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

[TAPLOOK]

    

Actually you did say Wilson had more. First, "I would bet he's had more than Luck?" Is not a question, regardless of your use of a question mark. Then you stated that Wilson had 12 to Luck's 11.

 

 

You do see the question mark right? That means I'm asking.

[Cynjin]

You do see the question mark right? That means I'm asking.

Do you see the wording? That is not a question.

[TAPLOOK]

Do you see the wording? That is not a question.

 

 

Actually it was. I'm the source so trust me.That's the problem with the interweb.

[GoPats]

thanks for the feedback sweetsurrender, I do tend to draft long post and take the time to investigate things that I think I need to investigate . . . and I can be too long winded for some topics and it why I try to pick what topics I draft post, as it takes time so I am limited what I can do, and as times some topics/responses may not require a long response . . . I just had a passion for this thread and I personally have change my views on Wilson and wanted to share my thoughts . . .   

 

Well lawyers do bill by the hour, right?  ;)

[yakimacanutt]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/21/chris-harris-russell-wilson-better-than-andrew-luck/

He has played against both of them twice. He deserves to have an opinion about the subject.

[thedude]

fair enough then dude   . . . I guess I was a little disappointed that, imo, you did not pick my point from my earlier posts, to you and others, and then felt the need to spend the time to explain myself in more detail especially after you ask me in your post what my point was . . . so it was kind of like I make a point in the thread, someone did not pick it up (imo), asked me what my point was, I then took the time to expand my explanation and he does note read the post . . . so there was a knee jerk reaction from my last post, sorry if it got a little testy . . .

 

But we are all cool now . . .

I like to see a point made more quickly. Remember, I have attention span issues

[Yehoodi]

I like to see a point made more quickly. Remember, I have attention span issues

 

I will do my best . . .

[Vance]

wth

[amfootball]

I will do my best . . .

But your posts are among my favorite on this board to read. Don't edit yourself too much. I tell you what. You write your normal post and then I can take it and summarize in bullet points for Dude. Sound like a plan?

[Yehoodi]

But your posts are among my favorite on this board to read. Don't edit yourself too much. I tell you what. You write your normal post and then I can take it and summarize in bullet points for Dude. Sound like a plan?

 

that's not a bad idea . . . I will give it some thought . . .

[Tokadub]

I think Wilson is clearly better than Luck at this point both from the obvious results of winning a Super Bowl but even by just the stats alone.

 

In their careers thus far it's fairly accurate to compare Andrew Luck to Peyton Manning and Russell Wilson to Tom Brady, at least that is how the media seems to perceive it.

 

So let us compare and RANK the career stats for all 4 of these QB's in multiple statistical categories that I consider to be the most important for these kind of comparisons. These stats do not include the 3 games from this season because I originally wrote this up in the off-season.

Completion Percentage

1) Manning = 65.5%
2) Wilson = 63.6%
3) Brady = 63.4%
4) Luck = 57%

Yards Per Pass Attempt

1) Wilson = 8.1
2) Manning = 7.7
3) Brady = 7.5
4) Luck = 6.8

Passer Rating

1) Wilson = 100.6
2) Manning = 97.2
3) Brady = 95.7
4) Luck = 81.5

Touchdown/Interception Ratio

1) Wilson = 2.74
2) Brady = 2.7
3) Manning = 2.24
4) Luck = 1.7

Passing Touchdowns Per Season Average

1) Manning = 30.69
2) Wilson = 26
3) Brady = 25.64
4) Luck = 23

Passing Yards Per Season Average

1) Luck = 4098
2) Manning = 4059
3) Brady = 3510
4) Wilson = 3238

Rushing Yards Per Season Average

1) Wilson = 514
2) Luck = 316
3) Brady = 55
4) Manning = 44

Passing + Rushing Yards Per Game Average

1) Luck = 276
2) Manning = 257
3) Wilson = 234
4) Brady = 222

Career Win %

1) Brady = 76.5%
2) Wilson = 75.7%
3) Manning = 67.7%
4) Luck = 65.7%

Total Super Bowl Wins

1) Brady = 3
2) Wilson = 1
3) Manning = 1
4) Luck = 0

Super Bowl Win %

1) Wilson = 100%
2) Brady = 60%
3) Manning = 33%
4) Luck = N/A

Super Bowl Wins Per Season%

1) Wilson = 50%
2) Brady = 21.4%
3) Manning = 6.25%
4) Luck = 0%


TOTAL 1ST PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Wilson = 6
2) Brady = 2
3) Manning = 2
4) Luck = 2

TOTAL 2ND PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Wilson = 4
2) Manning = 4
3) Brady = 3
4) Luck = 1

TOTAL 3RD PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Brady = 6
2) Manning = 5
3) Wilson = 1
4) Luck = 0

TOTAL 4TH PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Luck = 9
2) Wilson = 1
3) Brady = 1
4) Manning = 1


CONCLUSION:

When comparing all 4 of these QB's Wilson appears to be the best so far.

