Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Denver CB Harris says Wilson is better than Luck [Merge]


1yrdandacloudofdust

Recommended Posts

Good point. I also do believe the Colts did somewhat tank the season to get Luck but I don't want to open up that can of worms.  ;)

There is no can of worms to open. If that was the case explain why the Colts won 2 out of their last 3 with the #1 pick on the line with the Rams. If they were tanking they would have left Painter in for the last 3 games. I watched every one of those games and tanking was not in the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 662
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's self explanatory. If you do not understand it, it is over your head.

So, you are telling me that Luck has played on a bigger stage than Wilson?  Wilson has played in the same league, in a tougher division and performed on the biggest stage in pro football if not sports in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no can of worms to open. If that was the case explain why the Colts won 2 out of their last 3 with the #1 pick on the line with the Rams. If they were tanking they would have left Painter in for the last 3 games. I watched every one of those games and tanking was not in the picture.

Yeah. fair points. But I watched the games too and the effort by the coaches and players were lacking often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you are telling me that Luck has played on a bigger stage than Wilson?  Wilson has played in the same league, in a tougher division and performed on the biggest stage in pro football if not sports in general.

I guess you missed the point of the original post. We were talking about the draft. The #1 over all pick is on a bigger stage than someone taken in the 3rd round. There were 73 players taken after Luck and before Wilson. Luck was under the microscope from day one. Wilson earned his starting spot while Luck was handed his by his position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I'm sure it has nothing to do with all the tape he's watched of both of them.

 

The performances against his defense may have some effect, but his line of thought isn't going to be "Wilson has done well against my defense. Definitely better"

 

Plus didn't he tear his ACL or something like that last year? He didn't even play in the Super Bowl, rig

He said it right after Wilson beat them, that very easily could have been his line of thought. 

 has nothing to do with all the tape he's watched of both of them.

 

The performances against his defense may have some effect, but his line of thought isn't going to be "Wilson has done well against my defense. Definitely better"

 

Plus didn't he tear his ACL or something like that last year? He didn't even play in the Super Bowl, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you missed the point of the original post. We were talking about the draft. The #1 over all pick is on a bigger stage than someone taken in the 3rd round. There were 73 players taken after Luck and before Wilson. Luck was under the microscope from day one. Wilson earned his starting spot while Luck was handed his by his position.

And Wilson plays like he earned his spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key word is "thought." He didn't inherit a bad team. Both the GM and coaches did a good job in year one putting a solid team around him. Not a great team but not a 2-14 team either.

 

He absolutely inherited a bad team in 2012. That roster had fallen apart, and Grigson did his very best to hold it together with scotch tape and staples, but the roster was a mess. The offensive and defensive lines were awful, the secondary was a joke, there were no TEs and only one WR prior to the draft, we shuffled ILBs all season long, the roster was decimated with injuries all year, etc. And all this on top of a $40m dead cap number weighting us down. Obviously the 2012 team was better than the 2011 team, but let's not ignore the fact that the 2012 team was full of warts as well, and only won 11 games with parlor tricks.

 

There's a reason there are only six remaining players from the 2011 Colts; two of them are kickers, two are perennial Pro Bowlers, and another was a rookie in 2011. Grigson has been rebuilding this roster on the fly for two years now, and even the 2012 Colts are drastically different from the 2014 Colts, because that roster was a mess. Sixty-five percent of our current 53 man roster wasn't here in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh had we have started Dan Orlovsky from week 1 they probably win 6-8 games

 

This is a terrible argument.

 

Dan Orlovsky wasn't on the roster in Week 1, because he was terrible in preseason. He was at home watching us lose to the Bucs on MNF just like the rest of us, because he was terrible. He didn't even sign back with us until after Kerry Collins got hurt in Week 3. The last time he started a game before 2011 was in 2008, when he helped the Detroit Lions go 0-16, and yes, he was terrible for them as well.

 

But we were supposed to name him the Week 1 starter? He didn't even make the 53 man roster!

 

And when he did start, he was terrible. He had a good second half against the Pats, but other than that, he was bad. Better than Painter isn't a high threshold, and he didn't even reach that threshold right away.

