I think now is a good time to point out yet again that...

[burrrton]

Dude. Really. If you throw 5 screens and a 60 yd pass from playaction, what happens to your yds/attempt??

Future, no offense, but you sound like an idiot, sooooo invested in your position at this point that you cling to it like grim death in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Just admit there is literally no stat we could show you that you'd accept as counter to your stupid narrative and STFU now.

It's just corny.

Yes, tell us all about "corny" while you twist yourself in knots trying to defend Colin "GO PEYTON!" Kaepernick.

[kalibane]

I don't know I think this stat pretty much handles it. (Posting again to make sure it's seen and not skipped over at the bottom of the first page):

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... reen-game/

Russell Wilson gets the same percentage of his passing yards from screens as Andrew Luck. And less of a percentage than Manning, Brady and Rodgers.

Future: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AT ALL!!!!

[Anthony]

Dude. Really. If you throw 5 screens and a 60 yd pass from playaction, what happens to your yds/attempt?? I am obviously using hyperbole to prove a point, but it's not that far off from what RW actually does. It's a lot of high percentage short stuff, a lot of Lynch, and then calculated deep ball playaction. You are not telling me anything other than what I have posted here everytime we've debated this.

I've always said RW is good at the things PC asks him to do. You guys just cannot help yourselves from stretching what does though to be a defense reading, audibling master who outstudies and out thinks everyone else. I've read it here for yrs. Heard all of the "well so and so is more talented but Russell is more (list intangibles)" knocking other QBs. It's just corny. It's equally as insulting as the other side which calls him nothing but a "game manager". Talk about extremes.

1 game in and including the last 6 of last yr after his great Monday night game, he actually looks like the lesser of the 3 QBs. There is no way in hell you can point to anything he's done over that stretch and logically argue that he's better than anyone. And he's never outworked or out anythinged Kaep or Luck in the mental area. Until he starts playing like the Drew Brees prototype you've made him out to be, probably best to just drop that talk.

Dude again RW led the league in down field throws you do not know crap as usual. Actually as to the last game and the 6 gamed before that lets see, how many games over the last 6 did each QB have with a QB rating over 100?

HMM so Rw has 4 of 6 above 100
Luck has 1 of 6
Kap has 3 of 6

remind me who has looked better again? That would be WILSON

Now one step further
RW COMpt% 62over that time , 7 Tds over that time, 2 INTS over that time, ratio 3.5 tds to 1 int
Luck complt 60 over that time, 12 tds, 10 ints ratio 1.2 tds to 1 int
Kap complt% over that time 58, 8 tds 3 ints, 2.6 tds to 1 int

Hmm once again WILSON is better

know your facts moron

[HumanCockroach]

What absolutely amazes the F@ck out of me, is the amount of respect given to certain QB's that have historical seasons by simply throwing those screens and dump offs by guys like Future, with sheer all pro players top to bottom, with claims of "dissecting" the defense, yet Wilson somehow in their minds, it's a knock. One couldn't throw the ball accurately 30 yards down the field to save his life and the other does it regularly and accurately. People with clear un-objective bias' also seem to be hung up on a QB using play action, like EVERY successful QB doesn't and it is some sort of "gimmick" when EVERY great, HOF QB whether they be mobile, stationary, had a cannon for an arm, or not has used often.

There is SO much to pick apart, and I just don't have an interest in doing it. ANYONE that says Luck is a "better" QB is an idiot ( at least as of this moment), people using "quality of team around him" is an even BIGGER moron. Luck HURTS his team regularly leaves his defense out to dry ( the idea that Seattle had "more" weapons year one is absolutely retarded) time after time, forces throws ( even though he HAS a HOF caliber receiver and multiple high draft picks surrounding him) and puts that team in a hole over and over again. He has MORE time to work through progressions and STILL forces throws.

Stupidity at it's finest. Not interested in the media driven narative nor the fans foolish enough to believe the propaganda being shoved down their throats. Pass.

