I'd trade Russell Wilson for Andrew Luck.

[Zorn76]

Man I need more popcorn for this.

Ok, carry on.

I am privileged to take this POS thread to 200 posts:)

[mykc14]

Thanks Burrton that looks better at least.

[Long Time Fan]

I am privileged to take this POS thread to 200 posts:)

This thread is the Kardashian's of this forum. So many claim to hate on it, as it continues on. Irony.

[burrrton]

Thanks Burrton that looks better at least.

Eh, it's a workaround (that I think many were already aware of), but nothing groundbreaking.

It appears functionality like that needs to be added to the phpBB software suite, either by enabling it or rolling your own code (I'm not clear whether it's already there waiting to be enabled or not).

I'm not familiar enough with PHP to write it myself or I'd throw it together for our fine hosts.

[Futureite]

River;

I don't know on the playoff picture. If Seattle wins next two they are pretty much in the driver's seat for the 5th or 6th sead. They'd really only need need to beat us in Seattle and scrape one more win out to qualify (IMO). That would probably do it.

I agree on Colts. They aren't that talented. Hell, Ricky Jean Franciou and Cam Johnson are startung for them. If I am not mistaken, both were former late rd picks for us. Cam was a 7th rd pick for sure. And Richardson is aweful. That team would be niwhere without Luck.

[Anthony]

River;

I don't know on the playoff picture. If Seattle wins next two they are pretty much in the driver's seat for the 5th or 6th sead. They'd really only need need to beat us in Seattle and scrape one more win out to qualify (IMO). That would probably do it.

I agree on Colts. They aren't that talented. Hell, Ricky Jean Franciou and Cam Johnson are startung for them. If I am not mistaken, both were former late rd picks for us. Cam was a 7th rd pick for sure. And Richardson is aweful. That team would be niwhere without Luck.

To bad the Facts show they hav emore talent on Offense with regards to their passing game than Seattle, but hey why go by facts when you have your lies. THis is why you are a mononic troll you willing ness to lie in order to make a point that is nto factually correct.

[HumanCockroach]

. If either you, Monkey, or Roach want to point out one tiny critical thing in the past two years that you good folks have said about Russell's play that was anything less than perfect, then I'll gladly take back that remark. And please, be specific

Tell me that is a joke, right? I know you aren't purposely lying about what I have posted. Hasn't worked out so well when Future felt the urge to say I was posting stuff, when I wasn't. I can handle name calling, insults and badgering, but I WILL NOT accept ballfaced lies.

[HumanCockroach]

This debate is comparable to a college graduate's professional development. You can graduate with a degree in conputer science and have all the nuts and bolts in your head to be a great engineer, but you ain't going to become one working at Radio Shack. Same thing for a business/accounting major who works at HR Bkock. Doesn't matter how much potential you have. You won't develop.

Can we agree here??

Same thing holds true for the business itself. Radio Shack is not going to hire an engineer to sell transistor radios and soldering wire. HR Block is not going to hire a tax attorney to prepare returns.

Agree?

Equating this to football, sure, Russell Wilson could be great if he were developed. Who really knows. But he ain't going to develop into what he could be running freaking read options and gimic plays and throwing short, high percentage routes. And Pete Carroll doesn't want or need him to be Drew Brees. He wants him to be the guy who makes his business model go. And Pete Carroll's business model has ALWAYS been defense and physical run game. Your entire team reflects that in its personnell. It does not reflect an organization that wants to develop or build around a franchise QB.

Luck is the opposite case. That entire organization has put everything on his shoulders and worked to develop him. Everything about that team is built in the same way it was for Peyton; around the QB. Their business model has ALWAYS been QB centric, and of course their QBs develop to a higher degree than a run oriented team's would. This is all common sense.

A perfect comparable is Drew Brees. He had one above average season under Shottenheimer, who has a coaching philosophy similar to Carrol's. His career did not truly skyrocket until he had been under Payton a couple yrs. And that was not simply due to an infusion of more O talent (as some insist in the argument at hand). Brees had talent in SD. It was due to his accelerated learnng curve and growth as a QB under Payton's O.

To put it simply, Luck is obviously the most physically gifted young QB in the league. He also has a natural feel for how to play the position. Now you combine those variables with a system that runs entirely through him and forces his learning curve through complexity, volume and repetition, and you have the formula to create a great QB.

Even if what you say is true, I'll take the guy who has as many Championships as both of your guys (actually all three) 2 years into the league. If you know nothing it should be, guys with complete teams win Championships, not the more talented, pass happy team, but the ones who still run the dmn ball. Even Brees and Manning won their ONE ring, because those teams could and did run the damn ball. Brady 3 rings, built on running the ball and defense, Aikmen built on running the ball and defense, hell even Montana won his rings running the ball and defense. Pay attention, learn a little bit. When the entire thing is based on one QB's arm, that team isn't getting the Lombardi 9 out of 10 times. You think it's just some big coincedence that teams that win Championships can run the ball effectively or what?