[Tokadub]

Which would you prefer 4 more yards per drive or 1 less INT per game??? That is the difference between Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson when broken down to the most easily understandable comparison. I explain this below:

 

Why are some people so simple minded when it comes to their QB evaluations? They think that total yards is the ONLY stat that matters?

If you are going by stats WILSON is your guy... hands down no comparison.

If you are going by his physical stature, his #1 pick, and his imaginary theoretical potential despite his terrible decision making than Luck is your guy. ..

But I posted this on the Packer's forum when they too were saying Luck > Wilson. My response was basically OK... well you guys realize Rodgers is WAYYYY more similar to Wilson than Luck right? So why would you not want the QB who is very similar to Aaron Rodgers? Would you really choose Luck who isn't even close?

I think Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the league. I think Wilson is the 5th best QB in the league and could very well move up to #3 by the start of next season... Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees are getting kinda old, but it's not impossible that they could continue to perform at a top 5 level for another few seasons.


Regular Season (Touchdown/Interception Ratio) / Passer Rating / Yards Per Attempt:

Aaron Rodgers: 3.62 (Touchdown/Interception Ratio) / 104.9 Passer Rating / 8.19 YPA
Russell Wilson: 2.73 (Touchdown/Interception Ratio) / 100.6 Passer Rating / 8.09 YPA
Andrew Luck: 1.7 (Touchdown/Interception Ratio) / 81.5 Passer Rating / 6.85 YPA

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00/gamelog/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00/gamelog/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00/gamelog/

 

Post Season Touchdowns / Interceptions / Passer Rating:

Aaron Rodgers: 19 Touchdowns / 5 Interception / 103 Passer Rating
Russell Wilson: 6 Touchdowns / 1 Interception / 102 Passer Rating
Andrew Luck: 6 Touchdowns / 8 Interceptions / 70 Passer Rating

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00/gamelog/post/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00/gamelog/post/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00/gamelog/post/

Oh and let's not forget that Wilson's completion percentage is about 2 percent lower than Rodgers. Luck is 9 percent lower than Rodgers.

It's also worth noting that if you add in rushing yards into the equation to form a QB's total yard production per game Wilson isn't even that far behind in total yards:

Passing + Rushing Yards Per Game Average

1) Brees = 278
2) Luck = 276
3) Rodgers = 273
4) Manning = 257
5) Wilson = 234
6) Brady = 222

So while this comparison does make Luck look pretty good at first glance if you really think about it... well Wilson is about 40 yards per game behind Luck. Wilson is about 20 yards behind Manning.

So we measure the value of Luck's additional 42 yards per game against his interceptions (in their first 2 seasons).

Including the post-season Luck has 54 interceptions in 35 games an average of 1.54 interceptions per game.

Including the post-season Wilson has 20 interceptions in 38 games an average of .526 interceptions per game.

So I ask YOU RUSSELL WILSON DOUBTERS... WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER 42 MORE YARDS PER GAME OR 1 LESS INTERCEPTION PER GAME?

I sure as heck would prefer my QB to get 1 less interception per game than just 42 more yards...


According to this source:

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-drives-per-game/2013/

Average Drives Per Game in 2013:

Colts: 11.8
Seahawks 11.4

So while 42 yards might sound like a big advantage for Luck if you average that out for 11 drives per game that is 3.81 more yards per drive.

So would you rather have about 4 more yards per drive or 1 less interception per game? The choice is clear Wilson > Luck.

There is just no valid analysis to state Luck is better, people who believe that simply don't understand what QB's need to do to win football games consistently.

[BlueShoe]

When comparing all 4 of these QB's Wilson appears to be the best so far.

 

Who would have ever thought this was a team sport?

 

Did Wilson have to resurrect a franchise? Did Wilson's team have 40 million in dead cap space his first season? Did Wilson have a running game? Did Wilson have a defense?

 

Luck was the number 1 pick, because the team picking him was the worst team in the league. Luck did not have time to figure things out in the NFL. He had to take him team on his back and carry them.

 

It was the first time ever that a number 1 pick at quarterback took his team to the playoffs.

 

Luck was picked number 1 because he was the best player in the 2012 NFL Draft. He has has more than justified the reason to pick him above all other players.

[UKCOLT17]

Who would have ever thought this was a team sport?

 

Did Wilson have to resurrect a franchise? Did Wilson's team have 40 million in dead cap space his first season? Did Wilson have a running game? Did Wilson have a defense?

 

Luck was the number 1 pick, because the team picking him was the worst team in the league. Luck did not have time to figure things out in the NFL. He had to take him team on his back and carry them.

 

come on didnt u no wilson does everything plays everywhere never see one person do so much and be so great god why couldnt we get him 

[amfootball]

Who would have ever thought this was a team sport?

 

Did Wilson have to resurrect a franchise? Did Wilson's team have 40 million in dead cap space his first season? Did Wilson have a running game? Did Wilson have a defense?

 

Luck was the number 1 pick, because the team picking him was the worst team in the league. Luck did not have time to figure things out in the NFL. He had to take him team on his back and carry them.

 

It was the first time ever that a number 1 pick at quarterback took his team to the playoffs.