[HumanCockroach]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/01/04/screen-game/

What's that? Russell Wilson got the exact same percentage of his yards from screen passes as Andrew Luck? And a smaller percentage than Brady, Manning and Rodgers?

Care to make up another bogus argument Future?

Just hoping he'll acknowledge the post, so reposting it.

[HumanCockroach]

Dude. Really. If you throw 5 screens and a 60 yd pass from playaction, what happens to your yds/attempt?? I am obviously using hyperbole to prove a point, but it's not that far off from what RW actually does. It's a lot of high percentage short stuff, a lot of Lynch, and then calculated deep ball playaction. You are not telling me anything other than what I have posted here everytime we've debated this.

I've always said RW is good at the things PC asks him to do. You guys just cannot help yourselves from stretching what does though to be a defense reading, audibling master who outstudies and out thinks everyone else. I've read it here for yrs. Heard all of the "well so and so is more talented but Russell is more (list intangibles)" knocking other QBs. It's just corny. It's equally as insulting as the other side which calls him nothing but a "game manager". Talk about extremes.

1 game in and including the last 6 of last yr after his great Monday night game, he actually looks like the lesser of the 3 QBs. There is no way in hell you can point to anything he's done over that stretch and logically argue that he's better than anyone. And he's never outworked or out anythinged Kaep or Luck in the mental area. Until he starts playing like the Drew Brees prototype you've made him out to be, probably best to just drop that talk.

You mean like this game manager nothing QB who runs MORE of those, and doesn't have the same YPA or YPC pretty much ever in his LOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGG career?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... 0/gamelog/

[monkey]

Future, I think the strength of your argument is illustrated *perfectly* with the rationale you presented in that post.

And that's not a compliment.

ROFL!!!

Like Kalibane said, there's no point arguing with him since, those who are pro-Wilson, rely heavily on tangible FACTS and statistics, whereas doofus' entire case rests on heavily biased hypotheticals which are impossible to prove one way or another.

[burrrton]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/tmq ... uarterback

"PROSTYLE O" a meaningless, transient term. Futureite hardest hit.

[HumanCockroach]

Add "college gimmick" offense running QB to Peyton's post above. SMDH what a tool.

[obiken]

As a passer Luck is better.
There is no way Wilson can bring a team back on a defense like the Broncos have this year, like Luck did. Wilson is the better QB. Wilson cant win games on his own like Luck, but he doesn't have to. Its apples and oranges. IF Luck was on our team with our defense and our running game come on, who would say he wouldn't be as big a winner as Wilson.

[kalibane]

I take it you never watched the playoff game against Atlanta.

[burrrton]

I take it you never watched the playoff game against Atlanta.

This.

Again, obi, nobody is going to say RW has had to do it week in week out, but there simply is no argument he's shown he's capable of doing virtually *everything* required of a QB and doing it well (if not better than everyone else).

There is no way Wilson can bring a team back on a defense like the Broncos have this year, like Luck did.

This may be defensible- what's your defense if you feel it is?

IF Luck was on our team with our defense and our running game come on, who would say he wouldn't be as big a winner as Wilson.

"AS" big? Not many, I don't think. However, if someone did want to make the argument Luck wouldn't be as good, there is plenty of evidence of that.

IOW, there's plenty of evidence RW is as good or better than Luck in virtually all phases, but there's almost nothing to suggest he isn't as good (except subjective 'gut' feelings and strong, strong arguments like "BUT PROSTYLE OFFFENSEZ").

[Anthony]

As a passer Luck is better.
There is no way Wilson can bring a team back on a defense like the Broncos have this year, like Luck did. Wilson is the better QB. Wilson cant win games on his own like Luck, but he doesn't have to. Its apples and oranges. IF Luck was on our team with our defense and our running game come on, who would say he wouldn't be as big a winner as Wilson.