 

Again, let's not rewrite history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0-1 vs Luck.

 

overall between Brees, Wilson, Luck, Manning, Rodgers and Brady the two are: 

 

Luck 3-3

Wilson 7-1

 

take if for what it is worth, but in the big boy games Wilson and his team has come out on top more than Luck and his team . . .

 

if you throw in Ryan, Romo, Rivers, Eli, Flacco, and Kap to the list you get

 

Luck 4-4

Wilson 13-4

 

so Luck is still around 0.500 against upper third QBs and Wilson is at 0.750 . . .

 

so you can view it for what you wish . . .

 

We must also remember that their respective careers have coincided with resurgence of SF and to an extent Arizona and at least for one year a weaker Houston team . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

overall between Brees, Wilson, Luck, Manning, Rodgers and Brady the two are: 

 

Luck 3-3

Wilson 7-1

 

take if for what it is worth, but in the big boy games Wilson and his team has come out on top more than Luck and his team . . .

 

if you throw in Ryan, Romo, Rivers, Eli, Flacco, and Kap to the list you get

 

Luck 4-4

Wilson 13-4

 

so Luck is still around 0.500 against upper third QBs and Wilson is at 0.750 . . .

 

so you can view it for what you wish . . .

 

We must also remember that their respective careers have coincided with resurgence of SF and to an extent Arizona and at least for one year a weaker Houston team . . .

No, Luck is not 3-3, Wilson is not 7-1. The COLTS are 3-3 and the SEAHAWKS are 7-1. Its kind of a bit different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well lets not forget the Wilson has a SB ring to show for it lol...

I still think Luck is the better QB, but Wilson is not too far behind, he makes plays with his feet and arm and he has been very good! He doesn't make too many stupid decisions ala Robert Griffin.

 

BTW Andy Dalton is playing really well, looking forward to see how far him and the Bengals go in the playoffs, they are playing lights out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key word is "thought." He didn't inherit a bad team. Both the GM and coaches did a good job in year one putting a solid team around him. Not a great team but not a 2-14 team either.

 

 

Was not a 2-14 team because the schedule was a last place schedule and Luck won a bunch of games by playing out of his mind. We had zero cap room and the only decent player added in free agency was Redding and a trade brought V Davis.Grigson actually made the offensive line worse with some horrible O line help. Grigson really punted the year away by releasing all the older overpaid guys. Clark , Addai , Brackett , Bullitt , Saturday and Tamme. Most of these guys added to the already horrible cap hell the colts were in. They also failed to sign Garcon. The draft gave us a couple rookie TE's , a middle of the road RB , Hilton and no defensive help what so ever. Saying this roster was solid is ridiculous and you did zero research asserting that. The O line was terrible and the defense couldn't stop anyone and could never get off the field. You earlier mentioned the team made the playoffs in 2010. That has nothing to do with 2012 as Manning was there in 2010... right ? If you are saying that the Colt 2012 roster was better than the Seahawks , that would be utterly ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

BTW Andy Dalton is playing really well, looking forward to see how far him and the Bengals go in the playoffs, they are playing lights out!

:agree:   I have to agree with you, and most of  my family members are all very happy about this.....

(they are cautiously optimistic  ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IcEWoLF, on 22 Sept 2014 - 5:34 PM, said:snapback.png

BTW Andy Dalton is playing really well, looking forward to see how far him and the Bengals go in the playoffs, they are playing lights out!

 

The problem with him is that he always looks decent in September.  Not so decent in December and January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, 2011 Seahawks had a top 10 defense, had Marshawn Lynch rushing for 1,200 yards/12 tds, had Richard Sherman, Brandon Browner, Earl Thomas, Kam Chancellor, KJ Wright, Chris Clemons, Mebane, Doug Baldwin, Golden Tate, etc. and they had the ultimate game manager, Tavaris Jackson.

 

That team went 7-9.

 

The biggest difference for Seahawks in 2012 was adding Russell Wilson. They went 11-5, and in the playoffs Wilson led a game winning drive, and nearly led Seattle to the NFC Championship against San Francisco. It was the defense who choked and allowed Ryan to drive down and get a field goal to win the game. That hadn't of happened and there's a good shot Wilson would have been in the Superbowl his rookie year.