No rings for Rodgers once they lost a running attack, nor Brees, nor pass happy Manning or Luck or Brady or well you get the picture right? Probably not. I'll gladly take the QB that RISES to the occation ( something Luck has been loathe to do) and CAN carry a team when NEEDED over the one that is all show, no grit, every single time.

[Futureite]

HC;

Ya those guys all had balanced teams. Each one of them put up more than 1 TD and 300 yds in the playoffs combined (as RW did) to get their teams to the SB. Brady threw for that in the Tuck game alone.

[HumanCockroach]

HC;

Ya those guys all had balanced teams. Each one of them put up more than 1 TD and 300 yds in the playoffs combined (as RW did) to get their teams to the SB. Brady threw for that in the Tuck game alone.

Maybe, but I'll point out once again as it seems you are still slow to learn, that I also watched him put up 440+ yards of offense w/ 3TD's and a hail mary pick, on the road in a loss. You can wax nostolgic over some numbers, I'll once again take the guy who rises to the occation, makes plays when needed, and doesn't turn into Alkil Smith everytime he faces a real team with the season on the line, or simply can't finish. You can attempt to change the history of the NFL all you want, but Champions are exactly what Wilson is, someone that thrives in the "big moment".

For all your claims, Luck to date has shrunk in said moments, costing his teams games and playing exceedingly poorly ( especially in the post season where every mistake is magnified). Ive provided his horrid postseason stats numerous times, gloss over them all you want, until he "grows" past that, he simply isn't a "better" QB. He is on his way to taking Mannings best "regular" season title, not in the least interested in a QB with said title.

[HumanCockroach]

You know, I went to get stats just because I was curious, and I have to say thanks, because you know what, nothing reassures a dude about his QB than seeing that he has outperfomed Joe fricken Montana his first three years in the league (drastically) and Tom god d@m/ Brady as well. I suppose I kind of figured that, as otherwise he wouldn't be squashing their ratings, but thanks anyway. Thing about those guys, was even simply looking at the stats, you could tell they raised tghed level of their play when it mattered most more often than not.

If anyone is curious, Montana threw for under 200 yards a game with FAR more regularity than Wilson has in his career, and simply couldn't come close to adding the ground yardage Wilson can, and simply could not extend plays in the same stratosphere, and ditto for Brady. For all the bluster about "more on them" or "less talent" or " more this or that" Marino did FAR more than Joe during the season.

You ready to say Dan was clearly the better QB he of the one appearance, zero SB wins. Go a head, Ill wait...... Marino was clearly better than Joe right? LMFAO

[Futureite]

It's your site. You can believe whatever you want. Believe he's Montana or Brady or Manning. I saw Montana carry us in the 81' title game. Watched Brady throw for 340+ un the snow in the Tuck game. Watched Aikman throw what, 4 TDs in his first SB?

All I saw Russell Wilson do last yr in the postseason was handoff and watch his D. He had more turnovers in the playoffs (FYI playoffs mean the 2 games prior to the SB) than he did TDs thrown. His team put him in the redzone over and over and he kicked fgs. That even happened in the SB when the game was still in question. I definitely give him credit as being a big reason you got there in the season as a whole, but this guy didn't carry you. No matter how you try to rewrite thngs, you see what you have now with a D that is no longer a turnover producing machine. At this stage of his career, he is not an elite QB. Period.

26 TDs 10 ints IS NOT elite. It's historical in the sense that it is a good predictor of greatness for a young QB to post those numbers based upon history, but that does not automatically mean his career will continue on the tradgectory of Manning or Brady or Montana. As absolute numbers, those stats are just solid. And he may never eclipse them. There is nothing he's done with his arm or his brain that show he's going to throw for 50 tds later on in his career, as two of those guys did, or that he's an elite pocket passer as Joe Montana was. So quit citing those stats under the premise that I am ignoring them. I'm not.

As of today, he is a good QB. Still developing. Maybe he'll be great. By yr 3 Montana was argubley the best QB in the league. RW is not even in the conversation. So just stop with that.

I have no clue why he can't just be who he is and instead has to be better than Kap, Luck et al and even on par with HOF qbs. Watch the guy play on Sunday and these statements are comical. He is right there with Kap around the 12-15 range. And without that historical D he has no ring. So stop with that nonsense too. Just because that argument fits the general form of a great QB does not mean it's true in substance. And this yr is showing you why.

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.nfl.com/player/joemontana/25 ... areerstats

LMAO Montana didn't crack 26 TD's until what year 6 or 7? And did it 3 whole times in his CAREER man, Im simply not changing a damn thing. Wilson HAS outperformed all the QBs cited by you each and every step of the way. He HAS blown up in the playoffs ( which you continue to ignore, and just so happened to occur WHEN it was needed) as for the " more turnover" I am assuming that you are not prohibiting out the ultimate postseason game, because without which your math is once again "off". It is what you do after all right? Pick a random selection of games to "prove" yor point.