 

Luck was picked number 1 because he was the best player in the 2012 NFL Draft. He has has more than justified the reason to pick him above all other players.

I guess I would counter with Wilson was picked third round and was behind Matt Flynn who the Hawks gave Green Bay a number two for and then paid him a boat load of money. Flynn never saw the field once Wilson won the job. That is how good Wilson from the get go.

 

In terms of resurrecting a franchise. The Colts were a perennial playoff team and Super contender for years prior to Luck's arrival and only had one bad season when Manning went down late with the neck surgeries. The history of ineptitude lies with Seattle whose recent best QB prior to Wilson was Matt Hasselbeck.

 

And while it is true that Luck was the first #1 pick to get his franchise to the playoffs, Wilson was the first QB in Seattle's history to win the Super Bowl.

[BlueShoe]

I guess I would counter with Wilson was picked third round and was behind Matt Flynn who the Hawks gave Green Bay a number two for and then paid him a boat load of money. Flynn never saw the field once Wilson won the job. That is how good Wilson from the get go.

 

In terms of resurrecting a franchise. The Colts were a perennial playoff team and Super contender for years prior to Luck's arrival and only had one bad season when Manning went down late with the neck surgeries. The history of ineptitude lies with Seattle whose recent best QB prior to Wilson was Matt Hasselbeck.

 

And while it is true that Luck was the first #1 pick to get his franchise to the playoffs, Wilson was the first QB in Seattle's history to win the Super Bowl.

 

The Colts were a very bad football team when Luck was drafted. Seattle was a good football team. 

[amfootball]

The Colts were a very bad football team when Luck was drafted. Seattle was a good football team. 

Seattle was 7-9 the two seasons prior. No one picked them to win a championship in Wilson's second year. They might have been slightly better then the Colts but they were not a contender by any means.

[BlueShoe]

Seattle was 7-9 the two seasons prior. No one picked them to win a championship in Wilson's second year. They might have been slightly better then the Colts but they were not a contender by any means.

 

The pieces were already there for Seattle. Good defense and good running game. They only needed a decent quarterback.

 

The Colts were a complete mess. This is why they were picking first. We were worse than our 2-14 record. 

 

How many players from the 2011 season do you think are on the team now? How many in 2012? How many in 2013? I will spot you Reggie Wayne, AV, AC, and Pat Mac. Can you name any others?

 

The Colts have gone through a complete overhaul and just kept winning in the process. That is how good Andrew Luck is. You can be jealous about Luck all you want to though.

[Cynjin]

I think Wilson is clearly better than Luck at this point both from the obvious results of winning a Super Bowl but even by just the stats alone.

In their careers thus far it's fairly accurate to compare Andrew Luck to Peyton Manning and Russell Wilson to Tom Brady, at least that is how the media seems to perceive it.

So let us compare and RANK the career stats for all 4 of these QB's in multiple statistical categories that I consider to be the most important for these kind of comparisons. These stats do not include the 3 games from this season because I originally wrote this up in the off-season.Completion Percentage

1) Manning = 65.5%

2) Wilson = 63.6%

3) Brady = 63.4%

4) Luck = 57%Yards Per Pass Attempt

1) Wilson = 8.1

2) Manning = 7.7

3) Brady = 7.5

4) Luck = 6.8Passer Rating

1) Wilson = 100.6

2) Manning = 97.2

3) Brady = 95.7

4) Luck = 81.5Touchdown/Interception Ratio

1) Wilson = 2.74

2) Brady = 2.7

3) Manning = 2.24

4) Luck = 1.7Passing Touchdowns Per Season Average

1) Manning = 30.69

2) Wilson = 26

3) Brady = 25.64

4) Luck = 23Passing Yards Per Season Average

1) Luck = 4098

2) Manning = 4059

3) Brady = 3510

4) Wilson = 3238Rushing Yards Per Season Average

1) Wilson = 514

2) Luck = 316

3) Brady = 55

4) Manning = 44Passing + Rushing Yards Per Game Average

1) Luck = 276

2) Manning = 257

3) Wilson = 234

4) Brady = 222Career Win %

1) Brady = 76.5%

2) Wilson = 75.7%

3) Manning = 67.7%

4) Luck = 65.7%Total Super Bowl Wins

1) Brady = 3

2) Wilson = 1

3) Manning = 1

4) Luck = 0Super Bowl Win %

1) Wilson = 100%

2) Brady = 60%

3) Manning = 33%

4) Luck = N/ASuper Bowl Wins Per Season%

1) Wilson = 50%

2) Brady = 21.4%

3) Manning = 6.25%

4) Luck = 0%TOTAL 1ST PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Wilson = 6

2) Brady = 2

3) Manning = 2

4) Luck = 2TOTAL 2ND PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Wilson = 4

2) Manning = 4

3) Brady = 3

4) Luck = 1TOTAL 3RD PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Brady = 6

2) Manning = 5

3) Wilson = 1

4) Luck = 0TOTAL 4TH PLACE RANKINGS:

1) Luck = 9

2) Wilson = 1

3) Brady = 1

4) Manning = 1CONCLUSION:

When comparing all 4 of these QB's Wilson appears to be the best so far.

