predator_05 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Then if all of this information is apparent to you then stop talking about how he's going to run the conference for a decade. Wilson comes up in the conversation because the thread that was created surrounded Luck and Wilson. But if you dont like Wilson I'll tuck him away and we can deal purely with Joe Flacco. You want to talk better QB's? Put away regular season stats and go check playoff stats. You see, the playoffs are where all the good teams meet so the stats are more relative to the player. Go look at Andrew Luck and Joe Flacco's playoff Stats. Matter of fact, I'll leave the links here for you. Andrew Luck http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00/gamelog/post/ Joe Flacco http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlacJo00/gamelog/post/ Andrew Luck has thrown 12 INT's in just 6 playoff games. Flacco has thrown just 10 INT in 15 playoff games. I don't give a sh*t. Yeah, Flacco is better than Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers on playoff stats...i get it. He is not a better QB than Andrew Luck, and i'm not wasting my time on arguing that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I can cook that sh*t up bro! lol. Definitely. Decreasing the size of your sample and then biasing it always results in more accurate inferences. That's exactly how math works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 I don't give a sh*t. Yeah, Flacco is better than Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers on playoff stats...i get it. He is not a better QB than Andrew Luck, and i'm not wasting my time on arguing that point. Then please dont. There's a whole bunch of other people I can hold this conversation with. There's also other threads for you to visit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Definitely. Decreasing the size of your sample and then biasing it always results in more accurate inferences. That's exactly how math works. Don't hate the playa..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 You know whats funny? Why is it when guys like Andrew Luck lose then people talk about all of the pieces that he's missing yet when Russell Wilson wins they talk about how its only because he has all these pieces? It sounds a bit contradictory to me. Not saying you did that. Just reading your post brought that to mind. All the time people talk about all of the weapons available to Wilson that he utilizes rather well yet when a favorite player loses football games those same people use the excuse that they didnt have what they criticize Wilson for having. Because it's kind of true. While Wilson's WR corps sucks this year you couldn't come away today with any other conclusion regarding the Seattle offense OTHER than to say that Marshawn Lynch is the most dangerous piece to that offense, not Wilson. Luck is what makes that Indy offense tick. He's always the # 1 reason they win. When they lose its because he failed. It's ALL on him. Wilson threw 4 picks today (3 his fault) and still won today. Until that overtime drive he was having a very 2009-10 Sanchez-esque day, getting bailed out by his teammates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 All QBs better than Luck: Rodgers Brady Wilson Big Ben Flacco Rivers Brees That said, Luck is still good. He's definitely top 10. The fact that he's a 3rd year player and we're already trying to have this discussion, however, gives a little perspective. Sans Wilson all of these guys have been in the league more than twice, and some three times longer than Luck has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator_05 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 You know whats funny? Why is it when guys like Andrew Luck lose then people talk about all of the pieces that he's missing yet when Russell Wilson wins they talk about how its only because he has all these pieces? It sounds a bit contradictory to me. LOL, who says that... Wilson is a great QB. I don't know if he can dominate the NFC for a decade though, its a much better conference with a lot of good QBs; Rodgers, Brees, Eli, Romo, Ryan, etc. Not a knock on Wilson, he just faces tougher competition. They also have to pay Wilson after this year is up, will be interesting to see how it affects their cap situation and roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Because it's kind of true. While Wilson's WR corps sucks this year you couldn't come away today with any other conclusion regarding the Seattle offense OTHER than to say that Marshawn Lynch is the most dangerous piece to that offense, not Wilson. Luck is what makes that Indy offense tick. When they win he's always the best player on the field. When they lose its because he failed. It's ALL on him. You can say that, but when we talk about top 5 quarterbacks in the league I can't name more than 4 QB's better than Russell Wilson. So yeah, Wilson didnt have his typical "1 int in 3 years worth of playoff game" performances, and yes, Lynch is a beast, but that doesnt change that when push comes to shove there are not 5 QB's in the league better than Russell Wilson. Thats all I'm saying. Im not discrediting Lynch or any other player on that team. But all of the touting of players and their place amongst one another when it comes to Luck is done primarily with his reg. season stats, because in the playoffs this dude is crap. Russell Wilson is a consistent player, and when he throws 4 INTs in a championship game and the game goes to O.T. he isn't suddenly handicapped. Dude is clutch. He's a Top 5 QB no matter Lynch position on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator_05 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Then please dont. There's a whole bunch of other people I can hold this conversation with. There's also other threads for you to visit. Aight, bro i'm sure other guys here will enjoy hearing about how super stud QBs like flacco and eli manning are better QBs than rodgers, brees, peyton, etc. playoff stats ftw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 LOL, who says that... Wilson is a great QB. I don't know if he can dominate