Mark Brunell haha

[sweetsurrender]

What the Colts did a few years prior with a vastly different roster means very little. There was a reason the Colts were picked to finish in the bottom three Luck's first year. If you think Newton inherited a vastly worse roster than Luck you don't know the Colts very well.

I am not saying Luck's team was a ton better but they certainly put some very good talent around him 2012. You don't throw 18 picks and win 11 games unless you have a good team all around. Not to mention Reggie Wayne.

 

Newton's team was not as good his first year as Luck's. That is the only point I was arguing. Both inherited 2-14 teams and I would argue that the Colts were better then their 2-14 record because the position that lacked the most was QB given Manning went out so late and Painter was not a viable back-up.

[BOTT]

I am not saying Luck's team was a ton better but they certainly put some very good talent around him 2012. You don't throw 18 picks and win 11 games unless you have a good team all around. Not to mention Reggie Wayne.

 

Newton's team was not as good his first year as Luck's. That is the only point I was arguing. Both inherited 2-14 teams and I would argue that the Colts were better then their 2-14 record because the position that lacked the most was QB given Manning went out so late and Painter was not a viable back-up.

I know what you are saying....but take a look the the rosters

[sweetsurrender]

I know what you are saying....but take a look the the rosters

I have and still think Luck's was better. I think Grigson did a better job of putting a solid team around Luck than the Panthers did for Newton. How do you see it? 

[BOTT]

I have and still think Luck's was better. I think Grigson did a better job of putting a solid team around Luck than the Panthers did for Newton. How do you see it?

Kind of a wash. Their Oline was better, but I think they had some injuries up front that year

[sweetsurrender]

Kind of a wash. Their Oline was better, but I think they had some injuries up front that year

Yeah, not a huge gap by any means. But I still don't think Irsay and co. get enough credit for the type of re-org they did after they ousted the Polian regime and released Manning. I think Luck is a solid QB but to win 11 games back to back seasons is very impressive for the franchise. I feel like the media just chalks it all up to Luck when in fact the FO did one of the best turnarounds in league history. Even the Pack after being in the NFC champ in 2007 went 6-10 Rodgers first year.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

i dont think anyone on here is stupid enough to argue what someone posted when its clearly up for all to see

i know youre goal is to make me appear to be that person

the conclusion is NOT "ernnn a durrr so he did say it huh???!!1?" because that wouldnt be at all relevant to the thesis of my arguement

the conclusion = just because you say something doesnt mean you agree with it, are suggesting it, or endorse it in any way

example (so you can understand) :

racist person: "I hate jews, theyre all the same and my boss is one and i want to kill him" (NOT A PERSONAL BELIEF At all)

thought provoking person: "So by your logic we should kill them all and torture them to death like adolf, including the women and children"

person b is not suggestng at ALL that racist person is right hes pointing out the faulty logic in his statement

this is exactly what you did in different context

you: "oh so youre suggesting we kill people person b omg youre evil!'

its okay a lot of people like to do what you just did. When they lose an argument act like the whole time they were arguing something else. At first you were saying "oh so youre suggesting we trade luck for punter??" now youre saying "did he not SAY IT"

I don't know the majority of your little rant here but my only argument was that you can't take away the Superbowl win from Wilson's resume. It's a team win obviously but he still won a Superbowl along with all the other guys. And then he/you(Idk who) somehow got that we should trade Luck for a punter just because he has a ring. I didn't lose anything, and I have no idea Why you brought any racist argument into this. Terrible comparison.

[Naptown Lifer]

I don't know the majority of your little rant here but my only argument was that you can't take away the Superbowl win from Wilson's resume. It's a team win obviously but he still won a Superbowl along with all the other guys. And then he/you(Idk who) somehow got that we should trade Luck for a punter just because he has a ring. I didn't lose anything, and I have no idea Why you brought any racist argument into this. Terrible comparison.