So since I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, I will say no as Wilson is as good a passer if not better than Luck and let me remind you that one Luck did not bring them back they lost, and 2 he was a huge reason they lost, I mean no possession in the first half was over 3:20 minutes he left his defense out to dry for over 20 minutes. I have no doubt that Rw would have not only brought them back but won, for one he would not have thrown the stupid INT. So sorry I totally disagree. Denvers defense this year is ranked 25th, Rw has already had comeback against the 24th ranked defense, 5th ranked defense, 5th ranked defense, and I .cCan go, so yeah he can and has.

[HumanCockroach]

As a passer Luck is better.
There is no way Wilson can bring a team back on a defense like the Broncos have this year, like Luck did. Wilson is the better QB. Wilson cant win games on his own like Luck, but he doesn't have to. Its apples and oranges. IF Luck was on our team with our defense and our running game come on, who would say he wouldn't be as big a winner as Wilson.

How did you come to that conclusion? Yardage, and yardage alone, because in EVERY other statistical category, Wilson, NOT Luck has it, and in most, it isn't even close. Another lost soul believing the hype and nothing to back it up, but some highlights on ESPN. Wilson has the second most comeback wins in the NFL the last three years, and it isn't by much, excels in every facet of the game, the ONLY knock one can use is raw yardage, that's it, beyond that, there is simply NOTHING that supports that position ( at least nothing tangible) so once again we are into gut feelings, guess' and intangibles you can attempt to claim Luck is a better worker, or smarter, or leader if you would like, but there is a whole lot else you can use.

Luck has a better line,came in with better receivers and had a decent running game to back him up ( no matter what Future claims, the stats back it up) so unless you are claiming Luck is a better thrower because of his defense, you don't have really a leg to stand on. Luck, not Wilson has had MORE talent on the offensive side of the ball the last two seasons, with an average defense ( don't buy into the they have a bad defense gibberous as well, stats back that up as well) so how exactly do we get to this point? Well because NFL Network and ESPN tell you so. Dig deeper ( honestly it isn't that deep if you want to look)

[Anthony]

How did you come to that conclusion? Yardage, and yardage alone, because in EVERY other statistical category, Wilson, NOT Luck has it, and in most, it isn't even close. Another lost soul believing the hype and nothing to back it up, but some highlights on ESPN. Wilson has the second most comeback wins in the NFL the last three years, and it isn't by much, excels in every facet of the game, the ONLY knock one can use is raw yardage, that's it, beyond that, there is simply NOTHING that supports that position ( at least nothing tangible) so once again we are into gut feelings, guess' and intangibles you can attempt to claim Luck is a better worker, or smarter, or leader if you would like, but there is a whole lot else you can use.

Luck has a better line,came in with better receivers and had a decent running game to back him up ( no matter what Future claims, the stats back it up) so unless you are claiming Luck is a better thrower because of his defense, you don't have really a leg to stand on. Luck, not Wilson has had MORE talent on the offensive side of the ball the last two seasons, with an average defense ( don't buy into the they have a bad defense gibberous as well, stats back that up as well) so how exactly do we get to this point? Well because NFL Network and ESPN tell you so. Dig deeper ( honestly it isn't that deep if you want to look)

great post spot on

[kalibane]

Boy someone's sudden absence from this thread is conspicuous.

[obiken]

Hey I am not going to run our guy down, to build Luck up. At Oregon we beat Luck 2X but was Darrin Thomas a better QB? NO. Again its Apples and Oranges.

[monkey]

As a passer Luck is better.
There is no way Wilson can bring a team back on a defense like the Broncos have this year, like Luck did. Wilson is the better QB. Wilson cant win games on his own like Luck, but he doesn't have to. Its apples and oranges. IF Luck was on our team with our defense and our running game come on, who would say he wouldn't be as big a winner as Wilson.