Still waiting for your statement of fact about Marino ( you know an actual stud pocket passer) being a "better" QB than Joe ( you know, per your own admission and parameters an "average" QB, certainly not worthy of HOF consideration). Any time now........

[Futureite]

http://www.nfl.com/player/joemontana/2502166/careerstats

LMAO Montana didn't crack 26 TD's until what year 6 or 7? And did it 3 whole times in his CAREER man, Im simply not changing a damn thing. Wilson HAS outperformed all the QBs cited by you each and every step of the way. He HAS blown up in the playoffs ( which you continue to ignore, and just so happened to occur WHEN it was needed) as for the " more turnover" I am assuming that you are not prohibiting out the ultimate postseason game, because without which your math is once again "off". It is what you do after all right? Pick a random selection of games to "prove" yor point.

Still waiting for your statement of fact about Marino ( you know an actual stud pocket passer) being a "better" QB than Joe ( you know, per your own admission and parameters an "average" QB, certainly not worthy of HOF consideration). Any time now........

It's a different era dude. Seriously?? A QB rating if mid 80's was great back then. A 5,000 yd passer was unheard of back then.

[Futureite]

Here is your problem in a nutshell. Everything with you is measure in extremes. Ex:

"Marino was better than Montana by your criteria". Yes, Montana had a more balanced team than Marino's. That is why we beat the Dolphins. But "balance" does not equate to a 50% run centric team with a historically great D like the Seahawks. Our entire O still ran through Montana. It was always in the top 10 in pass attempts, if not the top 5. SEE THE DIFFERENCE? That example of the 84' Niners is totally inapplicable to the 2013 Seahawks, who everyone in the world knows lived and died with Marshawn Lynch. You couldn't have picked a worse comparison if you were looking for apples and oranges.

RW is better than the best QB of alltime. OK, I concede. Should have seen it sooner. Extremes.

I do think he is a good QB. He is also obviously experiencing growing pains as a pure pocket passer. Why is there shame in that. He has struggled bigtime at some points this yr. Let him be what he is right now. You can claim he's proved he is Joe Montana, but no one is gonna buy it. You said it yourself; he does more with his legs than ALL of those great QBs.

Exactly.

[burrrton]

He is also obviously experiencing growing pains as a pure pocket passer.

I know- right? Every week pundits wonder why Russell struggles with all that time standing in the pocket unmolested and having to deal the ball from there!

Future, honestly- what the f*ck are you talking about?? This is a prime example of what gets you torn to shreds.

What on *earth* this year has led you to believe he's been tasked with being "a pure pocket passer"?? We have a line that was mediocre (at best) in pass protection when healthy, and a receiving corps that is young and developing but doesn't get open.

I can't even follow your train of thought anymore.

Seriously, are you ok? You're erratic, and I don't remember you being like this in the past (I've defended you with this group more than once).

And don't reply with another one of your "OK, so his struggles haven't been due to being asked to be a pocket passer, but...", bullsh*t answers- I want you to think a little and tell us about why you post what you do and not just another retreating mea culpa that leads you into a different line of BS you fling against the wall to see if it sticks.

[Anthony]

It's a different era dude. Seriously?? A QB rating if mid 80's was great back then. A 5,000 yd passer was unheard of back then.

More garbage form the garbage man.

[Anthony]

He is also obviously experiencing growing pains as a pure pocket passer.

You know it is funny Future tried to use all the escuses of less talent for LUck adn kept trying to cram it down our throats. Then he foudn out the facts showed he was wrong. He disapeared for a little while. Then he comes back startig his lies adn garbage again, only now it is Wilson who factually has less talent, and yet he argues agasint that or ignore it. A true trool. Once again Future because yoru a moron.

Luck – 2nd pass blocking o-line and has TY Hilton, Wyane, Nicks to throw to
P Manning- 3rd pass blocking o-line and he has Thomas, Welker, Sanders
Brady 6th ranked pass blocking o-line (ours is now ranked 28th) and he has Gronk, Edelman
Rodger o-line ranked 16th in pass blocking and has Nelson, Cobb to throw to
Brees o-line ranked 7th and he has Graham, cooks, Colson,
Ryan 12th pass blocking o-line and he has Hester, Jones, White, Smith
Rivers 11th o-line, and he has Gates, Floyd, Royal, Allen

Wilson 19th ranked pass blocking oline and he has Baldwin, Kearse, TE-Wilson,

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2014/11/6/716 ... elp-bandit

Enough said he has not regressed in the pcoket in fact when he has had a pocket he is over 100Qb rating adn over 65% complt. Problem is ihe doe snto have a pcoket often, adn has a sevear lack of talent around him. These are called FACTS Future something you know nothing about. Yoru a troll and a lying troll.