You're right about one thing you don't know, you don't look, you don't read, you just make smart butt remarks , no one GOT that we should do anything, but it's clear you have a very bad understanding of the English language and I cannot help you there

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

You're right about one thing you don't know, you don't look, you don't read, you just make smart butt remarks , no one GOT that we should do anything, but it's clear you have a very bad understanding of the English language and I cannot help you there

No i just don't care enough to look back at who made the * remark of trading Luck for a punter with a superbowl ring. Now that you've lost your argument you can resort to childish tactics all you must. English isn't my first or second language so I apologize for that. 

[Deathiltis]

Brunell also thinks weed ruins lives so I wouldn't take his opinion as gospel. He's just another piece of the media machine.

[Beauregarde]

What the Colts did a few years prior with a vastly different roster means very little. There was a reason the Colts were picked to finish in the bottom three Luck's first year. If you think Newton inherited a vastly worse roster than Luck you don't know the Colts very well.

I believe he got it exactly right and I certainly agree that Newton inherited a vastly worse roster than Luck. When we talk about these top QBs you can take two approaches. You can draft your franchise QB before you build the defense and the offensive line (Luck and Newton) or you can build your great defense and line and then bring in your QB on a rookie contract to run the team (Kaep, Wilson and Flacco). It is obvious that the 49er, Seahawk and Raven approach has gotten to and won Super Bowls. I think that will be the method followed around the NFL for a long time. Now, is Luck better than Kaep, Wilson or Flacco? It doesn't really matter because they will have to start cutting players just as soon as Luck brings in the big bucks. They may never get to the SB when that happens and they might not get there before Luck gets that huge contract. Perhaps the days of the only way to win championships is to have a Super Star QB are over. It is all a result of the last bargaining agreement. I personally think the plan of the 49ers, Ravens and Seahawks is the way to go.

[BOTT]

I believe he got it exactly right and I certainly agree that Newton inherited a vastly worse roster than Luck. When we talk about these top QBs you can take two approaches. You can draft your franchise QB before you build the defense and the offensive line (Luck and Newton) or you can build your great defense and line and then bring in your QB on a rookie contract to run the team (Kaep, Wilson and Flacco). It is obvious that the 49er, Seahawk and Raven approach has gotten to and won Super Bowls. I think that will be the method followed around the NFL for a long time. Now, is Luck better than Kaep, Wilson or Flacco? It doesn't really matter because they will have to start cutting players just as soon as Luck brings in the big bucks. They may never get to the SB when that happens and they might not get there before Luck gets that huge contract. Perhaps the days of the only way to win championships is to have a Super Star QB are over. It is all a result of the last bargaining agreement. I personally think the plan of the 49ers, Ravens and Seahawks is the way to go.

It not quite that simple. And your first sentence is preposterous

[Dustin]

I believe he got it exactly right and I certainly agree that Newton inherited a vastly worse roster than Luck. When we talk about these top QBs you can take two approaches. You can draft your franchise QB before you build the defense and the offensive line (Luck and Newton) or you can build your great defense and line and then bring in your QB on a rookie contract to run the team (Kaep, Wilson and Flacco). It is obvious that the 49er, Seahawk and Raven approach has gotten to and won Super Bowls. I think that will be the method followed around the NFL for a long time. Now, is Luck better than Kaep, Wilson or Flacco? It doesn't really matter because they will have to start cutting players just as soon as Luck brings in the big bucks. They may never get to the SB when that happens and they might not get there before Luck gets that huge contract. Perhaps the days of the only way to win championships is to have a Super Star QB are over. It is all a result of the last bargaining agreement. I personally think the plan of the 49ers, Ravens and Seahawks is the way to go.

 

Yeah none of those teams built anything before they got their QBs. Kaepernick and Flacco were drafted under the first years of their new regimes (Kaep drafted in Jim Harbaughs first year and Flacco drafted in John Harbaughs first year) and Wilson was drafted in I think the 3rd year of Carroll and they more or less lucked into him to begin with. 

