DMac vs. BradyFan: Andrew Luck vs. Russell Wilson

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Andrew Luck vs. Russell Wilson

Which rising star is the better quarterback?

DMac for HOF will argue in favor of Andrew Luck, BradyFan in favor of Russell Wilson.

DMac will speak first, and then the two participants will debate the topic back and forth until both feel they have clearly made their point and responded to their opponent, at which point both players will give their closing statements; Brady gets the last say.

For now, there is no set minimum or maximum in terms of time, post count, or anything. Let's just have a good football debate and see what happens.

Spectators/Voters, please refrain from posting in this thread until both have posted their closing statement. You are, of course, free to use the rep system to +/- posts you find to be strong/weak arguments.

DMac, you have the first word...

Edited July 23, 2014 by SteVo

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Russell Wilson is a glorified game manager, and Andrew Luck is a QB asked to carry his offense.

 

Despite the criticism he receives, people fail to realize that he's always playing from behind (around 59% of his attempts are with him down compared to WIlson around 29%), and teams know the Colts have to pass, so defenses are always playing the pass. Luck still manages to lead one of the most efficient offenses (source) as well as not turn the ball over just as well as Wilson. They had almost identical turnover numbers while Luck had to throw the ball more, as well as take riskier throws down the field.

 

While being asked to throw the ball a lot, and carry his offense, Luck has also had to deal with having many of his targets go down for extended periods of time. Hilton was Luck's best receiver this year, a second year undersized receiver drafted in the 3rd round. In the first half of the season when Wayne was healthy (only real #1 receiver) Luck had a 91 passer rating (great), after his only real #1 target went down, Luck's passer rating dipped with it,

 

For two straight years, despite having a makeshift Oline, being hit more then almost any other QB over the last two years, having a defense that's been prone to give up big plays, having a running game that's been at it's best average, having an average (and inexperienced) receiving group, and a coach (two years ago) who was obsessed with throwing the ball deep and often, Luck has led the Colts to two straight 10+ win totals, and one of the more efficient offenses in the NFL.

 

None of this even touches on the fact that Andrew Luck is better at all the technical aspects of being a QB, and is just as athletic as Russell Wilson.

Edited July 14, 2014 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[BradyFan81 404]

Not only is Wilson better than Luck, he is one of the most efficient QBs in the NFL. Based off both of their 2 seasons starting in the NFL, all the evidence stacks up in favor of Wilson. Luck may be the better QB in the future, but you cannot say that he has had a better career than Wilson up to this point, no way.

 

As a rookie, Wilson leads his team to an 11-5 record. He plays very well in his 1st playoff game in Washington, and then probably has the best game of his career the next game against Atlanta. After getting down 20-0 in the 1st half, the "game manager" is forced to put the team on his back and score 28 2nd half points, taking the lead with 30 seconds to go before his D blows it.

 

His final stat line from the game: 24/36, 385 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT (was a hail mary at the end of the game, not even in the regular course of the game), and 60 yards rushing.

 

If he's such a game manager, then I don't think he would be able to lead his team back from a 20-0 halftime deficit to put them in a position to win at the end. Is he asked to do as much as Andrew Luck? No. But, he is one of the best in the NFL in what he is asked to do, which is to make the throws on 3rd down to move the chains, make smart decisions, don't turn it over. He is EXTREMELY good at it.

 

He's had a 100 and 101 passer rating in his 1st 2 seasons, among the league's best. That type of efficiency from a player this young is downright scary. Does he benefit from playing on a team with a sick D? Yes, but when he is forced to carry his offense like the Atlanta game, he has arguably the crown jewel game of his career.

 

 

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Not only is Wilson better than Luck, he is one of the most efficient QBs in the NFL. Based off both of their 2 seasons starting in the NFL, all the evidence stacks up in favor of Wilson. Luck may be the better QB in the future, but you cannot say that he has had a better career than Wilson up to this point, no way.

 

As a rookie, Wilson leads his team to an 11-5 record. He plays very well in his 1st playoff game in Washington, and then probably has the best game of his career the next game against Atlanta. After getting down 20-0 in the 1st half, the "game manager" is forced to put the team on his back and score 28 2nd half points, taking the lead with 30 seconds to go before his D blows it.

 

His final stat line from the game: 24/36, 385 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT (was a hail mary at the end of the game, not even in the regular course of the game), and 60 yards rushing.