Wait...I SAW Wilson lead comebacks against New England, against the Bears on the road, Tampa Bay down 21, and against Atlanta in the playoffs.
What are you talking about?!?
Luck is a better passer???
Aren't interceptions the worst thing you can do as a passer?
Tell me he's a better passer when he doesn't HAVE to bring his team back from the deficit HE PUT THEM IN by throwing tons of PICKS!
Wilson can make any throw Luck can, and just as accurately. Wilson throws more touchdowns, with fewer interceptions. So how is Luck a better passer??? Are we talking bulk here? Just because Luck throws more passes, doesn't make him a better passer!

[HumanCockroach]

Hey I am not going to run our guy down, to build Luck up. At Oregon we beat Luck 2X but was Darrin Thomas a better QB? NO. Again its Apples and Oranges.

So stick with apples to apples. Compare stats, and get back to us.

[obiken]

Human, on 1080 the Fan here in Portland, Trent Dilfer was asked if he had to build a new team what young QB would he take? Without hesitation he said Luck. He said if God made the perfect QB, it would be Andrew Luck. So its not just me. I felt that Elway was a better QB than Montana. Imagine how many rings JE would have had if he would have had Walsh and running game? Both were great. Sometimes I think asking the GOAT question is a waste of time. Do you have to have a ring to be considered the greatest player of all time. How much better were they than the people they played with?? Jim Brown, would win IMHO on that criteria.

[Anthony]

Human, on 1080 the Fan here in Portland, Trent Dilfer was asked if he had to build a new team what young QB would he take? Without hesitation he said Luck. He said if God made the perfect QB, it would be Andrew Luck. So its not just me. I felt that Elway was a better QB than Montana. Imagine how many rings JE would have had if he would have had Walsh and running game? Both were great. Sometimes I think asking the GOAT question is a waste of time. Do you have to have a ring to be considered the greatest player of all time. How much better were they than the people they played with?? Jim Brown, would win IMHO on that criteria.

That is great Trent Dilfer said that, Mike Holmgren said he would take Rw, your point? Opinions vary the ones choosing Rw will point to the facts and stats were Rw is superior, the ones who choose Luck will point to his 6 + foot frame, prototypical QB size and #1 draft status. Last I checked Facts and stats trump size, and draft status.

[HumanCockroach]

Human, on 1080 the Fan here in Portland, Trent Dilfer was asked if he had to build a new team what young QB would he take? Without hesitation he said Luck. He said if God made the perfect QB, it would be Andrew Luck. So its not just me. I felt that Elway was a better QB than Montana. Imagine how many rings JE would have had if he would have had Walsh and running game? Both were great. Sometimes I think asking the GOAT question is a waste of time. Do you have to have a ring to be considered the greatest player of all time. How much better were they than the people they played with?? Jim Brown, would win IMHO on that criteria.

I'm certainly not sure what you think Dilfers opinion proves????I can name countless QB's that had the same said about them by various people, with a heck of a lot of nothing to show for it. Ryan Leaf and Jeff George come immediately to mind, NUMEROUS people said that drafting Manning first was a mistake, and that Leaf was the "perfect" QB, that didn't turn out so well.I'm NOT saying Luck will turn into Leaf, simply that the "perfect" QB comes along so often according to this guy or that guy, that I put very little stock in it.

You're more than welcome to your opinion that the physically more gifted QB ( Luck or Elway in your opinion) trumps the BETTER QB ( Wilson and Montana) , but for all your posting on this subject, you have yet to provide something concrete with which to make that assessment. I am starting to wonder why? Is it because there ISN'T anything? Something tells me yes. Sorry, the truth of the matter is, Wilson has surpassed Luck, regardless of his physical gifts, in EVERY statistical category not having to do with the idea that quantity is better than quality ( ie more passes and more raw yardage = better somehow).I'll be perfectly happy watching Wilson winning four or five SB's, walk into the HOF and be discussed as the greatest QB to ever play the game, while Luck finally wins one or two in the twilight of his career, even IF it means there are a few stragglers that insist Luck was "better". That's A-OK with me.

[Futureite]

Oh cute another "our guy doesn't have the physical gifts but the others don't have the mental" post ^^^.