the NFC for a decade though, its a much better conference with a lot of good QBs; Rodgers, Brees, Eli, Romo, Ryan, etc. Not a knock on Wilson, he just faces tougher competition. They also have to pay Wilson after this year is up, will be interesting to see how it affects their cap situation and roster. Brother, what do you mean "you dont know". he's already 3 years in....dominating. Seattle dominated their division every year he's been in the league, and 2 of the 3 years he's been in the league Seattle has represented the NFC in the Superbowl and they obviously won it last year. Thats dominance playa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The fact that he's a 3rd year player and we're already trying to have this discussion, however, gives a little perspective. Sans Wilson all of these guys have been in the league more than twice, and some three times longer than Luck has. Absolutely. The problem for Luck is not how good he'll be, it's whether he'll fall into Rivers-esque obscurity because of a sh*tty HC or GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Aight, bro i'm sure other guys here will enjoy hearing about how super stud QBs like flacco and eli manning are better QBs than rodgers, brees, peyton, etc. playoff stats ftw You had the last word. I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I love how a guy has one bad game and he suddenly sucks. I'd trade half our roster and a cheerleader for Luck tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator_05 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Brother, what do you mean "you dont know". he's already 3 years in....dominating. Seattle dominated their division every year he's been in the league, and 2 of the 3 years he's been in the league Seattle has represented the NFC in the Superbowl and they obviously won it last year. Thats dominance playa. aight bro, u win russell the love muscle = number 1 QB in da league, now and for the next 10 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 aight bro, u win russell the love muscle = number 1 QB in da league, now and for the next 10 years He's the #4 or #5 in the league. I dont need to make Wilson more than what he is....unlike the Andrew Luck lovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyLV Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Name another better QB not named Rodgers or Brady. Roethlisberger Brees Rivers Wilson (even with his 4 ints, can't ignore his almost 1000 yards rushing and excellence in passing) Tony Romo Manning Flacco probably Stafford as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 You can say that, but when we talk about top 5 quarterbacks in the league I can't name more than 4 QB's better than Russell Wilson. So yeah, Wilson didnt have his typical "1 int in 3 years worth of playoff game" performances, and yes, Lynch is a beast, but that doesnt change that when push comes to shove there are not 5 QB's in the league better than Russell Wilson. Thats all I'm saying. Im not discrediting Lynch or any other player on that team. But all of the touting of players and their place amongst one another when it comes to Luck is done primarily with his reg. season stats, because in the playoffs this dude is crap. Russell Wilson is a consistent player, and when he throws 4 INTs in a championship game and the game goes to O.T. he isn't suddenly handicapped. Dude is clutch. He's a Top 5 QB no matter Lynch position on the team. Wilson isn't actually all that clutch. His performance in last year's postseason was pretty underwhelming leading up to the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 This Colts team isn't in the playoffs without Luck. That Colts defense was getting pushed backward all night, didn't tackle, blew assignments left and right. Not sure what any of this has to do with Luck. One player can only over-compensate so much and for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 This Colts team isn't in the playoffs without Luck. That Colts defense was getting pushed backward all night, didn't tackle, blew assignments left and right. Not sure what any of this has to do with Luck. One player can only over-compensate so much and for so long. YAH BUT BLOUNT RAN ALL OVER LUCK HE CAN'T EVEN TACKLE HE SUCKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 The fact that he's a 3rd year player and we're already trying to have this discussion, however, gives a little perspective. Sans Wilson all of these guys have been in the league more than twice, and some three times longer than Luck has. And with all that said, Luck is a top 10 QB. Thats an excellent place to be in as a 3rd year QB. The problem is people want Luck to be more than what he is which is #3 and he simply isn't the 3rd best QB in the league right now. He puts up all of these flashy numbers but lets keep it real here, he's in a crappy ass division too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 YAH BUT BLOUNT RAN ALL OVER LUCK HE CAN'T EVEN TACKLE HE SUCKS The tackle Luck made on Revis or McCourty (whoever it was) when he intercepted him was the best Colts tackle all night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirlancemehlot Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Yeah, its totally wrong to say that. Because Brady will keep dominating until he is 55, the Pats don't suck at drafting skill positions like WR, the AFC East isn't going to improve at all. The Pats don't draft that well but they manage their roster better than any team in the league, keeping costs down and coaching up young players on the cheap, which allows them to let Welker leave and not skip a beat with Edelman. They can afford the few premier pieces they lack because they don't throw money away. They get the most out of their role players and a few exceptional players as well. La Fell and Amendola are cheap. Gronk is a bit more of a luxury. Revis is a luxury while pretty much everyone on that defense not named Wilfork is a mid-pay guy or less. Ninkovich was drafted by the Saints, but is a major piece of the puzzle here. They manage, they coach and they develop. As always there's a formula and