Personally, I think Wilson is an excellent QB, but that is one of the most inane post I have read in a while.

[amfootball]

The pieces were already there for Seattle. Good defense and good running game. They only needed a decent quarterback.

 

The Colts were a complete mess. This is why they were picking first. We were worse than our 2-14 record. 

 

How many players from the 2011 season do you think is on the team now? How many in 2012? How many in 2013? I will spot you Reggie Wayne, AV, AC, and Pat Mac. Can you name any others?

 

The Colts have gone through a complete overhaul and just kept winning in the process. That is how good Andrew Luck is. You can be jealous about Luck all you want to though.

I think Luck is great. I just think Wilson is too. And I don't think you are being fair to your owner, GM or coach in crediting them with the turnaround. After all, Luck is just one player. Irsay made a savvy decision moving on from Polian and bringing in Grigson who has been steadily building a winning franchise each year. And of course Arians did a masterful job in 2012.

 

And if all it took was a great run game and defense to win a championship then the Ravens would have at least 8 championships by now and Cincy would have 3.

[Cynjin]

Seattle was 7-9 the two seasons prior. No one picked them to win a championship in Wilson's second year. They might have been slightly better then the Colts but they were not a contender by any means.

Seattle was 7-9 because they did not have a good QB to go along with their good team. Indy was 2-14 because they did not have a good team. Seattle was much better than Indy as a team, offense, defense and special teams, it really was not close.

[BlueShoe]

I think Luck is great. I just think Wilson is too. And I don't think you are being fair to your owner, GM or coach in crediting them with the turnaround. After all, Luck is just one player. Irsay made a savvy decision moving on from Polian and bringing in Grigson who has been steadily building a winning franchise each year. And of course Arians did a masterful job in 2012.

 

And if all it took was a great run game and defense to win a championship then the Ravens would have at least 8 championships by now and Cincy would have 3.

 

 

FACT - If every current NFL player is thrown into a redraft, then Andrew Luck is the first player drafted. Out of every current player in the NFL!

 

That is right, and it does not matter who the owner is or what team is picking first. Andrew Luck is going #1, again. Even if your boy Robert Kraft has the first pick. Andrew Luck is the first pick!

 

That is how good Andrew Luck is. He is the #1 pick of the NFL right now. Now take all your Russell Wilson loving and have fun with it. But reality is reality.

 

And, I will be to the owner of the Colts the way I want to be. There sure and the hell won't be any input from a damn Patriots fan about it.

[amfootball]

Seattle was 7-9 because they did not have a good QB to go along with their good team. Indy was 2-14 because they did not have a good team. Seattle was much better than Indy as a team, offense, defense and special teams, it really was not close.

Eh, Colts were 2-14 because they did not have anything close to a competent back up when Manning went down. They would have been 7-9 maybe better with a half way decent QB.

 

I am not arguing that Seattle had the better team but just the degree. Wilson did not take over a great team by any means but he did make them great and eventually Super Bowl champions in his second year.

[amfootball]

FACT - If every current NFL player is thrown into a redraft, then Andrew Luck is the first player drafted. Out of every current player in the NFL!

 

That is right, and it does not matter who the owner is or what team is picking first. Andrew Luck is going #1, again. Even if your boy Robert Kraft has the first pick. Andrew Luck is the first pick!

 

That is how good Andrew Luck is. He is the #1 pick of the NFL right now. Now take all your Russell Wilson loving and have fun with it. But reality is reality.

 

And, I will be to the owner of the Colts the way I want to be. There sure and the hell won't be any input from a damn Patriots fan about it.

Just because he would be taken first overall does not mean he is the better QB now. No questions he was the better QB coming out of college.

 

Do you not like your owner? Despite his off-field issues he deserves the most credit for the turn around/rebuild.

[Cynjin]

Eh, Colts were 2-14 because they did not have anything close to a competent back up when Manning went down. They would have been 7-9 maybe better with a half way decent QB.

 

I am not arguing that Seattle had the better team but just the degree. Wilson did not take over a great team by any means but he did make them great and eventually Super Bowl champions in his second year.

I completely disagree, the Colts were a bad team, their Oline was bad, their Dline other than Mathis was bad, they were just bad all around . They had a few good players, but not nearly enough to make good team. If they had a competent QB that may have got them to 6-10, but that is about it. The Seahawks after having been poor to mediocre for years were able to draft better players and just needed a good QB to make them a playoff team. The were fortunate to get an excellent QB in the third round, not unlike the Patriots who were very fortunate to get an all time great QB in the sixth round. To say that the Colts had anywhere close to as good a team as the Seahawks is misreading the talent on each team at that time. Just look at which team still has productive players on their rosters from the season before Luck and Wilson arrived. Yes Seattle has lost some, but many were because the Seahawks could not afford the contracts. The Colts did not want most of the players they lost, because they were either no longer good or were never that good.