The Seahawks also had essentially the same offensive starters in 2012 that they had in 2011 yet scored 91 more points and improved from 23rd to 9th in total offense with Russell Wilson at QB.

And no one was calling the Seahawks a loaded team at the beginning of 2012 after consecutive 7-9 seasons. The narrative back then was that Carroll needed a winning season or else he might be on the hot seat; NFL draft gurus were giving their 2012 draft terrible grades in part for "reaching" for a 5'10" quarterback in the 3rd round after giving Matt Flynn a big contract; and NFL experts were shaking their heads in disbelief when Carroll named Wilson the starter over Flynn. The belief that Wilson was like a high school kid given the keys to a Ferrari and told not to crash it is revisionist history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

overall between Brees, Wilson, Luck, Manning, Rodgers and Brady the two are: 

 

Luck 3-3

Wilson 7-1

 

take if for what it is worth, but in the big boy games Wilson and his team has come out on top more than Luck and his team . . .

 

if you throw in Ryan, Romo, Rivers, Eli, Flacco, and Kap to the list you get

 

Luck 4-4

Wilson 13-4

 

so Luck is still around 0.500 against upper third QBs and Wilson is at 0.750 . . .

 

so you can view it for what you wish . . .

 

We must also remember that their respective careers have coincided with resurgence of SF and to an extent Arizona and at least for one year a weaker Houston team . . .

We must always remember that these wins and loses are team wins and loses. How you can judge a QB by how good or well his teams play is beyond me. Its funny that things like that get overlooked when arguments start over a QB being better than the other. Selective stats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Luck is not 3-3, Wilson is not 7-1. The COLTS are 3-3 and the SEAHAWKS are 7-1. Its kind of a bit different. 

 

oh ready . . .

 

okay then lets checks a few more things that the COLTS and SEAHAWKS have accomplished since the two have been the respective teams QBs . . 

 

the COLTS team offense has accomplished a total team offense of 12545 yards and 87 TDs with 8764 are passing yards and 3781 are rushing yards and 60 passing TDs and 27 rushing TDs . . .

 

the SEAHAWKS team offense has accomplished a total team offense of 12104 yards and 94 TDs with 6893 are passing yards and 5211 are rushing yards and 60 passing TDs and 34 rushing TDs . . .

 

so now I have a better understanding what the capitalized words COLTS and SEAHAWKS mean, yah things are "kind of a bit different" once one steps back and looks at things for what they are . . . thanks for the lesson . . . although I am not sure if the teacher knew the full breath of what he/she was teaching . . . but I am sure the teacher understands the lesson now . . . ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We must always remember that these wins and loses are team wins and loses. How you can judge a QB by how good or well his teams play is beyond me. Its funny that things like that get overlooked when arguments start over a QB being better than the other. Selective stats?

 

to save retyping please read my prior post and I will add a little . . . yes there is a team element to every stat . . . but at the same time . . . there is . . a . . team element to every stat . . . too many people put to much individual emphasis on certain stats and at the same time centralizing other stats . . .hey I really don't care how anyone wants to spin it, just please be consistent . . .

 

surely there is a team element to a win loss but there is one for individual stats of players regardless of the position . . . no the QB does not play defense or special teams, but likewise he does not block, run the routes, get separation, play on the defense defending (good or bad), catch the ball, etc . . .

 

I view it as a blend and not necessarily absolutes . . . surely there is a team element to wins but there is an individual element too especially at the QB, likewise there is an individual element to passing yards, but at the same time a team (teammates/competition) element too . . . is not a clear as some want to dismiss who will site a passing stat as purely attributed to one player then dismiss a win loss issue as not relevant to a conversation . . . that is my point . . .

 

I don't get all in a miff about close stats or try to shave things, but when there is a significant difference between the "teams" stats and/or there is a pretty significant stats, like 1000 win percentage, against some key opponents (as opposed to how some plays to until recently tomato can EJ Manuel Bills) then it something to take notice . . .