 

They already had infrastructures in place because that's what the new regimes inherited. 

[Beauregarde]

Yeah none of those teams built anything before they got their QBs. Kaepernick and Flacco were drafted under the first years of their new regimes (Kaep drafted in Jim Harbaughs first year and Flacco drafted in John Harbaughs first year) and Wilson was drafted in I think the 3rd year of Carroll and they more or less lucked into him to begin with. 

 

They already had infrastructures in place because that's what the new regimes inherited. 

Yes, I think that is true but they have set a way to get to the top that others are bound to copy.

[Naptown Lifer]

No i just don't care enough to look back at who made the * remark of trading Luck for a punter with a superbowl ring. Now that you've lost your argument you can resort to childish tactics all you must. English isn't my first or second language so I apologize for that.

And this is why I chose to stop because if you don't understand English well then it explains why you can't comprehend that no one even suggested we should trade luck for a punter, which you seem to enjoy repeating.

[Naptown Lifer]

IWhen we talk about these top QBs you can take two approaches. You can draft your franchise QB before you build the defense and the offensive line (Luck and Newton) or you can build your great defense and line and then bring in your QB on a rookie contract to run the team (Kaep, Wilson and Flacco). It is obvious that the 49er, Seahawk and Raven approach has gotten to and won Super Bowls. I personally think the plan of the 49ers, Ravens and Seahawks is the way to go.

We'll I don't know why you choose to bash the colts continuously for picking luck when all those people you mentioned picked a qb as soon as they took over that wasn't even close to luck

[BOTT]

Yes, I think that is true but they have set a way to get to the top that others are bound to copy.

Circumstance and luck will be hard to duplicate

[Beauregarde]

We'll I don't know why you choose to bash the colts continuously for picking luck when all those people you mentioned picked a qb as soon as they took over that wasn't even close to luck

I wasn't bashing the Colts for taking Luck. When they did that, it was the accepted way to build a team. Those three teams have shown there is a different way and you don't need an all world QB to do it. I think it will become a trend because of the CBA. I would have taken Luck too if I had been a Colts GM but a new method has become the trend of the day.

[Beauregarde]

Circumstance and luck will be hard to duplicate

Don't you mean circumstance and Luck?

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

And this is why I chose to stop because if you don't understand English well then it explains why you can't comprehend that no one even suggested we should trade luck for a punter, which you seem to enjoy repeating.

I really don't know what to tell you child. The guy clearly said that "by my logic" we should trade Luck, Fleener etc for a punter with a Superbowl ring. That's not what I was suggesting at all, so perhaps I have a better grasp on the English Language than you and your buddy.

[Naptown Lifer]

I really don't know what to tell you child. The guy clearly said that "by my logic" we should trade Luck, Fleener etc for a punter with a Superbowl ring. That's not what I was suggesting at all, so perhaps I have a better grasp on the English Language than you and your buddy.

We'll there you go you have finally learned to somewhat recognize that the man never said we should trade luck for a punter but said by your logic we should. Why you kept repeating over and over that "oh you're suggesting we trade luck for a punter" just because it was included in one of his sentences and choosing to ignore that he was saying you're logic you were using at the time makes this seem like an acceptable move is beyond me, as are most of the things you say

Way to act like you've been saying this from the beginning though you'll probably seem smart to the people who don't read the whole thread.

Child? Have you seen your avatar you're like 13

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

We'll there you go you have finally learned to somewhat recognize that the man never said we should trade luck for a punter but said by your logic we should. Why you kept repeating over and over that "oh you're suggesting we trade luck for a punter" just because it was included in one of his sentences and choosing to ignore that he was saying you're logic you were using at the time makes this seem like an acceptable move is beyond me, as are most of the things you say

Way to act like you've been saying this from the beginning though you'll probably seem smart to the people who don't read the whole thread.

Child? Have you seen your avatar you're like 13

I'm 18. He still said it, not me. As I've been saying.