[Yehoodi]

Seattle was 7-9 because they did not have a good QB to go along with their good team. Indy was 2-14 because they did not have a good team. Seattle was much better than Indy as a team, offense, defense and special teams, it really was not close.

 

Here is the Seahawks record and QB leading into Wilson's take over of the team

 

2008 4-12 Seneca Wallace

2009 5-11 Matt Hasselbeck

2010 7-9   Matt Hasselbeck 

2011 7-9   T. Jackson

 

What do you honestly think any of those records would have been had Curtis Painter been the QB?

 

On top of the above the Seahawks have pedigree of being one of weakest franchises in the league.  Yes they have had a few good years here and there, but going into the Wilson era they were far from being better than the 2-14 colts . . .

 

What do you think the colts 2011 record would have been if a QB of Dan Orlovsky's talent been the QB the entire year? . . . he was 2-3 with them as a starter . . . do you seriously think he would of lost 11 out of the 11 other games?

[Yehoodi]

Personally, I think Wilson is an excellent QB, but that is one of the most inane post I have read in a while.

 

you may not agree with the poster.  and on some level I do not either . . . but to call someone insane for posting stats that many use (and many on this board us ;)) as a measuring stick for a QB to compare QBs is far from insane . . . perhaps you might want to counter with why you think the poster is off . . . 

[Tokadub]

OK first of all let me just say that I do think Luck is a good QB, but right now his potential is greater than his performance. Until Luck actually plays up to his potential I don't think anyone can realistically say that he is better than Wilson. Perhaps he will realize his potential this season since it normally takes QB's awhile to get comfortable in the NFL. But to say that Luck is better than Wilson RIGHT NOW is just ignoring how good Wilson has been. Wilson in his 1st and 2nd years was already at a level that Luck fan's should be hoping for him to reach this season. 

 

And it's not your guys fault to not know how good Wilson is, all you ever hear 24/7 is how he's a game manager, the offense is carried by Lynch, etc. etc. But the media is just flat out wrong... they have been the WHOLE TIME. The entire NFL world was wrong for picking Wilson in the 3rd round...

 

Wilson is a guy who even after winning a Super Bowl still has trouble getting his proper respect because people have been hearing the media ignorantly trashing on him ever since he was drafted, some even mocking the pick... So of course I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't closely follow the Seahawks or understand how good his stat's have been in a historical context (by far the best QB after 2 years if you factor in winning a Super Bowl).

 

Here is the majority of a post I originally wrote on http://www.seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=95708 where I mock the general Russell Wilson portrayal and prove how wrong it really is:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm SO tired of hearing all the experts and media guys claiming that "the only reason Wilson is good is because of our strong running game and our incredible defense."

 

In other words these clowns are claiming that Wilson is being carried when in reality it seems to be quite the opposite in many of our games.

 

I just took some time gathering the stats and examples to prove that Wilson IS NOT carried by the defense and the run game. When it matters most Wilson has performed at an extremely high level and put the team on his shoulders. Here are 6 examples from just his Rookie Season:

 

 

1) 2012 Week 3 VS PACKERS Seahawks down 12-7 with 46 seconds to go, Russell Wilson completes 22 yard pass to Sidney Rice. With 8 seconds left completes 24 yard Touchdown to Golden Tate known as “Fail Mary”.

 

It’s not Wilson’s fault that it was a controversial or bad call, he put the Seahawks in a position to win in a seemingly hopeless situation throwing on 4th and 10 with 8 seconds to go.

 

I tend to agree that it looked more like an interception as far as who seemed to have a better hold on the ball. However, Tate did get his feet down first. I’m no NFL rules expert but I think we can all agree it was unfortunate to end the game in that manner regardless of the outcome since it was such a freakish play.

 

 

2) 2012 Week 6 VS Patriots Seahawks start the 4th quarter down 20-10. Patriots hit a Field Goal with 9:25 remaining in 4th quarter, Patriots now lead 23-10. Wilson hits Golden Tate for 51 yards. Then he follows that up with 2 more 10 yard passes for the Touchdown.  Seahawks get the ball back with 2:38 left to go down 23-17. Wilson runs for 9 yards. Then throws a 46 yard bomb to Sidney Rice for the Touchdown with  1:27 to go and takes the lead 23-24 for the victory.

 

Wilson finishes the game 16/27 for 293 yards. 3 Touchdowns 0 Interceptions.

 

 

3) 2012 Week 13 VS Bears Seahawks are down 10-14 with 3:40 remaining in the 4th quarter and 97 yards to go... Wilson completes the drive with a 14 yard Touchdown pass to Golden Tate with 32 seconds remaining to give the Seahawks a 17-14 lead for the win. During this drive Wilson threw for 75 yards going 6/9. Wilson also recovered a fumble and ran for 19 yards during this final drive.

 

And as if that 97 yard drive wasn't enough from Wilson…The Bears got the ball with 24 seconds left and Cutler hit a 56 yard throw to Brandon Marshall who was defended by Richard Sherman. Gould hit a 46 yard field goal tying the game 17-17 with 3 seconds remaining.