 

bottom line if one want to personalize a "individual" stat you can not dismiss a win loss result out of hand . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

overall between Brees, Wilson, Luck, Manning, Rodgers and Brady the two are: 

 

Luck 3-3

Wilson 7-1

 

take if for what it is worth, but in the big boy games Wilson and his team has come out on top more than Luck and his team . . .

 

if you throw in Ryan, Romo, Rivers, Eli, Flacco, and Kap to the list you get

 

Luck 4-4

Wilson 13-4

 

so Luck is still around 0.500 against upper third QBs and Wilson is at 0.750 . . .

 

so you can view it for what you wish . . .

 

We must also remember that their respective careers have coincided with resurgence of SF and to an extent Arizona and at least for one year a weaker Houston team . . .

It's nice that Wilson wins games.... But you have to REALLY mess up if you have the best defense of this decade and an all pro running back and still not win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice that Wilson wins games.... But you have to REALLY mess up if you have the best defense of this decade and an all pro running back and still not win.

 

Hmm lets see, 2011 Houston had the 2nd best defense in the league and had the best running back in the league in Arian Foster, but they had Matt Schaub at QB.

 

2009 the Jets had statistically a better defense than last years Seahawks, the best O-Line in the league that season, and Thomas Jones who put up 1,400 & 14 TDs, better than any season Lynch had, yet they had Mark Sanchez.

 

2003 the Ravens had Jamal Lewis who put up 2,000 yards on 14 TDs, had a NASTY defense that was 3rd in the league, and yet they didn't win because they had Kyle Boller.

 

Just having a great running game and great defense isn't enough, you can't just plug anyone in at QB in these situations. Your QB play also has to be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument will end when both players sign their mega- rich contracts. I'm not keen on Seattle's financial situation, but the Colts are capable of making Luck the highest paid QB without constraint. Can Seattle pay Russell 22 m without purging from their roster?

Ultimately, Blood was right, this argument is redundant as it is reduced to a fanboy contest where things like facts are irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2003 the Ravens had Jamal Lewis who put up 2,000 yards on 14 TDs, had a NASTY defense that was 3rd in the league, and yet they didn't win because they had Kyle Boller.

Just having a great running game and great defense isn't enough, you can't just plug anyone in at QB in these situations. Your QB play also has to be great.

Trent Dilfer worked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm lets see, 2011 Houston had the 2nd best defense in the league and had the best running back in the league in Arian Foster, but they had Matt Schaub at QB.

 

2009 the Jets had statistically a better defense than last years Seahawks, the best O-Line in the league that season, and Thomas Jones who put up 1,400 & 14 TDs, better than any season Lynch had, yet they had Mark Sanchez.

 

2003 the Ravens had Jamal Lewis who put up 2,000 yards on 14 TDs, had a NASTY defense that was 3rd in the league, and yet they didn't win because they had Kyle Boller.

 

Just having a great running game and great defense isn't enough, you can't just plug anyone in at QB in these situations. Your QB play also has to be great. 

texans made playoffs/ won a playoff game, Jets went to AFCCG. No idea what happened with the ravens but I don't really care. The point is. Those teams had horrible QB's and still had success. Russell Wilson is a very good QB. You can't compare him to the likes of Sanchez or Schaub. You put a good QB on an unbelievable team, and you win A LOT of games. Russell Wilson is the type of QB that can take a team over the hump from being good to great. Andrew Luck is a guy who can take team from trash to good. Something I don't think Russell has the ability to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was not a 2-14 team because the schedule was a last place schedule and Luck won a bunch of games by playing out of his mind. We had zero cap room and the only decent player added in free agency was Redding and a trade brought V Davis.Grigson actually made the offensive line worse with some horrible O line help. Grigson really punted the year away by releasing all the older overpaid guys. Clark , Addai , Brackett , Bullitt , Saturday and Tamme. Most of these guys added to the already horrible cap hell the colts were in. They also failed to sign Garcon. The draft gave us a couple rookie TE's , a middle of the road RB , Hilton and no defensive help what so ever. Saying this roster was solid is ridiculous and you did zero research asserting that. The O line was terrible and the defense couldn't stop anyone and could never get off the field. You earlier mentioned the team made the playoffs in 2010. That has nothing to do with 2012 as Manning was there in 2010... right ? If you are saying that the Colt 2012 roster was better than the Seahawks , that would be utterly ridiculous.