[Naptown Lifer]

I'm 18. He still said it, not me. As I've been saying.

I never said you did say it. I never said he didn't say it.

You said he suggested it and repeated it like a broken record *

He never suggested it

[sweetsurrender]

I wasn't bashing the Colts for taking Luck. When they did that, it was the accepted way to build a team. Those three teams have shown there is a different way and you don't need an all world QB to do it. I think it will become a trend because of the CBA. I would have taken Luck too if I had been a Colts GM but a new method has become the trend of the day.

I am not sure I am following your reasoning here. Are you saying that if a top QB is available you should not take him until you build a solid team first and then just take an average QB and plug him in?  And by extension of this reasoning are you inferring that Wilson, Kaep and Newton are average QBs?

[Beauregarde]

I am not sure I am following your reasoning here. Are you saying that if a top QB is available you should not take him until you build a solid team first and then just take an average QB and plug him in?  And by extension of this reasoning are you inferring that Wilson, Kaep and Newton are average QBs?

No, other folks here are calling them average, not me. I think they are the top three young QBs in the game with Luck just on the outside. What the 49ers, Seahawks and Ravens did was build the solid team you mention and then the drafted the best QB they could get to be their franchise QB. The result is the last two Super Bowl wins and another trip to the Super Bowl by the 49ers. So, yes, I think the day of taking a top QB when the rest of your team needs work has gone by the wayside. The new CBA makes it impossible to keep a team as a Super Bowl contender year after year doing that. The new method is to build your defense and your offensive line and then get the QB and make hay while he is on his rookie contract. When he jumps up to the big bucks, you will be in the position the Colts will be in with Luck of having to let players go and having no ability to sign new ones. This will also happen to the 49ers and Seahawks when their QBs get the big money but they may win a couple of Super Bowls before that happens.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

I never said you did say it. I never said he didn't say it.

You said he suggested it and repeated it like a broken record *

He never suggested it

He did suggest it. Right there, it's in the print.

[Clem-Dog]

Sure Wilson looked great in the Super Bowl, after his defense, ST, and running game spotted him a 29 point lead.  At this point all the pressure was off, and for some reason or another Carroll knew this was RW's chance to rack up cheap yards in order to make it appear that his QB had a hand in beating the Broncos, which he did not.  The Hawks could only pass on obvious running downs. 

 

Besides Luck, I'd most certainly take Foles over Russell, and it's not even close. 

 

Russell puts up average numbers, just like Flacco.  I don't care that Flacco played great and had no interceptions in the playoffs because he is average, just like Russell.  Ultimately, I can't wait till Seattle overpays Russell because they will lose many great defenders in the process.  Whence the experts can evaluate his true impact, see Flacco.

 

Wilson doesn't suck, he's just an average game manager.  That's all.

[Naptown Lifer]

He did suggest it. Right there, it's in the print.

no he said by your logic we should, completely different thing i dont know if you just dont understand this or what but im tired of trying to teach you english

 

in the english language you have to look at the context in which things are said, but youve demonstrated for a while you dont understand this or love to nitpick little things in peoples sentences taking it all literally, how smart and original for an 18 year old kid on the internet who calls other people child

[IndyTrav]

Sure Wilson looked great in the Super Bowl, after his defense, ST, and running game spotted him a 29 point lead.  At this point all the pressure was off, and for some reason or another Carroll knew this was RW's chance to rack up cheap yards in order to make it appear that his QB had a hand in beating the Broncos, which he did not.  The Hawks could only pass on obvious running downs. 

 

Besides Luck, I'd most certainly take Foles over Russell, and it's not even close. 

 

Russell puts up average numbers, just like Flacco.  I don't care that Flacco played great and had no interceptions in the playoffs because he is average, just like Russell.  Ultimately, I can't wait till Seattle overpays Russell because they will lose many great defenders in the process.  Whence the experts can evaluate his true impact, see Flacco.

 

Wilson doesn't suck, he's just an average game manager.  That's all.