 

In Overtime Wilson went 3/3 for 38 yards connecting with Michael Robinson, Doug Baldwin, and finally to Sidney Rice who sacrificed himself taking a monster hit without dropping the ball for the game winning Touchdown for the Seahawks who won 23-17. What made this drive even more impressive for Wilson was that  he also ran 3 times for 28 yards, all 3 of his runs resulting in a first down!

 

Wilson finishes the game 23/37 for 293 yards. 2 Passing Touchdowns 0 Interceptions and 71 yards rushing (7.9 yards per run).

 

 

4) 2012 Week 17 VS Rams Seahawks are down 13-10 with 5:11 remaining in the 4th quarter with 80 yards to go... Wilson completes the drive running it in for the Touchdown. Wilson went 2/3 for 48 yards, and he also ran 3 times for 21 yards including the 1 yard Touchdown to win the game.

 

Wilson finishes the game 15/19 (79%) for 250 yards (over 13 yards per pass attempt). 1 Passing Touchdowns 0 Interceptions and 58 yards rushing.

 

 

5) 2012 Week 1 Playoffs VS Redskins Seahawks are down 13-14 with 10:53 remaining in the 4th quarter with 79 yards to go... Wilson completes the drive 2/4 for 29 yards and also threw to Zach Miller for the 2 point conversion giving the Seahawks a 21-14 lead.

 

Out of the 5 comeback games in Wilson’s career up to this point, this is the only game where Marshawn Lynch really carried the offense for the winning drive. Lynch ran for 50 yards on 3 carries including a Touchdown run. However Wilson still played well hitting a 22 yard throw to Zach Miller on 3rd and 10. Wilson also completed the 2 point conversion, once again to Tight End Zach Miller.

 

Wilson finishes the game 15/26 for 187 yards. 1 Passing Touchdowns 0 Interceptions and 67 yards rushing  (8.4 yards per run).

 

 

6) 2012 Week 2 Playoffs VS Falcons Seahawks are down 0-20 at the start of the second half…

 

Wilson scores on 1st drive of 2nd half throwing 3/3 for 59 yards ending with a 29 yard Touchdown pass to Golden Tate. Wilson also ran twice for a total of 19 yards.

 

Seahawks get the ball back down 7-27 with 2:11 remaining in 3rd quarter and 80 yards to go… Wilson throws 4/4 for 69 yards. Wilson concludes the drive with a 1 yard Touchdown run, the previous play being Marshawn Lynch running for no gain…

 

Seahawks get the ball back down 14-27 with 11:03 remaining in 4th quarter… Wilson throws 3/3 for 57 yards including a Touchdown throw to Zach Miller.

 

Seahawks get the ball back down 21-27 with 3:00 remaining in 4th quarter and 61 yards to go… Wilson throws 3/4 for 50 yards. Wilson also ran for 5 yards on his one attempt and Marshawn Lynch caps off the drive with a 2 yard Touchdown run.

 

SEAHAWKS HAD TAKEN THE LEAD 28-27 WITH 34 SECONDS REMAINING IN THE 4th QUARTER!!! The Seahawks defense crumbled at this point allowing Matt Ryan to go 2/2 for 41 yards which set up the Falcon’s winning Field Goal giving them a 28-30 lead with 8 seconds remaining. Here is where Wilson’s only interception occurred out of these 6 very impressive games during his ROOKIE SEASON…

 

During Wilson’s 4 Touchdown drives in the 2nd half he threw 13/14 (92.8%) for 235 yards (16.8 yards per attempt). 

 

Wilson finishes the game 24/36 for 385 yards. 2 Passing Touchdowns 1 Interceptions (Hail Mary with 2 seconds left to go) and 60 yards rushing (8.6 yards per run), including a Touchdown run.

 

 

 

THAT IS 6 EXAMPLES IN JUST WILSON’S ROOKIE SEASON THAT PROVE HE IS NOT CARRIED BY THE DEFENSE. During these 6 games Wilson threw for 11 Touchdowns and just 1 Interception!

 

I think these 6 games prove that Wilson is not good just because of the Seahawk’s amazing defense. Keep in mind Wilson is playing in the NFC West, hands down the best defensive division in the entire league. Having a good defense in this division does not guarantee you many wins, the Seahawks NEED Russell Wilson to play at an incredibly high level to be able to take the #1 seed and home-field advantage in the NFC. 

 

If anything it was the defense that let the Seahawks down in 2012, all they had to do was prevent the Falcons from scoring with 34 seconds left and the Seahawks may have already won 2 Super Bowls. Don’t forget the Seahawks scored 58, 50, and 42 points in 3 of their last 4 regular season games in 2012.

 

So Russell Wilson had five 4th quarter comebacks (game winning drives) in his rookie Season. He should have had six if not for the defense breaking down VS the Falcons.

 

If you think Wilson’s rookie season was a fluke… well he had five more comeback victory game winning drives in 2013. The Seahawks almost lost home field advantage to the 49ers even though they were 13-3… if Wilson had just one less comeback victory the Seahawks may have not won the Superbowl.