[mykc14]

More garbage form the garbage man.

You better watch out he has another guy in his corner now, 4ever. At least future isn't using the 'too short' argument but 4ever is stuck on that. Whatever, this is life, unfortunately there is no IQ test to post on this forum.

[Futureite]

Burton;

I don't really have to throw stuff out to prove Joe Montana and Andrew Luck are better than Russell Wilson. One us an MVP candidate on a historical pace and the other was the greatest QB of alltime. You have the burden of proof here, not me.

In yr 3 Joe Montana led a prolific pass O. He posted the 4th most pass attempts in the NFL. He was top 4 in TDs, QB rating, and yards. He was considered at worst a top 3 QB. Many considered him the best.

In contrast, Russell Wilson posts amongst the lowest pass attempts in the NFL. He is not considered a top 3 QB by anyone (but you guys). The comparison is laughable.

He is a good young QB that is growing. His ststs this yr are eerily similar to Kap's last yr. Both had limited weapons, poor Oline play, and struggles in various game. Each staff jetissoned the pass 1/4 through the season in favor of more run centric O, as the QBs were not cutting it, opting for more read option and gimuc plays. Each team even is/was 6-4. That us what you have (just like us). A 12-15 range QB who is growing and learning.

If you believe I have not stated these things before, you haven't read much of what I posted. I have been very consistent in what I think RW dies well and what your O asks him to do from day 1.

[burrrton]

You have the burden of proof here, not me.

Ok, Future- why don't you stop right here, think for a second, and tell us all how many times you'd like us to post the numbers for you before you'll acknowledge them.

Seriously, give us a number and I'll copy/paste all the posts detailing the statistics for you and you can finally quit pretending the "burden of proof" hasn't been met six ways to Sunday by every reasonable definition.

It's getting old. Give us a number. We're waiting...

The comparison is laughable.

What's laughable is the obvious boner you have now that Luck is finally putting up better numbers.

[edit]

And for the record, let me be clear that I'm not arguing about comparisons to Montana (who I consider the greatest of all time, too), and also that I'm not arguing Luck isn't having the better season this year (finally).

Just that previous to this year, Luck's "dominance" was literally nothing more than 1) raw number of attempts, and 2) "EYE TEST"!!!

[Futureite]

Burton;

I acknowledge what RW did as a rookie and 2nd yr guy. As I said, you view that in context of what you hope it projects too - nit what it currently deminstrates. As absolute numbers, 26 td 10 ints and around 3,200 yds is solid. The only reason those numbers are significant is because they are an indicator of what a QB "may" become.

Agreed?

If you accept that, then you also must look at how RW is currently playing. Is he continuing the upward trend that the other QBs you are comparing him to did? This yr he is not. And he may always be a 26/10 type guy. An efficient QB that makes good decisions. May not be able to carry a team. Maybe he can. But either way you cannot continually cite what he did in the past under ideal situations to assert he is Brady/Manning/Brees, who have all carried teams that at times had just decent O talent.

I think my opinions are widely shared, they are balanced, and I apply them evenly to Kap, whom I obviously love as our QB.

[burrrton]

As I said, you view that in context of what you hope it projects too - nit what it currently deminstrates.

Uh, Future, it "currently demonstrates" that RW was the better QB until earlier this year by virtually every statistic kept on QBs except raw yardage (owing to throwing something like twice as many passes).

That's the "proof" you've never acknowledged, and that you're now trying to forget about because you're feeling emboldened now that Luck isn't getting owned in the statistical analysis.

Again, I've said many times I think Luck is a stud and may well end up being the better QB, and in fact this year may finally be the point where he has overtaken RW.

But this newfound superiority doesn't mean RW wasn't better for the last couple years.

[Futureite]

I have acknowledged those stats. I acknowledged Kap's and RGIII's too. I am probably the only person here that credited those guys in a balanced manner, consistently. I mean, they've had early success -and in Kap's case - he has sustained about the same level of it. But you guys always asserted RW was on upper level on par with great, pure pocket passing QBs, ignoring how and why he put up those numbers. I don't deny the stats. I just look at them in their proper context. As I have with our own QB.

You think I don't want Kap to be an Andrew Luck too?? Cmon. There is a difference between analyzing data and accepting reality.

[burrrton]

I have acknowledged those stats.

The only time you've acknowledged them was with a perfunctory nod so you could then move on to your "BUT EYE TEST" nonsense.

There is a difference between analyzing data and accepting reality.

Yeah, you ignored the former to deny the latter until it started fitting your worldview 40 games later.

[Anthony]

I have acknowledged those stats. I acknowledged Kap's and RGIII's too. I am probably the only person here that credited those guys in a balanced manner, consistently. I mean, they've had early success -and in Kap's case - he has sustained about the same level of it. But you guys always asserted RW was on upper level on par with great, pure pocket passing QBs, ignoring how and why he put up those numbers. I don't deny the stats. I just look at them in their proper context. As I have with our own QB.

