is obvious.

well yeah. I dont decide how much I like a guy based on where he was drafted. Not three years later after watching them both play.

You see me sitting here saying 10 other guys are better than Tom Brady from that draft class?

no, but at years 3-5, when Brady had won multiple SB, playing a lesser role as QB on a team that had other pieces, and being compared to the best QB prospect since 1983, most people had the same opinion of Brady that you have of Wilson... he's good, but that other guy... OMG. And a good portion of that perception was based on Brady being a low round QB. He can't be "THAT" good, or he would have done A, B, or C somewhere along the line.

I sense a similar arc for Wilson. I think he's capable of carrying a team, if that's whats asked of him. Hard to know at this point, as he hasn't been asked to. But I've seen enough poise under pressure and stepping up when the team around him needs him to to think he could very well develop into a that QB if that is the direction the team takes.

If he improves as much as Brady did, sure, we can talk about that then. One hell of an IF

 

[Road Warriors]

I sure wouldnt change my opinion

That much is obvious.

well yeah. I dont decide how much I like a guy based on where he was drafted. Not three years later after watching them both play.

You see me sitting here saying 10 other guys are better than Tom Brady from that draft class?

no, but at years 3-5, when Brady had won multiple SB, playing a lesser role as QB on a team that had other pieces, and being compared to the best QB prospect since 1983, most people had the same opinion of Brady that you have of Wilson... he's good, but that other guy... OMG. And a good portion of that perception was based on Brady being a low round QB. He can't be "THAT" good, or he would have done A, B, or C somewhere along the line.

I sense a similar arc for Wilson. I think he's capable of carrying a team, if that's whats asked of him. Hard to know at this point, as he hasn't been asked to. But I've seen enough poise under pressure and stepping up when the team around him needs him to to think he could very well develop into a that QB if that is the direction the team takes.

That's true, but Brady eventually proved he could carry a team on his own too. He's the exception in that regard, as most of the guys that played with great defenses and "won" (Sanchez, Roethlisberger, Flacco, Orton, and on and on and on) have failed in that regard.

Brady was one of the few elite players that can carry a team that just happened to be playing on a team where he didn't need to do that early in his career. Russell Wilson may very well be the same, but winning on a great team early in your career is in no way indicative of that. Historically, it's very rare even amongst players that win early on great teams.

Wilson will likely either end up like Brady (all-time great, can have huge success with whatever garbage you roll him out there with) or Roethlisberger (can win when he's not asked to do too much, and can play pretty well when asked to carry the team but not well enough to actually carry the team). He reminds me more of Roethlisberger, but that's neither here nor there. Either way, we're arguing about whether or not he will one day be capable of doing what Luck can already do.

except one aspect.

You stay we're arguing about whether he will be capable. I'm saying I think he is, and am arguing that we may eventually see him in the situation to prove it to the doubters.

In either case, the similarities in the discussions between Luck & Wilson at this point of their careers as compared to the early years Brady/Manning debates is uncanny. And if we're all VERY lucky, these two will provide as much great football as their predecessors did.

 

[ghostguy123]

except one aspect.

You stay we're arguing about whether he will be capable. I'm saying I think he is, and am arguing that we may eventually see him in the situation to prove it to the doubters.

In either case, the similarities in the discussions between Luck & Wilson at this point of their careers as compared to the early years Brady/Manning debates is uncanny. And if we're all VERY lucky, these two will provide as much great football as their predecessors did.

If Luck gets himself a Harrison/Wayne/James trio to work with, yeah, look out.

Right now he has Harrison's nephew, Waynes dad, and Jame's crippled cousin to work with.