 

I hope that is convincing enough with all the necessary supporting stats and specific examples of why it is misleading to say Wilson is only good because of his defense. Because in truth the Seahawks would be nothing without Wilson no matter how good their defense may be.

 

 

Sources:

 

http://www.nfl.com/teams/seattleseahawks/schedule?team=SEA&season=2012&seasonType=REG

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/comeback.cgi?player=WilsRu00

[Yehoodi]

The Colts were a very bad football team when Luck was drafted. Seattle was a good football team. 

 

The Colts had multiple 10+ winning seasons going into the Luck era . . . they were not as bad as you think they were . . . they just had a really bad QB among other things that fell into place for them in 2011 . . .

 

In the history of the NFL since the Merger no great team has ever falling off a cliff, its never happen ever . . . there have been many many great teams since 1970 and none of them fell off the cliff.  Indeed, none of them, had a number one overall pick a few years removed from they great run, much less the year following  . . . teams with the colts pedigree are simply not that bad a few years removed from they great run, much last one year removed . . . they just don't end up number one overall . . .

 

Simply put the 2011 colts had a really bad backup QB and had some plays that simply did not go their way through the season which cost them some games . . . if the ball bounces the other way, they are not 2-14 . . .

[GoPats]

 

Did Wilson have to resurrect a franchise?

 

 

 

Not trying to stir the pot here but you guys really have to cool the jets with this "resurrected a franchise" thing. The Colts had one bad season - one - that many NFL fans and media people saw as a thinly veiled tank-job aimed at getting the Next Great QB. (Not necessarily saying I feel that way, but I'm also not necessarily saying I don't.) 

 

Yes, Indy went 2-14 in 2011. But they were two years removed from a 14-2 season and a Super Bowl loss, and there was a good chance that team would have gone 16-0 if Polian had let them play the schedule out. 

 

Luck is great... I'm a fan and will enjoy watching him play and improve. But let's not over-dramatize this. The Colts had been very successful for the most part going back to the mid-90s. 

[SteelCityColt]

Not trying to stir the pot here but you guys really have to cool the jets with this "resurrected a franchise" thing. The Colts had one bad season - one - that many NFL fans and media people saw as a thinly veiled tank-job aimed at getting the Next Great QB. (Not necessarily saying I feel that way, but I'm also not necessarily saying I don't.) 

 

Yes, Indy went 2-14 in 2011. But they were two years removed from a 14-2 season and a Super Bowl loss, and there was a good chance that team would have gone 16-0 if Polian had let them play the schedule out. 

 

Luck is great... I'm a fan and will enjoy watching him play and improve. But let's not over-dramatize this. The Colts had been very successful for the most part going back to the mid-90s. 

 

Understood, but you have to admit the 2011 roster was mostly gutted and with the cap issues we had in 2012 we didn't exactly splash out in FA. In some ways, QB aside, I think the 2012 roster was weaker than the 2011 version.  In my own opinion, no matter how you slice it the Colts were ahead of schedule in 2012 and 2013. 

[GoPats]

Understood, but you have to admit the 2011 roster was mostly gutted and with the cap issues we had in 2012 we didn't exactly splash out in FA. In some ways, QB aside, I think the 2012 roster was weaker than the 2011 version.  In my own opinion, no matter how you slice it the Colts were ahead of schedule in 2012 and 2013. 

 

Absolutely... they would be in far worse shape even now without Luck, goes without saying. He's been terrific.

 

My only point is how some made it sound like the Colts had mired through years of futility and hopelessness prior to 2012. I know 2011 was probably a long and tough season for you guys, but the "rebuild" was a quick-turnaround. I would say from an outside perspective that Luck picked up the torch and kept it going rather than that he resurrected anything. 

[SteelCityColt]

Absolutely... they would be in far worse shape even now without Luck, goes without saying. He's been terrific.

 

My only point is how some made it sound like the Colts had mired through years of futility and hopelessness prior to 2012. I know 2011 was probably a long and tough season for you guys, but the "rebuild" was a quick-turnaround. I would say from an outside perspective that Luck picked up the torch and kept it going rather than that he resurrected anything. 

 

Gotcha, sorry me misunderstanding the thrust of your point. 

 

Since Salary Cap/FA and now the Rookie wage scale I'd say it's possible to turn around a franchise very quickly with a good FO. Must make it even more galling for Bills/Browns/Raiders fans. 

[Cynjin]

Here is the Seahawks record and QB leading into Wilson's take over of the team

 

2008 4-12 Seneca Wallace

2009 5-11 Matt Hasselbeck

2010 7-9   Matt Hasselbeck 

2011 7-9   T. Jackson

 

What do you honestly think any of those records would have been had Curtis Painter been the QB?

 

On top of the above the Seahawks have pedigree of being one of weakest franchises in the league.  Yes they have had a few good years here and there, but going into the Wilson era they were far from being better than the 2-14 colts . . .

 

What do you think the colts 2011 record would have been if a QB of Dan Orlovsky's talent been the QB the entire year? . . . he was 2-3 with them as a starter . . . do you seriously think he would of lost 11 out of the 11 other games?