 

If he's such a game manager, then I don't think he would be able to lead his team back from a 20-0 halftime deficit to put them in a position to win at the end. Is he asked to do as much as Andrew Luck? No. But, he is one of the best in the NFL in what he is asked to do, which is to make the throws on 3rd down to move the chains, make smart decisions, don't turn it over. He is EXTREMELY good at it.

 

He's had a 100 and 101 passer rating in his 1st 2 seasons, among the league's best. That type of efficiency from a player this young is downright scary. Does he benefit from playing on a team with a sick D? Yes, but when he is forced to carry his offense like the Atlanta game, he has arguably the crown jewel game of his career.

 

 

 

Highlighting one game, or a few games where Wilson shined to try to prove a point does you no service when his numbers as a whole, as well as the team philosophy paints the picture of a game manager.

 

Russell Wilson attempted almost as many passes as the three top HBs for the Seahawks combined. That's the definition of being a game manager who's only asked occasionally to "put the team (or offense) on his back".

 

In comparison, combine all the Colts' rush attempts including Luck's and it still doesn't add up to the amount of passing attempts that he had to throw. Simply put, Luck had a far tougher assignment, and was asked to do far more. And even though his numbers do fall short from an efficiency perspective, that's got more to do with being asked to do more with less, and what gets lost in his numbers is the impact he still managed to have in leading such a good offense, and leading a team to two straight 10+ win seasons.

 

Wilson's crazy efficiency is based more on the fact that he is in an extremely QB friendly offense/system then anything else. Highlighting his big performances here and there don't prove anything. The vast majority of people believe Alex Smith is the poster boy for being a game manager.

 

This game manager against the Saints in the 2011 playoffs put up 3 TDs, 0 INTs with a passer rating of 103, and many argued carried that team past the Saints. The following year with the 49ers he had crazy efficient games statistically like against the Bills where he put up video game numbers, and finished the year completing 70% of his passes, almost 8 ypa, and a 100+ passer rating. Hell, even this past year with the Chiefs he had some crazy good games efficiency wise. But everybody agreed (agrees) that he is a game manager who's in a favorable spot to do well. Would you want Alex Smith leading your team if you didn't have an established run game, and an elite defense? No way.

 

Wilson is no different. He's in a QB friendly offense that heavily relies on the run game. Even in games like ATL where he rallied back to help the Seahawks almost win, a majority of that come back was possible because of the defense getting turnovers and putting the Seahawks in great field position. Andrew Luck is the better QB because he is put in a situation where he should be failing, and effectively hurting the team, but he's done the opposite.

[BradyFan81 404]

Russell Wilson attempted almost as many passes as the three top HBs for the Seahawks combined. That's the definition of being a game manager who's only asked occasionally to "put the team (or offense) on his back".

 

In comparison, combine all the Colts' rush attempts including Luck's and it still doesn't add up to the amount of passing attempts that he had to throw.

 

But couldn't this also be due to Luck continuously getting his team into early deficits which forces him to throw the ball more? Part of what you are pointing out is his team putting a lot of the offensive responsibility on him, and part of it is necessity because they always are trailing, and in some cases that is because of Luck. It's no secret that if you're always forced to come from behind then you are going to have to throw the ball a lot more than you would like.

 

For example, the playoff game vs NE this past year. On the 3rd play of the game, Luck throws a pretty bad pick on a slant route and we run it back to the 1. All of a sudden it's 7-0 1 minute into the game. Completely different ball game now. It's things like that that Luck does that Wilson doesn't. And don't say that Luck threw that pick because "he has so much responsibility on his plate!!" It was the 3rd play of the game and a horrible throw. Wilson does not do things like that and it's a big reason why he has a SB ring and a 4-1 career playoff record.

 

So I would take issue with the point that Luck hasn't hurt his team at all. I think he has hurt his team. Part of that is because he is so young and still learning, but let's not act like there haven't been certain games and situations in which he has failed.

 

I'm gonna go to the playoffs again. Russell Wilson's playoff stats are as follows: 5 games, 6 TDs, 1 INT, 102 rating. That INT was also a hail mary so I don't even put that on him. So he's essentially played 5 playoff games and thrown no interceptions. That is absolutely crazy, even if he doesn't have to take as many risks.