 

This is a completely unfair assessment. He is far above an average QB. The 'game manager' cliche is tired. The guy is asked to not turn the ball over and make the passes when his team needs it, and its a bad thing? He extends plays with his scrambling, and makes some pretty extraordinary plays. 

 

Since his team didn't need him to throw the ball all over the yard in the SB, he's a bad QB? Peytons team needed him to throw the ball all over the yard, how did that turn out....

 

He puts up average #'s? He has a better comp% , better yards per att, more TDs, less TOs than Luck....Luck has had 332 MORE attempts (rush/pass) with less TDs, and only 1325 more yards....Thats a pretty glaring gap to be honest.....

 

Just because you (and me) favor Luck over Wilson, that doesn't mean the kid has been anything short of fantastic, with a bright future ahead of him. Same with Cam. 

[Clem-Dog]

This is a completely unfair assessment. He is far above an average QB. The 'game manager' cliche is tired. The guy is asked to not turn the ball over and make the passes when his team needs it, and its a bad thing? He extends plays with his scrambling, and makes some pretty extraordinary plays. 

 

Since his team didn't need him to throw the ball all over the yard in the SB, he's a bad QB? Peytons team needed him to throw the ball all over the yard, how did that turn out....

 

He puts up average #'s? He has a better comp% , better yards per att, more TDs, less TOs than Luck....Luck has had 332 MORE attempts (rush/pass) with less TDs, and only 1325 more yards....Thats a pretty glaring gap to be honest.....

 

Just because you (and me) favor Luck over Wilson, that doesn't mean the kid has been anything short of fantastic, with a bright future ahead of him. Same with Cam. 

The "game manager" cliché is definitely valid considering you just described Russell as one.

 

Russell has had 57 regular season TD's (Pass/rush) and Luck 55 TD's over the same span.  TO's: Wilson 35/ Luck 36.  PassYDS: Wilson 6,475/ Luck 8,196.  Rush Yds Wilson 1,028/Luck 632.  Can you point to the glaring gap? 

 

The stats convey that Luck is a better passer while Wilson is a better runner.  And since we are talking quarterbacks, I for some reason prefer the better passer.  Maybe you believe in the fallacy that mobile QB's have long impactful careers, but I for one do not.

 

Cam is also better than Wilson because he is not reliant on his legs, same with Foles. 

[sweetsurrender]

No, other folks here are calling them average, not me. I think they are the top three young QBs in the game with Luck just on the outside. What the 49ers, Seahawks and Ravens did was build the solid team you mention and then the drafted the best QB they could get to be their franchise QB. The result is the last two Super Bowl wins and another trip to the Super Bowl by the 49ers. So, yes, I think the day of taking a top QB when the rest of your team needs work has gone by the wayside. The new CBA makes it impossible to keep a team as a Super Bowl contender year after year doing that. The new method is to build your defense and your offensive line and then get the QB and make hay while he is on his rookie contract. When he jumps up to the big bucks, you will be in the position the Colts will be in with Luck of having to let players go and having no ability to sign new ones. This will also happen to the 49ers and Seahawks when their QBs get the big money but they may win a couple of Super Bowls before that happens.

Thanks for clarifying. I am not sure teams like Seattle and the Niners planned as you suggest. I think like every other team they are trying to build a contending team and the QB came later. Just two years ago the Seahawks spent a #2 on Flynn and a boat load of money only to have a third rounder in Russell beat him out in TC. It is was more Seattle's good fortune of finding a great talent in the third round that fit their system perfectly then trying to manage the QB salary. Same with the Niners. They had Smith and drafted Kaep in the second round and were ready to sign Manning two years ago at a hefty salary had he decided to come. Because he declined they went with Kaep which again has worked out for them but not by design.

 

I do agree that the QB salary can be an albatross of sorts but good teams figure out a way to manage it and still build a contending team.

 

Why are you so worried about the Colts? They have been very good over the years at building contending teams and with Grig as the GM they will be more balanced then they were with Manning.