a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkeyeJet Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The Colts roster outside of Luck is putrid. Bottom five in the league. If you flip out Luck and Geno/Michael Vick, the Colts are worse than the Jets. Quite possibly top pick bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Wilson isn't actually all that clutch. His performance in last year's postseason was pretty underwhelming leading up to the Super Bowl. You're right. For the most part Seattle tends to do away with their opponent, however, when Seattle's back is against the wall Like being down 16-0 after throwing 4 INT's he's clutch enough in O.T. to get the win. He was pretty clutch in that Atlanta game as a rookie being down 27-7 in the 4th qtr too, and though they lost that game, Wilson gave his defense the lead after being down that far with just seconds left in that game. Wilson is the best game manager in the league and is the 5th best QB in the league. This is my opinion of course. With that said, I cannot say that Wilson played underwhelmingly leading up to the Super Bowl. He executes exactly what he needs to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRy56 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Russell Wilson top 5 quarterback? Hahaha He is a good quarterback, top 10 I can see... but he's had the benefit of an elite running game and an all time defense. Did he come up huge in overtime? Absolutely, but he's a good quarterback.. not a great one. He doesn't carry his team and is not the sole reason for their success. He is exactly what we all wanted Mark Sanchez to be. He's probably the best game manager I've ever seen. His passing isn't what makes him special, it's his escapeability and improvisation. Andrew Luck on the other hand is solely responsible for all of his team's success. Without him the Colts are competing for the number one draft pick. He has no defense, no running game, his wide receivers drop an insane amount of balls. He carried his team to the playoffs three years in a row, setting all kinds of passing records along the way. Luck is the next big thing in the NFL and will rule the AFC for a decade. Wilson will be brought down to earth when the Seahawks have to sign all of their stars (him included) and he doesn't have an insanely talented team around him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The problem is people want Luck to be more than what he is What people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 The Colts roster outside of Luck is putrid. Bottom five in the league. If you flip out Luck and Geno/Michael Vick, the Colts are worse than the Jets. Quite possibly top pick bad. They're not that bad. They have Hilton and Moncrief. Their total defense was #3 in the league. Would they be a different team without Luck, obviously, but as I told Rutgers earlier, the Colts are in one of the worst divisions in the league. The only respectable team in their division are the Texans and thats because JJ Watt is JJ Watt. The rest of Lucks division is the 3 win Jaguars and the 2 win Titans. The Colts had 11 wins this year, the rest of their entire division had 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRONX DUDE Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The colts are probably one of the worst ran franchises in the NFL they've just been lucky enough to have the first pick in the draft at the right time (drafting Manning and Luck) but have done an awful job building a team around them. Trading a first rd. pick for Trent Richardson has to go down as one of the worst trades in NFL history. Everyone makes mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Absolutely. The problem for Luck is not how good he'll be, it's whether he'll fall into Rivers-esque obscurity because of a sh*tty HC or GM. I wouldn't worry about it. With Jim Irsay at the helm, I'm sure that organization will be run like a well-oiled machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator_05 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 They're not that bad. They have Hilton and Moncrief. Their total defense was #3 in the league. Would they be a different team without Luck, obviously, but as I told Rutgers earlier, the Colts are in one of the worst divisions in the league. The only respectable team in their division are the Texans and thats because JJ Watt is JJ Watt. The rest of Lucks division is the 3 win Jaguars and the 2 win Titans. The Colts had 11 wins this year, the rest of their entire division had 14. this is why they will always be in contention to win home field advantage. they are a few improvements away from being a 13-3 team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Russell Wilson top 5 quarterback? Hahaha He is a good quarterback, top 10 I can see... but he's had the benefit of an elite running game and an all time defense. Did he come up huge in overtime? Absolutely, but he's a good quarterback.. not a great one. He doesn't carry his team and is not the sole reason for their success. He is exactly what we all wanted Mark Sanchez to be. He's probably the best game manager I've ever seen. His passing isn't what makes him special, it's his escapeability and improvisation. Andrew Luck on the other hand is solely responsible for all of his team's success. Without him the Colts are competing for the number one draft pick. He has no defense, no running game, his wide receivers drop an insane amount of balls. He carried his team to the playoffs three years in a row, setting all kinds of passing records along the way. Luck is the next big thing in the NFL and will rule the AFC for a decade. Wilson will be brought down to earth when the Seahawks have to sign all of their stars (him included) and he doesn't have an insanely talented team around him. Being Solely responsible for a teams success doesnt make you a top 3 QB "just because". Especially when the teams in your division are the Texans, Jaguars and Titans. Thats a 5-1 to 6-0 record for the Colts before even playing a game every season. How's that for "sole reason' for success? Im not saying that Andrew Luck isn't a great QB, the man just isn't a top 5 QB in the league right now. It