You think I don't want Kap to be an Andrew Luck too?? Cmon. There is a difference between analyzing data and accepting reality.

more garbage from the garbage man

[Hawktawk]

Future and now apparently Seahawk critic 4 ever want to rag on RW's 2014 regular season have at it. Without Wilson this team might have about 2 wins, maybe...As for bashing RW in the 2013 season or post season stop doing heroin. One word.LOMBARDI. Wilson made the plays needed to win. Our historically great defense was effective in large part because we had a QB who moved the chains and didn't turn the ball over.RW struggled against the Saints but when the game was on the line he talked Bevell into the pass to Baldwin to move the sticks and executed it perfectly. In the SB he was so good he should have been MVP. Against Futures Whiners RW made the call on the sidelines to go hard count on the 4th and 7, reminded his linemen not to move, drew the jailbird offside then threw a perfect pass FROM THE POCKET to Kearse for the game changing TD. OOH I bet Future loved that play BBBWWWWAAAAAHHHHHHHHH I just want to rub it in his face one more time.LOLLMFAOROFLMAO. LOSER!!!! And when Kap or Luck actually win something we can talk. Until then.............Theres a difference between passer and QB, stat king and winner.

[HumanCockroach]

Here is your problem in a nutshell. Everything with you is measure in extremes. Ex:

"Marino was better than Montana by your criteria". Yes, Montana had a more balanced team than Marino's. That is why we beat the Dolphins. But "balance" does not equate to a 50% run centric team with a historically great D like the Seahawks. Our entire O still ran through Montana. It was always in the top 10 in pass attempts, if not the top 5. SEE THE DIFFERENCE? That example of the 84' Niners is totally inapplicable to the 2013 Seahawks, who everyone in the world knows lived and died with Marshawn Lynch. You couldn't have picked a worse comparison if you were looking for apples and oranges.

RW is better than the best QB of alltime. OK, I concede. Should have seen it sooner. Extremes.

I do think he is a good QB. He is also obviously experiencing growing pains as a pure pocket passer. Why is there shame in that. He has struggled bigtime at some points this yr. Let him be what he is right now. You can claim he's proved he is Joe Montana, but no one is gonna buy it. You said it yourself; he does more with his legs than ALL of those great QBs.

Exactly.

No Marino was better than Montana based on YOUR criteria, not mine. As for the rest, you can insert whatever you want, because you once again, took what I posted and made up what you WANTED it to say. I never ONCE said Wilson is "better" than Montana, I said he has outperformed him in his first three years in the league ( which is 100% factually correct no matter the decade, or weapons, or system) that is simply the facts of the matter, where Wilson takes it is yet to be determined, and unlike you, I don't claim to know what WILL happen, just what HAS.

[Futureite]

HC;

OK. And Nick Foles with his 40 TDs 13 INTs over his first 1.5 yrs blows Montana away over the same time frame. It's a fact, true. But you need to learn when a fact adds to your argument and when it detracts Lol I am sorry, I just can't take it anymore. I mean I can say it's a fact that a turd and a log are both brown, but it means nothing when I decide what to burn in the winter. But you'd probably list it as a relevant fact in a "how to stay warm in the winter" argument. Just as in that example, comparing Wilson to Montana only weakened your argument here.

Your Montana/Marino reference is completely misplaced in the context of what we are arguing. Montana and Marino wete BOTH prolific passers. Each threw a ton and put up big numbers for their time. So the comparison was relevant and it made sense. In contrast, Russell Wilson regularly posts near the bottom of pass attempts per yr. He has never put up big numbers or been considered a prolific passer, by anyone, anywhere. He is a prolic Peyton Manninesque guy only in the fantasy world you and Anthony have created. So your attempt to parallel this argument (Wilson V Luck) to Montana V Marino is a miserable fail.

I told you what he does before dude. In yrs past he'd start like 7-10 for say 64 yds with a couple screens, intermediate routes. Lynch would pound forever. Ds would cheat up. Then RW would scramble for 5 minutes on one play and hit Baldwin for 65 yds. You look up and he's 8-11 for 140 yds a TD and a 120 QB rating. Yet nowhere was he sitting back in the pocket and just methodically picking a D apart. Not manipulating safeties or hitting his 4th read. Not doing the things the type of QB you keep trying to make him out to be would do.

Look at his numbers now that Lynch has been slowed. His numbers across the board on playaction are WAY down, and it's no surpise that his overall production has followed a similar curve. He is a heady playaction QB that makes good decisions. Not saying he can't be Brady/Brees/Montana, but as of today he has a ways to go. And Andrew Luck already draws realistic comparisons.