Speaking of Montana/Wilson comparisons. Wilson and his 4.5 speed is far more athletic than Montana ever was. Wilson jas a stronger arm than Montana ever did.

Hmmm, this comparison is beginning to sound familiar.

The kicker: the 49ers were always a pass first team. One of them good ol' "volume" type pass teams. Top 5 in passing yds nearly every yr after Montana started in 1980. You know, one of those Os where the QB sucks but they just get to keep throwing. So you know at some point they have to succeed.

Or maybe that's part of the reason they get so damn good; because they learn while actually throwing and "forcing" ints (see also, Peyton Manning). Or maybe they already are so damn good and that is why the entire O is built around them.

Your dude doesn't play like Montana HC. Or Manning or even Luck. He plays like himself. Just be happy he wins and stop dissing other QBs.

[briwas101]

Luck has an insane amount of talent, but he seems to be almost incapable of playing a complete football game. I pointed out how his "comebacks" were a process of his insane ability to put his team in almost an insurmountable hole early and often, and nothing has changed in that regard from his first day until now. People become enamored with how he performs in games like the KC playoff game, that a few lucky bounces and a bunch of injuries helped him create a huge comeback win ( conveniently forgetting who it was that almost single handedly put them IN that situation to begin with) and then somehow someway neglect to even acknowledge the Pats game the next week, playing a HORRID pass defense and still finding a way to throw five picks, or the Houston game the year before.

People, and the media DESPERATELY want Manning number 2, and Luck fits the "look" of that QB, and so, you have the media force feeding it, and less knowledgeable fans lapping it up and smiling. Wilson is more like Montana than Manning, and personally I'm fine with that. Let rubes that believe otherwise keep believing it, when everything is said and done most of us here and those that watch his excellence repeatedly, can laugh at guys as he is inducted to where he ultimately ends up IMHO.

This is why "comeback victories" is a stupid and useless stat. It isnt just stupid when used to support Luck, it is stupid when used to support Wilson as well.

Oftentimes a QB shares blame for being down in the first place, so a comeback is basically just making up for earlier mistakes.

"Never behind" victories are more impressive than come-from-behind victories.

Leading your team to points and being able to hold onto the lead for the whole game is a much better (though still flawed) metric.

No way I would take Luck over Wilson.

[kalibane]

There is nothing more condescending than someone elese telling you what you SHOULD be happy with. For instance. Future half the teams in the NFL don't finish 2nd or better in their division and only 12 can call themselves playoff teams. You should just be happy with being the 2nd best team in the NFC west. Or ... Kaepernick is a hard working guy without character flaws off the field and people acknowledge that. You should be happy with that instead of always complaining that people consider Russell Wilson one of the very special people in this regard. Oh what's that? I guess 49er fans are the only people who can expect excellence and recognition for it.

Blah Blah Blah regarding the Montana comparison... Tony Dungy said Wilson reminds him of Joe Montana and he's a Super Bowl winning coach. Isn't this your favorite line of retreat, clinging to someone who has NFL experience and shares your opinion?

Besides shouldn't you be busy writing a mea culpa and admitting you were once again unequivaocably PROVEN wrong about how the Seahawks utilize screen passes in their offense since you claim to admit when you're wrong? You aren't living this down until you admit that you were once again talking out of your ass.

[RiverDog]

As a passer Luck is better.
There is no way Wilson can bring a team back on a defense like the Broncos have this year, like Luck did. Wilson is the better QB. Wilson cant win games on his own like Luck, but he doesn't have to. Its apples and oranges. IF Luck was on our team with our defense and our running game come on, who would say he wouldn't be as big a winner as Wilson.

I used to think that, too, Obi. I wasn't going to get on board the Russell Wilson bandwagon until I saw for myself that he had the ability to lead a team from behind late in a game on the road against a quality defense.