 

Compare that to Luck, who has 3 career playoff games, has thrown 6 TDs and 8 INTs, with a 70 passer rating. That.. is pretty bad. It's only 3 games so he has a ton of time to turn this around, and don't get me wrong I am a huge Luck fan but your point that he is "put in a situation where he should be failing, and effectively hurting the team, but he's done the opposite".. that's not really true. He's definitely hurt his team, which is completely fine at this point of his career as much of the honus is on him at such an early age.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

But couldn't this also be due to Luck continuously getting his team into early deficits which forces him to throw the ball more? Part of what you are pointing out is his team putting a lot of the offensive responsibility on him, and part of it is necessity because they always are trailing, and in some cases that is because of Luck. It's no secret that if you're always forced to come from behind then you are going to have to throw the ball a lot more than you would like.

 

 

This doesn't happen any near as much as you think, or make it out to be. Andrew Luck has thrown the ball in the first half of games more then he's thrown the ball in the second half of games.

 

Even more interesting, he was statistically, significantly better as a rookie in the first half of games compared to the second half. The same can't be said about the defense two years ago which QBs had almost 10 points higher in passer rating differential between first and second half of games. This means that while Luck may be as responsible as anyone for the team being down (a team that wasn't very talented), he wasn't the catalyst. And as we know from all the game winning drives, he certainly was the biggest reason they won.

 

His second year in the league (this past season) Luck's numbers were actually significantly better in the second half of games as apposed to the first, and while that may lead some to blame him for the team being down in the first half... It's important to understand that the defense also gave up *12 more TDs* in the first half of games in comparison to the second. Aditionally, the Colts running game also scored 7 less TDs in the first half of gamed. One could argue that the defense was putting the offense (which was lacking in talents for good potions of the season) in unfavorable positions to have to pass more in the first half of games so that they can keep up.

 

For example, the playoff game vs NE this past year. On the 3rd play of the game, Luck throws a pretty bad pick on a slant route and we run it back to the 1. All of a sudden it's 7-0 1 minute into the game. Completely different ball game now. It's things like that that Luck does that Wilson doesn't. And don't say that Luck threw that pick because "he has so much responsibility on his plate!!" It was the 3rd play of the game and a horrible throw. Wilson does not do things like that and it's a big reason why he has a SB ring and a 4-1 career playoff record.

 

 

Both are rookies, and both will make mistakes. Against the Panthers his rookie year Wilson threw a terrible INT where he stared down his receiver and Munnerlyn jumped the route and took it for a TD. That INT led to his team being down.

 

The difference between the two?

 

When Wilson makes a mistake that hurts his team, he has the luxury to sit back, play safe let the defense/run game keep the game close while he plays it safe, which helps with efficiency. That's what game managers do.

 

Luck on the other hand when he makes a mistake has to go back out and continue shouldering the load. That's what a QB who's asked to carry a team do.

 

So I would take issue with the point that Luck hasn't hurt his team at all. I think he has hurt his team. Part of that is because he is so young and still learning, but let's not act like there haven't been certain games and situations in which he has failed.

 

 

Where have I said any of this is not true? Where did I say Luck was perfect? Or that he never hurt his team?

 

Saying that he's helped the team more then he's hurt the team doesn't mean he's never been a part of the reason they are down. Nor does it mean he doesn't deserve any blame for the team not always playing great. But such is the result when you give a rookie, on a team with a lot of holes the responsibility of carrying a team.

 

I'm gonna go to the playoffs again. Russell Wilson's playoff stats are as follows: 5 games, 6 TDs, 1 INT, 102 rating. That INT was also a hail mary so I don't even put that on him. So he's essentially played 5 playoff games and thrown no interceptions. That is absolutely crazy, even if he doesn't have to take as many risks.

Compare that to Luck, who has 3 career playoff games, has thrown 6 TDs and 8 INTs, with a 70 passer rating. That.. is pretty bad. It's only 3 games so he has a ton of time to turn this around, and don't get me wrong I am a huge Luck fan but your point that he is "put in a situation where he should be failing, and effectively hurting the team, but he's done the opposite".. that's not really true. He's definitely hurt his team, which is completely fine at this point of his career as much of the honus is on him at such an early age.

 

 

Teams in the playoffs pass less (and even when they do pass more, it's always safer passes), run the ball more in the playoffs for a reason. To avoid mistakes because defenses are always tougher in the playoffs.

 

Coaches always prefer to win in the playoffs with great defense, great special teams, and an offense that doesn't lose games. Wilson has the luxury of playing in such an offense. An offense (and team) where he almost never has to force things, pick and chose when to throw the ball and when to run it, etc.