[thedude]

The "game manager" cliché is definitely valid considering you just described Russell as one.

 

 

Isn't every QB required to manage a game?  Sometimes I think people invent these terms because they want to pretend that they know something when they are actually ignorant on the subject.

[IndyTrav]

The "game manager" cliché is definitely valid considering you just described Russell as one.

 

Russell has had 57 regular season TD's (Pass/rush) and Luck 55 TD's over the same span.  TO's: Wilson 35/ Luck 36.  PassYDS: Wilson 6,475/ Luck 8,196.  Rush Yds Wilson 1,028/Luck 632.  Can you point to the glaring gap? 

 

The stats convey that Luck is a better passer while Wilson is a better runner.  And since we are talking quarterbacks, I for some reason prefer the better passer.  Maybe you believe in the fallacy that mobile QB's have long impactful careers, but I for one do not.

 

Cam is also better than Wilson because he is not reliant on his legs, same with Foles. 

 Again, the stats do not suggest Luck is better passer......

 

Wilson has better comp %, better TD%, better yards per completion, nearly identical int%....

 

Based on the #s if they both threw 100x...Luck would have 57comp/684yds/4tds/2ints....Wilson would have 63comp/800yds/6tds/2ints....

[Beauregarde]

Thanks for clarifying. I am not sure teams like Seattle and the Niners planned as you suggest. I think like every other team they are trying to build a contending team and the QB came later. Just two years ago the Seahawks spent a #2 on Flynn and a boat load of money only to have a third rounder in Russell beat him out in TC. It is was more Seattle's good fortune of finding a great talent in the third round that fit their system perfectly then trying to manage the QB salary. Same with the Niners. They had Smith and drafted Kaep in the second round and were ready to sign Manning two years ago at a hefty salary had he decided to come. Because he declined they went with Kaep which again has worked out for them but not by design.

 

I do agree that the QB salary can be an albatross of sorts but good teams figure out a way to manage it and still build a contending team.

 

Why are you so worried about the Colts? They have been very good over the years at building contending teams and with Grig as the GM they will be more balanced then they were with Manning.

What makes you think they will be more balanced? When Luck's rookie contract is over, he is going to command $20 million+ and Grigson will have the same problems Polian had. He will have to let good players go and won't be able to spend free agency money to get new ones. I think the Colts have a three year window to win a Super Bowl. They will be in the playoffs most years after that but not really Super Bowl contenders. You may be right that the 49ers and Seahawks didn't plan what happened but nonetheless they have created a new strategy to get to and win Super Bowls while their QBs are still on their rookie contracts.

[sweetsurrender]

What makes you think they will be more balanced? When Luck's rookie contract is over, he is going to command $20 million+ and Grigson will have the same problems Polian had. He will have to let good players go and won't be able to spend free agency money to get new ones. I think the Colts have a three year window to win a Super Bowl. They will be in the playoffs most years after that but not really Super Bowl contenders. You may be right that the 49ers and Seahawks didn't plan what happened but nonetheless they have created a new strategy to get to and win Super Bowls while their QBs are still on their rookie contracts.

I don't see the Colts building the team around Luck the way Polian did with Manning and Elway is also now doing. It is obvious that they want to have a stout run game even though the Richardson trade was a bust thus far. And they are working on the D. And the Colts will be contending as long as Luck is their QB no matter his salary. Like I said, good FOs manage the QB salary and a QB like Luck makes the whole offense better.

 

I think ALL teams would love to win SBs with QBs on their rookie contracts but there really is no strategy except for building a contending team. Most QBs are not ready to win rings in their first four years anyways so not sure that is a viable strategy anyways. And any team that is fortunate to get a young franchise QB will be more than happy to pay him the big $$$ after his rookie deal given it is such a QB driven league.

 

Do you think that once Wilson and Kaep complete their rookie contracts that neither the Seahawks or Niners will contend for SBs?