[HumanCockroach]

And this is another prime example of you talking out of your ass again. Lynch LEADS the league in rushing ( or at least did coming into last weeks game) so much for the "slowing down" stupidity. Montana was indeed a prolific passer, for like two years, explain again what the parameters were. Running game - check Montana defense - check Montana more offensive talent - check Montana. MORE attempts, repsonsibility MARINO.

It coincides PERFECTLY with your idiotic parameters. Marino HAD to carry his team, Montana raised the level of his play when NEEDED and won Championships. You arwe currently using the SAME benefits Montana enjoyed as "negatives" for Wilson, while denying Marino's greatness, and asserting the SAME things Marino dealt with are what make Luck better.

As always, you can't participate without inserting parameters, that ONLY apply, to the QB you are attempting to discredit, or which knob you feel like slobbering at that particular moment. All while pompously claiming some sort of "unbiased" view which has been emphatically shown to be bullsh1t from the word go. At least you have dropped the stupid Kap is better than Wilson handicapped position.

( and just for the record, I provided Montana stats for you, you should definitely LOOK at them, as you clearly are remembering ( or possibly weren't even a FAN while he played with the Niners) because you quite frankly are romantisizing how effective he was throwing the ball his first several years, and more often than Wilson was throwing for a buck and change. And interestingly enough ran a "gimic" offense, or what was considered such, at the time).

Believe what you want, I'll gladly take the QB that does NOT wilt in playoff games, primetime games or games against winning football teams, and builds his career on digging himself out of the whole he creates, and doesn't continue to attempt to throw away games with stupid rookie mistakes three years into his career, and stick with the Lombardi winning QB that doesn't do that.

[Futureite]

And this is another prime example of you talking out of your ass again. Lynch LEADS the league in rushing ( or at least did coming into last weeks game) so much for the "slowing down" stupidity. Montana was indeed a prolific passer, for like two years, explain again what the parameters were. Running game - check Montana defense - check Montana more offensive talent - check Montana. MORE attempts, repsonsibility MARINO.

It coincides PERFECTLY with your idiotic parameters. Marino HAD to carry his team, Montana raised the level of his play when NEEDED and won Championships. You arwe currently using the SAME benefits Montana enjoyed as "negatives" for Wilson, while denying Marino's greatness, and asserting the SAME things Marino dealt with are what make Luck better.

As always, you can't participate without inserting parameters, that ONLY apply, to the QB you are attempting to discredit, or which knob you feel like slobbering at that particular moment. All while pompously claiming some sort of "unbiased" view which has been emphatically shown to be bullsh1t from the word go. At least you have dropped the stupid Kap is better than Wilson handicapped position.

( and just for the record, I provided Montana stats for you, you should definitely LOOK at them, as you clearly are remembering ( or possibly weren't even a FAN while he played with the Niners) because you quite frankly are romantisizing how effective he was throwing the ball his first several years, and more often than Wilson was throwing for a buck and change. And interestingly enough ran a "gimic" offense, or what was considered such, at the time).

Believe what you want, I'll gladly take the QB that does NOT wilt in playoff games, primetime games or games against winning football teams, and builds his career on digging himself out of the whole he creates, and doesn't continue t attempt to throw away games with stupid rookie mistakes three years into his career, and stick with the Lombardi winning QB that doesn't do that.

Nope. You are lost.

Montana's 3rd yr starting was 1983. He was 4th in pass attempts. You understand what that means right? (Nods head slowly). It means we threw a lot....a lot.

Can we stop there or do you even understand what that means? I honeslty don't think you do.

Russell Wilson was bottom 3rd amongst starting QBs in pass attempts last yr and again this yr. Period.

One guy obviously ran the whole show on O. The other never has. Ever. And he may never in the future. Unlike you I don't make up dumb names for the Seahawks or unduly downgrade Wilson. But to sit here and act like Wilson is doing what Montana did is a joke.

Your Marino argument is dogshit. 4th in pass attempts means Marino could not have been more than 3 spots ahead of Montana. That means they BOTH carried their O units. Difference was, 49ers had a much better D. And that is why we beat Marino the following yr.

BTW, Montana threw 48 times in the 83' title game and brought us back from a 21-0 4th qtr deficit with his arm. Shows how ridiculous everything you posted is.

[Futureite]

Here you go;

Joe Montana, 1981; 4th in the NFL in total pass attempts.

Russell Wilson, 2013; 22nd in the NFL in total pass attempts

Now go ahead and sell me that both guys were doing the same thing in their first SB season.

[Futureite]

Here you go;

Joe Montana, 1981; 4th in the NFL in total pass attempts.

Russell Wilson, 2013; 22nd in the NFL in total pass attempts

Now go ahead and sell me that both guys were doing the same thing in their first SB season.

I stand corrected on this. Depending on how I search for the data, Profootballreference.com is showing Montana as 8th in pass attempts in 81'.

To illustrate the difference in generations, his 220+ yds/gm put him.@ #6 in that category that yr. To contrast, if I am not mistaken, Russell Wilson ranked 26th in yds per game in 2013. So these guys were asked to do completely different things as a QB, with conpletely different results.