Then it happened, in 2012, on the road against a top 5 defense in the form of the Chicago Bears. Russell not only led his team from behind in the 4th quarter, he did it in overtime, too. He proved to me that he has that capability, and from that day forward, I became a believer.

I've quit counting how many come-from-behinds he's engineered, because it's no longer an issue with me, but I do know that he's done it on multiple occasions. New England in 2012. Atlanta in the playoffs. Houston and Tampa Bay in the regular season last year. The Niners in the NFCCG. And until this year, he really hasn't had a lot of weapons other than a solid running game, something that's not as much of an advantage when you are playing from behind.

[burrrton]

I felt that Elway was a better QB than Montana.

"Felt" is the keyword there, and if some people would admit that's all they have to backup their assessment, there would be no argument (just disagreement perhaps).

[burrrton]

Speaking of Montana/Wilson comparisons. Wilson and his 4.5 speed is far more athletic than Montana ever was. Wilson jas a stronger arm than Montana ever did.

Hmmm, this comparison is beginning to sound familiar.

Hey, Future- I notice you stopped right there in the comparison. Has anyone here stopped right there before concluding RW has been better than Luck to this point?

Highlight below for answer:

No.

[burrrton]

Isn't this your favorite line of retreat, clinging to someone who has NFL experience and shares your opinion?

Future, help us out: is "argumentum ad verecundiam" more accurate for you than "argumentum ab auctoritate" or not? You seem to be an expert on it, so I'm curious about your opinion.

[HumanCockroach]

Just be happy he wins and stop dissing other QBs. -Future

LMFAO..... I didn't, but it seems you love it. This is f@cking rich...

[kalibane]

"Felt" is the keyword there, and if some people would admit that's all they have to backup their assessment, there would be no argument (just disagreement perhaps).

The Elway thing always cracks me up. It's actually a great comparison to Luck. There is a large gulf between the image of Elway that they have in their mind and his actual results on the field. Especially early in his career. Lack of running game is a crutch. Marino had less of a running game in Miami and his efficiency (as well as raw numbers) completely blow Elway's out of the water. People act like their backfield consisted of guys they found in the local bowling alley. The truth is the Denver rushing attack was league average and they had a better running game than San Francisco the year that Elway got destroyed in the Super Bowl (well the third year Elway got destroyed in the Super Bowl).

However they are both among the top five all time hyped players coming out of college and their legend is built on 4th quarter comebacks that they had to get in a hole to begin with in order to pull them off.

[Futureite]

I stopped the RW/Nontana comparison to refrain from insulting your QB. Which is to say Montana had the advantage in the football IQ department over RW. No one on your side ever has an issue making this claim in matter of fact fashion in RW's favor though. It's almost as if you've heard all of his interview cliche's, watched the obviously planned "I'm so focused" head tilt/thousand yard stare (which BTW he's obviously practiced) and equated it to onfield mastery of his position. But I have posted for yrs here that he hadn't proved any unique ability to read a D or pick it apart in comparison to other young QBs. Whatever he claims to do in his offtime is not fully translating on the field.

And, until RW is asked to shoulder the load ala Montana, Luck, etc he is never going to get to that level. Every person in wvery profession learns by doing. I mean you can say Montana threw 3 ints in the "catch" game, but he only became great because he had the opportunity to keep shouldering the load and made mistakes in the process of doing so. Hell, if he had done that today a lot of you would say "Montana put his team IN the hole to begin with with 3 ints. Wilson wouldn't have done that". But in reality, Montana WAS great and Luck IS getting there by doing the exact same things. It is just rudiculous to watch you all criticize the process. Every great athlete goes through it.

If Luck and Wilson continue to run the same O for th next 3 yrs, there will be zero question who is the better QB. None. I am sorry, but Luck could run Seattle's O today. On the otherhand, Luck was asked to do more Sunday night than Wilson may bw asked to do over the course of 2 games. Obviously, one guy is going to progress a hell of a lot faster moving forward than the other. That is a reality of life. Ask Peyton about his what, 51 ints over first 2 yrs? I think he learned a hell of a lit more than RW over that span by "forcing" so many balls. And that is why he is who he is today.