About 6-10 with Painter. Orlovsky starting the whole year would have made zero difference, IMO. If you believe Orlovsky to be a competent backup in the NFL ..... well I do not know what to tell you about that other than I believe that conclusion to be incorrect.

[Cynjin]

you may not agree with the poster.  and on some level I do not either . . . but to call someone insane for posting stats that many use (and many on this board us ;)) as a measuring stick for a QB to compare QBs is far from insane . . . perhaps you might want to counter with why you think the poster is off . . .

I think you need to reread my post. I did not call the poster "insane", as a matter of fact I did not call the poster anything.

[amfootball]

About 6-10 with Painter. Orlovsky starting the whole year would have made zero difference, IMO. If you believe Orlovsky to be a competent backup in the NFL ..... well I do not know what to tell you about that other than I believe that conclusion to be incorrect.

Wow. You do know Painter is 0-8 as a starter, right?

[Yehoodi]

About 6-10 with Painter. Orlovsky starting the whole year would have made zero difference, IMO. If you believe Orlovsky to be a competent backup in the NFL ..... well I do not know what to tell you about that other than I believe that conclusion to be incorrect.

 

you telling me that Orlovsky would of gone 0-11? . . . sorry I just don't buy it . . . not sure how Painter can win 6 games when there is nothing in his resume to conclude he is a viable starting QB . . .

 

And just as GoPats mentioned in his post #387 and #389, this resurrection thing for you guys it just a bit overboard . . . I like Luck too and said that when he was first drafted and when this discussion was Luck/RGIII, I indicated that I prefer Luck over RGIII . . . but times change and resumes get developed and as time goes by the list and "power rankings" if you will of players change . . . so it happens . . . perhaps you all might be a tad bugged about these talks, not saying you necessarily, but look on the bright side at least you are in the conversation, as opposed to fans of Detroit or something . . .

 

For me, the 2011 colts team was a 6-10 to 8-8 team with a decent QB under center, frankly not that much different that the Seahawks.  Indeed they were 10-6 the year prior while be racked with injuries.  So yes, Luck made an improvement and made them a solid 10 win+ team the last few year and he should be able to help keep that going . . . but I think you are stretching things to say Luck made that big of a change . . . for me the 2011 Colts were a 6-10/8-8 team that ended up 2-14.   my two cents . . .

[TAPLOOK]

Time is and will prove Wilson is better period.

[sweetsurrender]

you telling me that Orlovsky would of gone 0-11? . . . sorry I just don't buy it . . . not sure how Painter can win 6 games when there is nothing in his resume to conclude he is a viable starting QB . . .

 

And just as GoPats mentioned in his post #387 and #389, this resurrection thing for you guys it just a bit overboard . . . I like Luck too and said that when he was first drafted and when this discussion was Luck/RGIII, I indicated that I prefer Luck over RGIII . . . but times change and resumes get developed and as time goes by the list and "power rankings" if you will of players change . . . so it happens . . . perhaps you all might be a tad bugged about these talks, not saying you necessarily, but look on the bright side at least you are in the conversation, as opposed to fans of Detroit or something . . .

 

For me, the 2011 colts team was a 6-10 to 8-8 team with a decent QB under center, frankly not that much different that the Seahawks.  Indeed they were 10-6 the year prior while be racked with injuries.  So yes, Luck made an improvement and made them a solid 10 win+ team the last few year and he should be able to help keep that going . . . but I think you are stretching things to say Luck made that big of a change . . . for me the 2011 Colts were a 6-10/8-8 team that ended up 2-14.   my two cents . . .

I agree with this. I do think Wilson has surpassed Luck in terms of his play the last season plus this season so far. He is a more efficient, heady player who also has a penchant for coming up with the right play in a tight moment. I think Luck has shown all these abilities just not as consistently as Wilson. Still, I would not want any other Qb than Luck on the Colts right now but I do think Wilson is the best of the young guns and one of the top Qbs overall in the league. His defense has not been very good this year, ranked 14 in points allowed. And really, Wilson saved them in the Denver game. Manning was roasting them in the second half and had he gotten the ball first in OT, I have no doubt he would have gone down the field for the TD.

[Yehoodi]

I think you need to reread my post. I did not call the poster "insane", as a matter of fact I did not call the poster anything.

 

Jesus H. Christ your posts are a pistol  . . . (noticed I am not calling you a pistol but your posts ;) )

 

sorry for the misread but inane is not that different from insane, as inane is synonymous with silly, stupid, *ic, senseless, asinine, and so on . . . so its a very close brother insane and given the context of your post, and was not sure if it was a typo, I read a "s" in the word to get insane . . . I tried to be more careful next time . . . but for me when one calls out ones post they are basically calling out the poster and their intelligence or whatever the level of context or meaning is contained in the post . . .

 

Happy now?

 

"happy now?" is a question by the way, I know your posts, and not you personally, have called out others grammar in this forum, a venue were most do not worry about their grammar so long as the gist of the point gets across.  So I just want to make sure that you discuss things with your posts first so that the latter does not post a response that it not representative of you personally . . . the two of you should be able to work that out just nicely . . .