could very well be because he doesnt have the help. There's nothing wrong with that. But you guys are reaching because its Andrew Luck, a guy who plays in possibly the worst division in the AFC goes 6-0. What other Quarterback in in his division? The best QB in that division not named Luck is rookie Blake Bortles. The only time we see Luck have consistent competition is in the playoffs and during his runs the guy looks bad. Yes he doesnt have as much help as a guy like Wilson, that doesnt mean that he has to go out and only complete 40% of his passes and throw two damn INT's in the AFCCG. Andrew Luck gets the "Peyton Manning" treatment when it comes to excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator_05 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Russell Wilson top 5 quarterback? Hahaha He is a good quarterback, top 10 I can see... but he's had the benefit of an elite running game and an all time defense. Did he come up huge in overtime? Absolutely, but he's a good quarterback.. not a great one. He doesn't carry his team and is not the sole reason for their success. He is exactly what we all wanted Mark Sanchez to be. He's probably the best game manager I've ever seen. His passing isn't what makes him special, it's his escapeability and improvisation. Andrew Luck on the other hand is solely responsible for all of his team's success. Without him the Colts are competing for the number one draft pick. He has no defense, no running game, his wide receivers drop an insane amount of balls. He carried his team to the playoffs three years in a row, setting all kinds of passing records along the way. Luck is the next big thing in the NFL and will rule the AFC for a decade. Wilson will be brought down to earth when the Seahawks have to sign all of their stars (him included) and he doesn't have an insanely talented team around him. well luck, like wilson, is also getting a huge contract in the off-season. the difference is that indy will get better with a younger team, as they don't stand to lose any key players. whereas the seahawks are almost guaranteed to get worse because there is no way they can afford to keep some of their studs after paying wilson. guys like lynch and chancellor might not be on this team once russell gets paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkeyeJet Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 They're not that bad. They have Hilton and Moncrief. Their total defense was #3 in the league. Would they be a different team without Luck, obviously, but as I told Rutgers earlier, the Colts are in one of the worst divisions in the league. The only respectable team in their division are the Texans and thats because JJ Watt is JJ Watt. The rest of Lucks division is the 3 win Jaguars and the 2 win Titans. The Colts had 11 wins this year, the rest of their entire division had 14. Their total defense was not 3rd in the league. They were 11th in yards, 19th in points. If your examples as to why the Colts roster isn't that Hilton and Moncrief, then yes, it is bad. Hilton is a nice receiver, but not a legit 1. He is elevated by Luck, not vice versa. Moncrief is a nice rookie, but he is hardly a major impact player at this time. Their OL is awful, RBs are awful and Defense and WRs are mediocre to slightly above average at best. The only reason they have a pulse is Luck, in addition to the division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 this is why they will always be in contention to win home field advantage. they are a few improvements away from being a 13-3 team. And this is imo is the problem for Luck. He's pretty much guaranteed 6 wins given his division and he'll get 4 or 5 wins from the rest of his schedule. Yet when he gets to the playoffs he's not playing Fitzpatrick, Bortles or whomever the hell is the Titans QB. He's playing the best of the best, and Luck is rarely playing good to great teams on a consistent basis. You dont get credit for beating a slap d_ck team like the Bengals. Just look at the teams the Colts have beaten in the playoffs. The broncos, with Manning. He's washed up and is the older version of Luck. The Chiefs who stopped playing the 2nd half and are not a consistent playoff team and the Bengals, who haven't won a playoff game since 1990. The two teams they lost to? Baltimore and New England twice. The difference here is that the three games where Luck played legit perennial playoff teams the dude folded like a book. In those three games Luck has thrown 2 TD's and 7INT's. Not having parts is one thing, playing poorly against the competition that fans compare him against is quite telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator_05 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The Pats don't draft that well but they manage their roster better than any team in the league, keeping costs down and coaching up young players on the cheap, which allows them to let Welker leave and not skip a beat with Edelman. They can afford the few premier pieces they lack because they don't throw money away. They get the most out of their role players and a few exceptional players as well. La Fell and Amendola are cheap. Gronk is a bit more of a luxury. Revis is a luxury while pretty much everyone on that defense not named Wilfork is a mid-pay guy or less. Ninkovich was drafted by the Saints, but is a major piece of the puzzle here. They manage, they coach and they develop. As always there's a formula and a plan. you could be well run, but the success of the franchise still depends on a handful of individuals. the way i see it, if you take away gronkowski, the pats arent capable of winning in the playoffs. you also need to account for the improvement we'll see in the division, the jets, bills and dolphins aren't pushovers next year or in the foreseeable future. they are the class of the AFC at present, but this can easily change. that's why i like indy as a playoff team in the future, they already have a great young QB and are only a few improvements away from winning 13 games. i'm not sure if the Pats get home-field advantage next year on a tougher schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.