My point was that the Colts were not a 2-14 team when Luck took over. That 2011 team which could have won 7-8 games with a half decent QB was blown up and then Luck inherited a new team. The poster I was responding too was making it sound like Luck inherited a vastly worse team than Wilson. I agree that Luck's team was more in a state of flux but let's not forget that Wilson also got a perennial losing team which was 7-9 in its last TWO seasons before he came aboard. He is the one that made it into a 11 win team and eventually super bowl champion, the way Luck made Indy into a 11 win team and post-season berth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, no one thought the Seahawks were a championship caliber team when Wilson took over in 2012. They were ready to start Matt Flynn when Wilson beat him out in camp/preseason. I remember thinking that the Hawks would take a step back with Wilson given he was a later round selection and his size and the talent on O which was not much aside from Lynch. It was just as much a surprise for the Hawks to win 11 games in 2012 and go to the playoffs as Indy IMO and the Hawks were in a much tougher division. I still believe Luck was playing with a slightly worse team and of course he also lost his HC early on as well but Wilson spearheaded the turnaround in Seattle as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am wrong in picking Wilson because on the radio and on the  TV sports shows on Monday that exact subject came up and the consensus was Luck pretty much hands down over Wilson. One guy put it " what would Luck's number be if he played on Seattle and vica versa?  Either way we are fortunate to have Luck. I can't think of any team other than the 49ers when they went from Montana to Young that has had two back-to-back first rate QBs. Look at other organizations like the Texans for example, they just can't seem to find one anywhere.  We have won the lottery twice and that is a great stroke of......................OK, Luck!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While going 13-3 and  winning the Super Bowl,  Your point?

 

How bout this question . . . do you see any correlation between the COLTS 2-14 record in 2011 and the name Peyton Manning? or are the two things mutually exclusive?

 

Do the words Matt Cassel and 2008 mean anything to you?

 

Do you find interesting the coincidence of the BRONCOS being the one seed the last two years and appearing in the SB last year coinciding with the name of Peyton Manning appearing on their roster in those same years?

 

Did you find interesting that CBS quoted a record that Manning set a record for most 12 win seasons?

 

See my point is that everything has the fingerprint of a QB and likewise as there are many teammates everything the QB does has the fingerprint of his teammates, you cant win without teammate and at the same time you can not complete a pass without your teammates doing their jobs . . .

 

And my point is that we need to be consistent when we look at things . . . bottom line if we, well you, want to make a point regarding the above and regarding that Peyton Manning to a degree effected those wins in above reference points we can not then thereafter state wins and QB have no correlation . . .

 

Similarly when we want to state, which is true, that Moss and Welker, and his Oline helped Brady increase his personal stats we then can not say that a QB stats are totally personal without the help of his teammates . . .

 

And just as we all feel that Peyton had a fingerprint on the above, I find in significant that the arrival of Russell Wilson and the Seahawks change from 4 losing seasons to two winning seasons, a SB and a 7-0 record against the 4 big QBs as not being happenstance . . . whether you want to admit to it or not Wilson, just like Manning, has a fingerprint on it . . .   THATS my point . . . treat Wilson the same way we talk about other QBs and their respective contribution to their teams . . . and understand that the QB can get help from teammates and can help them in return . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice that Wilson wins games.... But you have to REALLY mess up if you have the best defense of this decade and an all pro running back and still not win.

 

yes teammates and the other two phases of the game certainly help and contribute to the equation, no argument there . . . but at the same time that running back and coach where there two years prior to Wilson's arrival and they had two losing season and an bottom third offense . . . and we must not forget that the arrival of Wilson turned the Seattle offense from a bottom third offense to a top 10 offense . . . so it not all just a coach, defense or a running back . . . Wilson has a hand in the equation . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. I also do believe the Colts did somewhat tank the season to get Luck but I don't want to open up that can of worms.  ;)

;)  :funny: Usually those that don't want to open up a can of worms don't bring up subjects like that one to begin with, Just messin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...