[burrrton]

It is just rudiculous to watch you all

Try sitting in our seat, meathead.

Let me know when you have something besides "I pulled this from the depths of my descending colon so THAT'S why Luck is better!" You're tiresome.

[c_hawkbob]

You're an idiot. Of all the comparable attributes between Joe Montana and Russell Wilson "football IQ" is the most apt comparison. Personally I won't compare the two until Russ has st least 1 more title, just out of respect for Joe Cool.

And if the only difference between Luck's numbers and Russ' numbers is the offense they run everybody in the league would be running this offense.

[burrrton]

And if the only difference between Luck's numbers and Russ' numbers is the offense they run everybody in the league would be running this offense.

Exactly. Dipstick keeps telling us Luck could have the same numbers as RW if he was running the same offense, ignoring the fact that Luck COULD BE RUNNING THE SAME GDDMN OFFENSE IF HIS COACHES AGREED.

For a guy that loves to run to the safety of coach/player opinions, he sure seems to be ignoring the opinions of Luck's coaching staff.

[Anthony]

I stopped the RW/Nontana comparison to refrain from insulting your QB. Which is to say Montana had the advantage in the football IQ department over RW. No one on your side ever has an issue making this claim in matter of fact fashion in RW's favor though. It's almost as if you've heard all of his interview cliche's, watched the obviously planned "I'm so focused" head tilt/thousand yard stare (which BTW he's obviously practiced) and equated it to onfield mastery of his position. But I have posted for yrs here that he hadn't proved any unique ability to read a D or pick it apart in comparison to other young QBs. Whatever he claims to do in his offtime is not fully translating on the field.

And, until RW is asked to shoulder the load ala Montana, Luck, etc he is never going to get to that level. Every person in wvery profession learns by doing. I mean you can say Montana threw 3 ints in the "catch" game, but he only became great because he had the opportunity to keep shouldering the load and made mistakes in the process of doing so. Hell, if he had done that today a lot of you would say "Montana put his team IN the hole to begin with with 3 ints. Wilson wouldn't have done that". But in reality, Montana WAS great and Luck IS getting there by doing the exact same things. It is just rudiculous to watch you all criticize the process. Every great athlete goes through it.

If Luck and Wilson continue to run the same O for th next 3 yrs, there will be zero question who is the better QB. None. I am sorry, but Luck could run Seattle's O today. On the otherhand, Luck was asked to do more Sunday night than Wilson may bw asked to do over the course of 2 games. Obviously, one guy is going to progress a hell of a lot faster moving forward than the other. That is a reality of life. Ask Peyton about his what, 51 ints over first 2 yrs? I think he learned a hell of a lit more than RW over that span by "forcing" so many balls. And that is why he is who he is today.

Dude Wilson has shouldered the burden many times, and has done so in a great fashion, he does what we need him to do, period and does it without putting his team in a whole like Luck. By the way once again you provide no facts only your opinion which is worthless given all the lies you have told. IF you they both play in the same offenses for another 3 years you are right it will be no doubt as Luck will still not have a QB rating over 85, still not have a complt % over 60, still have way to many turnovers, and Wilson will still be over 100 qb rating, still have complt# well over 60, and still have few turnover and still have out played Luck those are facts based on past performance not opinions based on nothing. As usual you have nothing and know nothing.

[kalibane]

I stopped the RW/Nontana comparison to refrain from insulting your QB. Which is to say Montana had the advantage in the football IQ department over RW. No one on your side ever has an issue making this claim in matter of fact fashion in RW's favor though. It's almost as if you've heard all of his interview cliche's, watched the obviously planned "I'm so focused" head tilt/thousand yard stare (which BTW he's obviously practiced) and equated it to onfield mastery of his position. But I have posted for yrs here that he hadn't proved any unique ability to read a D or pick it apart in comparison to other young QBs. Whatever he claims to do in his offtime is not fully translating on the field.