[Beauregarde]

I don't see the Colts building the team around Luck the way Polian did with Manning and Elway is also now doing. It is obvious that they want to have a stout run game even though the Richardson trade was a bust thus far. And they are working on the D. And the Colts will be contending as long as Luck is their QB no matter his salary. Like I said, good FOs manage the QB salary and a QB like Luck makes the whole offense better.

 

I think ALL teams would love to win SBs with QBs on their rookie contracts but there really is no strategy except for building a contending team. Most QBs are not ready to win rings in their first four years anyways so not sure that is a viable strategy anyways. And any team that is fortunate to get a young franchise QB will be more than happy to pay him the big $$$ after his rookie deal given it is such a QB driven league.

 

Do you think that once Wilson and Kaep complete their rookie contracts that neither the Seahawks or Niners will contend for SBs?

Oh, every three or four years they will put together a run. They will have he same problems as everyone else in keeping players under the salary cap. They may want to have a stout running game but they won't have enough money to do that and pay Luck too. More and more young QBs are showing that they can come right in and run a team. I think it will be the trend of the future as teams build their defenses and offensive line while using lower paid QBs while they wait to grab the potential franchise QB. It is just my opinion but I think the whole game has changed under the new CBA.

[Clem-Dog]

Isn't every QB required to manage a game?  Sometimes I think people invent these terms because they want to pretend that they know something when they are actually ignorant on the subject.

Yes and some QB's do it at different levels.  Russell's game management consists of minimizing mistakes, maybe I should have specified.

 

Oh and I can assure you that I didn't make up this 'game manager term, keyword cliché. Dilfer was referred to as one, and I think it applies to Flacco and Wilson as well.

[thedude]

Yes and some QB's do it at different levels.  Russell's game management consists of minimizing mistakes, maybe I should have specified.

Again, don't all QB's try to minimize mistakes? The best are also the best at minimizing mistakes. They also are the best at taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them during the course of the game. Kind of like the way Wilson does.

[thedude]

Game management and minimizing mistakes has been the weakness of Luck so far.  He needs to avoid turning the ball over at the wrong time.  Too many turnovers in the playoffs.   Nine turnovers in three playoff games.   Franchise QB's don't make those mistakes in the big games.

 

That's where Wilson has jumped ahead of his peers.  Wilson doesn't get overwhelmed with his situation then force things causing a turnover.  

 

I think Luck will get to that place.  He's just not there yet.  I look for him to improve in that area next year.

[Clem-Dog]

Game management and minimizing mistakes has been the weakness of Luck so far.  He needs to avoid turning the ball over at the wrong time.  Too many turnovers in the playoffs.   Nine turnovers in three playoff games.   Franchise QB's don't make those mistakes in the big games.

 

That's where Wilson has jumped ahead of his peers.  Wilson doesn't get overwhelmed with his situation then force things causing a turnover.  

 

I think Luck will get to that place.  He's just not there yet.  I look for him to improve in that area next year.

It's all about the context of their respective situations, and Luck is in a far worse situation to extract efficient stats.  Often times playing from behind results in a lot of forced throws which leads to a hit in the efficiency department.  Bluntly put, put Luck in Seattle and his current numbers would increase across the board, the inverse would be true with respect to RW.  As the situation stands, RW's efficiency is directly correlated with not being asked to put the team on his shoulders, a very different scenario than Andrew currently finds himself in.

 

Luck is in that place you speak of, unfortunately his teammates are not.  Andrew's victory over the 'Hawks is the most impressive h-2-h stat we can reference.  The fact Luck solved Seattle's defensive dominance speaks volumes about his skills.  RW on the other hand faced our defense and failed.  Conclusions? 

[thedude]

Wilson played a lot of games from behind last season. Several times the Seahawks came back from double digit deficits to win. He was pressured consistently all season long as the Seahawks had O line issues from the start. I don't recall one time where Seattle lost a game because their QB made a huge mistake with the game on the line.