The stat comparisons are obviously skewed by the era that each played in. Under this criteria I can easily build the case that Kaepernick is right there on par with Montana. He actually had more TDs and s better QB rating in his first full season starting than Montana did in yr 2. Yet Kap was considered just a mid tier QB that yr. And Nick Foles completely demolishes most QBs in history over their first @.5 yrs. Yet he was nowhere near anyone's top 10 list.

Obviously, none of these stats mean.any of these guys ever were or ever will develop into elite pocket passers. The only one of the entire gtoup that has shown that ability is Andrew Luck.

As to Montana V Marino. Montana had already proved himself an elite passer who could post prolific numbers by the time those conparisons were made. It's not remotely the same argument as Wilson V Luck. Wilson has never proven himself an elite passer capable of putting up prolific numbers. And Luck has. Wilson has never been asked to do that until this yr, and it has not worked out.

Wilson could be an elite pocket guy, but not in this O. It's just like I told you with Brees/Shottenheimer V Brees/Payton. It took Brees a couple yrs to become a top 5 guy under Payton. Wasn't just a matter of this "if he threw more" crap you guys push. He had to learn to play a conpletey different game than he had been asked to play under Shottenheimer. And some QBs are never able to make that jump.

This was the yr for Kap, Wilson Newton et al TO make the jump up. And the ONLY one that did is Andrew Luck. About as objective and unbiased as I can possibly be. And Luck does all of the "inangible" things a QB should. He is incredible in clutch, comeback situations and big games. Any argument to the contrary again fails. You give Russell Wilson a D that forces him to score nearly every drive and I gurantee he's going to throw a hell of a lot more ints than he has. Any QB would. The idea that Wilson has "it" in that faze and Luck doesn't is completely absurd.

[HumanCockroach]

lmfao. Again you go to quantity as some form of "proof" Wilson hasn't at any point thrown the ball all over the field, except when necessary usually passing and rushing for your vaunted 300+with multiple TD's, and using Montana's passing attempts as some sort of barometer, is the same stupid excuse as Lucks. As for Luck's clutch performance, go ahead and attempt to spin his failures against quality opponents as "big game" performance, I would recommend watching a playoff game, seems you have missed them ALL , hell pop in his games against Denver, or NE or really just about anyone NOT named Tennessee, Houston and Jacksonville. Keyriste.

[Futureite]

Ok I am done with the Montana argument. He was the friggen standard for QB play (reading and manipulsting a D). Period end of story. You are trying to argue that Russel Wilson played the same type of ball, and it's just ridiculous. One guy was already in the top 6 in yards/game by yr 2 while Wilson was 26th. You can't just assume he can do the same. He has to PROVE that.

True, Russell Wilson has proved he can make the big play or post a big game. In no way, shape or form has he proven he can do it consistently. I can think of 3 or 4 games this yr alone when he couldn't when asked too. He has had as many 300 yd games as Kap in his career. As I have always said, he and Kap are very evenly bunched in terms of pure QBing. You guys railed so hard against that and made RW the intellectually D reading type Montana QB, and this yr has proven how absurd that argument was to begin with. RW is actuall using his legs far more than Kap this yr and is on pace for a nearly identical statistical season as Kap had last yr.

In contrast, Luck has proven he can put up huge numbers week after week after week. Didn't he have 7 comeback victories his rookie yr alone? Didn't he engineer one of the biggest come from behind postseason victories ever last yr? He's already one of the best clutch QBs in the league. I seem to remember him beating your team with one such comeback, and RW throwing a pick at the end of that game. And you're selling me that RWs 330 yds and 1 TD in two playoff games last yr was clutch....and Luck is not. OK.

Too stupid of an argument to continue.

[Hawktown]

cleraly you are missing the point future

[HumanCockroach]

Good, than stop doing it. I never once said Wilson played the game the same as Montana, nor have I once said Luck is incapable of huge numbers ( again, playing Jacksonville, and the Titans inflate said numbers as does your crutch bulk attempts and yardage) per YOUR criteria, having the offense "placed" on you, increases the valued ( I disagree, but whatever) and per YOU Montana had a balanced offense ( and ran a WC dump pass offensed, as well as having receiver named Rice running around). Marino didn't, and using your OWN fallable logic, Marino was the "better" QB because the offense and winning flowed through him, and him alone.

You point to Lucks combacks, and I point out that in many of those, his horrid decision making is what CREATED the need TO comeback. You continue to dismiss Wilsons ability TO comeback as well ( FYI in the last three years, Luck has TWO comeback victories more than Wilson), you dismiss the quality of the opponent, you dismiss the quality of wins, and you dismiss things like Montana having a more complete team around him, while judging Wilson down for the EXACT same thing ( whether true or not remains to be clarified as Luck, not Wilson has the far more talented weapons).