 

Luck on the other hand doesn't have that luxury. And contrary to popular beliefs, he doesn't just throw the ball a lot because he digs his team into holes. The Colts have to throw the ball because that's the only way they can move down the field. And that's the only way to not lose games when your defense gives up a ton of big plays. Naturally he's going to turn the ball over a lot. Teams know they have to throw, and Luck while having to throw as much as a Peyton Manning doesn't have the luxury of having the talent that he has.

[BradyFan81 404]

Russell Wilson definitely is asked to do less than Andrew Luck is. The Seahawks like to hand it off a lot and give Wilson 3rd and manageables, whereas Luck has more of the responsibility to move the ball and get 1st downs by passing.

 

I prefer to judge QBs based off their roles and what they're asked to do though. It's too hard to play the what if game and say if Wilson and Luck switch teams, what would happen, etc? I think Wilson is better at his job than Luck is at his job. Wilson has a career 100.3 passer rating, by any account, that is remarkable. Drew Brees has a career 95.3 rating. Tom Brady has a career 95.7 rating.

 

Also, even if Wilson is a game manager, I've never seen a game manager have a 8.2 Y/A. That was 4th in the NFL last year only behind Foles, Peyton, and Aaron Rodgers. So Wilson was throwing the ball down the field last year.

 

 

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

In closing statement...

 

Andrew Luck has looked no worse then any other rookie QB, he makes mistakes like the rest of them. Only difference between Luck and Wilson is that Wilson is in on a team where he isn't put into situations where he can be exposed. Despite this Luck has managed to lead one of the more efficient offenses in the league.

 

Despite throwing the ball a ton more then Wilson with nobody to throw to at times, he still manages to keep his turnovers low. Russell Wilson while is good at what he does, is not a better QB then Luck because he's essentially playing the role of a game manager. All the things people are saying now about Wilson are the same things people were/are saying about Alex Smith since Harbaugh came to SF.

[BradyFan81 404]

In my closing I'll say it's almost impossible to be better than Russell Wilson has been in his role in 2 years in the league. There is nothing more he can do. He does what is asked of him at the highest level that can be achieved, and it's resulted in 2 playoff berths and a SB victory. So don't penalize Wilson just because he hasn't had as much "responsibility." Ask yourself this: who has been the better QB in the situations that they presently are in? The answer to that is Russell Wilson. Don't play the make-believe "if Luck was on Seattle and Wilson was on Indianapolis" game. Live in reality, and judge these QBs off their actual performances that you have seen. That is the only thing that matters.

 

And Alex Smith has never been close to the level that Russell Wilson is on right now. Wilson had a 8.25 Y/A last year, which was 4th in the entire NFL. Smith has never been above 17th. Not even mentioning that Wilson throws a much better deep ball, is more elusive, moves better in the pocket and is much better at escaping the pocket to run or buy time for his receivers to get open. That's not even a comparison.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Okay guys, this topic is now open for voting! This time we'll do a poll instead of voting by posting. Vote for who you think was the superior debater, not necessarily whom you agree with the most; also take into consideration who, in your estimation, had the more difficult side of the argument.

 

 

I personally haven't decided yet, but I think this was the best debate of the first round. Well done, Dmac and Bredy.

Edited July 23, 2014 by SteVo

[Cherry 1,302]

Definitely close but I'll take Brady based on his closing argument. Dmac tried to play the "More with less" argument but Brady shut it down.

[BC 331]

I wish schedules and divisional opponents would have been brought up, because there's a lot to be said about who has dealt with more in terms of who has overcome the better defenses, specifically pass rushers. I'll need to go back and watch, but I'll need to see what Luck did against Robert Quinn, Aldon Smith, Calais Cambell, etc. Both quarterbacks also faced JJ Watt last year, so those were all good measuring sticks.

Edited July 24, 2014 by BC

[SteVo+ 3,702]

This one was tough. Both had very strong opening statements. Brady did a great job debunking Dmac's "game manager" claim. Dmac did a great job point out that Brady was focusing on one game and really killed the "efficient" angle. I'm voting for Dmac because I think he had a stronger argument overall (his second post especially), but both you guys did an awesome job.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

By a 4-2 vote, Brady advances and will face Chernobyl next round in the Winners Bracket; DMac goes to the Losers Bracket to face an undetermined opponent.