And, until RW is asked to shoulder the load ala Montana, Luck, etc he is never going to get to that level. Every person in wvery profession learns by doing. I mean you can say Montana threw 3 ints in the "catch" game, but he only became great because he had the opportunity to keep shouldering the load and made mistakes in the process of doing so. Hell, if he had done that today a lot of you would say "Montana put his team IN the hole to begin with with 3 ints. Wilson wouldn't have done that". But in reality, Montana WAS great and Luck IS getting there by doing the exact same things. It is just rudiculous to watch you all criticize the process. Every great athlete goes through it.

If Luck and Wilson continue to run the same O for th next 3 yrs, there will be zero question who is the better QB. None. I am sorry, but Luck could run Seattle's O today. On the otherhand, Luck was asked to do more Sunday night than Wilson may bw asked to do over the course of 2 games. Obviously, one guy is going to progress a hell of a lot faster moving forward than the other. That is a reality of life. Ask Peyton about his what, 51 ints over first 2 yrs? I think he learned a hell of a lit more than RW over that span by "forcing" so many balls. And that is why he is who he is today.

So what you're saying is you, the guy who "admits when he's wrong", are not going to be accountable and own up to how dead effing wrong you were about Seattle's screen game in comparison to the Colts?

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... ntJo01.htm

http://www.nfl.com/player/russellwilson ... areerstats

I didn't compare them other than to say the physically gifted isn't always the better QB. But since you wanted it, I provided it. You were saying about "more" on their shoulders again?

[monkey]

And if the only difference between Luck's numbers and Russ' numbers is the offense they run everybody in the league would be running this offense.

BINGO! Which really makes it all come down to coaching I guess...apparently Pete Carroll is the greatest coach in the league hands down, according to this "logic".

Not only that, but the same exact argument would then be applicable to EVERY QB debate ever.
So, for example, the only difference between say, Marino and Staubach, was the offense they were running.
When put that way, it sounds as stupid as it is, and also shows just how little the person making the statement knows about football.

But hey, if we want to play that game, it does allow me to use the same exact logic to win the Steve Largent was as good or better than Jerry Rice debate.
After all, I could say that Largent just played in a system that focused on running the ball more, and he had lesser QB's throwing him the ball. Therefore, using the same ridiculous "logic" the troll is using, Largent was as good or better a WR as Jerry Rice, and would have done just as good or better if he'd played with the Niners.
Using this stupid sort of argument, I don't need statistics to back up my reasoning, after all the troll doesn't and he's making the EXACT same argument for Luck.

See how this stupidity works?

EDIT: The troll keeps switching his argument from one stupid argument to a different stupid one every time the last one gets shot down by reason and facts. His newest stupid argument is SO over the top stupid I just had to point it out.

To the troll's simple mind, apparently "Every person learns by doing." = throwing more picks makes you a BETTER QB. What the...???
Apparently Roman Gabriel was great at not fumbling because he'd done it so often?
My goodness this argument is ridiculous beyond words.
Yes, everyone learns by doing, so...practice doesn't count? Wilson hasn't thrown enough passes between all those early morning practices with his dad, and in high school in practices and games, in college at practices and games, and now the NFL in practices and games, to be as good as Andrew Luck?
How does the troll know how many passes Luck has thrown in his lifetime, or does only game throws count? And if only game throws count, then why practice?


Seriously, the troll needs to read what he types before hitting post.

[HumanCockroach]

Why stop there? Eli Manning had one of the greatest seasons of all time last year, Dave Kreig was simply practicing not fumbling, David Carr was practicing footwork and not being sacked, and the Niners gave up on Smith early because he struggled for a long time before Harbaugh arrived, Kaepernick really hasn't, so he hasn't improved.... etc.....


It really IS a stupid argument. The best athlete does NOT always = best whatever. How stupid does someone have to be to continue to insist they are?