Wilson through THIS game, has had more success in wins ( dismiss his value all you want, but I promise you they do NOT win the amount of games, nor win a SB without him at the helm), completion percentage, QBR, less turnovers, more TD's, more playoff victories, more hardware and did so against MUCH tougher defenses week in and week out. Wilson HAS indeed raised his level of play when needed, and has done so on the biggest stages possible. Meanwhile Luck has continued to look pretty horrible against "tough" teams, continues to make stupid rookie mistakes like throwing into the hands of DB's while being dragged down at the end of the Houston game, and continues to wilt in "big game" enviroments. You continue to ignore ALL of that, because you simply put, are completely unable to see past your own red rimmed glasses and admit that what Wilson has done and IS doing, is something Kap has not, and cannot at this point.

Glad you're done with an argument, that A) didn't belong here to begin with and B) is not in anyway objective or even accurate.

[Anthony]

Good, than stop doing it. I never once said Wilson played the game the same as Montana, nor have I once said Luck is incapable of huge numbers ( again, playing Jacksonville, and the Titans inflate said numbers as does your crutch bulk attempts and yardage) per YOUR criteria, having the offense "placed" on you, increases the valued ( I disagree, but whatever) and per YOU Montana had a balanced offense ( and ran a WC dump pass offensed, as well as having receiver named Rice running around). Marino didn't, and using your OWN fallable logic, Marino was the "better" QB because the offense and winning flowed through him, and him alone.

You point to Lucks combacks, and I point out that in many of those, his horrid decision making is what CREATED the need TO comeback. You continue to dismiss Wilsons ability TO comeback as well ( FYI in the last three years, Luck has TWO comeback victories more than Wilson), you dismiss the quality of the opponent, you dismiss the quality of wins, and you dismiss things like Montana having a more complete team around him, while judging Wilson down for the EXACT same thing ( whether true or not remains to be clarified as Luck, not Wilson has the far more talented weapons).

Wilson through THIS game, has had more success in wins ( dismiss his value all you want, but I promise you they do NOT win the amount of games, nor win a SB without him at the helm), completion percentage, QBR, less turnovers, more TD's, more playoff victories, more hardware and did so against MUCH tougher defenses week in and week out. Wilson HAS indeed raised his level of play when needed, and has done so on the biggest stages possible. Meanwhile Luck has continued to look pretty horrible against "tough" teams, continues to make stupid rookie mistakes like throwing into the hands of DB's while being dragged down at the end of the Houston game, and continues to wilt in "big game" enviroments. You continue to ignore ALL of that, because you simply put, are completely unable to see past your own red rimmed glasses and admit that what Wilson has done and IS doing, is something Kap has not, and cannot at this point.

Glad you're done with an argument, that A) didn't belong here to begin with and B) is not in anyway objective or even accurate.

Great post however I doubt Future is done. He woudl have to me a man of his word to be done, and he has proven he is not a man of his word.

One point of note Luck has 8 4th qtr comebacks, 11 game winning drives
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... r=LuckAn00

Rw has 9th 4th qtr comebakcs and 13 game winning drives
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... r=WilsRu00

So WIlson has more and yes agasint much tough oppoenents.

Yet another thing Wilson has done better than Luck depsite Luck haveing more talent, better oline and palying far inferrior teams.

As to when it counts most the playoffs Luck has a QB rating of 68 in the playofss Wilson 102 Luck has more ints than tds he has a .75/1 td/int ration. Wilson has a 6-1 td/int ratio, Enough said there as well

[Futureite]

Let's take this away from a name callung debate. There are good points on both sides. But I emplore you to read Steve Young's recent interview on SFgate.com. In it he discusses athletic "dual threat" QBs like Wilson and Kap and the challenges they face. He very eloquantly articulates what I have been trying to; that to reach an elite status it takes (1) A capable teacher and system and (2) the willingness for a player to immerse himself in boring memorization for a mi.imum of 4 hrs per day. He equates it to law school.

Young also discusses the unique challenge althletic QBs face, in that they can bail themselves out at any point while guys like Peyton became who they are because they had no choice but to master the nuances of the position to get by. You are without a doubt witnessing this effect with Wilson and all of the running he has done this yr.

I am not saying Wilson is bad OR that he cannot be great. Ditto for Kap. Is criteria (1) satisfied? Are they in the right system with the right teacher? If so, have we seen the progression in nuances one would expect? A truly unbiased eye sees the growing pains. A truly unbiased eye could not deny Andrew Luck is much closer to that elite "form" at this stage in his career, and yes, he obviulously posseses all the intangibles. If anyone reminds me of the Montana I watched growing up, it is Luck.

Seriously, read the article. If I could post it I would.

[Futureite]

BTW, at the bottom of about the 3rd paragraph of that article Young mentions Andrew Luck with Aaron Rodgers as examples of QBs that are mastering the position...I am not the only one who believes it.