Not that I have a dog in the fight re: luck v Wilson, but I'm really surprised a group so statistically driven as SE is denouncing indisputable analytical superiority (Wilson) using EYE TEST! and TAKE MY WORD FOR IT! (Luck)

We have a tiny sample size here, that's why the argument has to extend beyond "Sort by DOVA".

What skills does Luck not possess that Wilson does? Vice Versa?

We've got plenty of stats saying that Wilson has produced better, but everyone acknowledges that his team is better, so we're left to question how much.

Either you think the stats favor Wilson because his situation is better, or you think they favor him because he's a better player than Luck. If he's a better player, tell me why?

Is he more accurate? Does he avoid sacks better? Does he make better choices?

+1

Big year for this debate tho. Just another reason why this season is going to be ****ing epic!

I mean the argument boils down to "Luck can do everything Wilson is asked to do, but Wilson can't do what Luck is asked to do," which is a. impossible to prove b. probably untrue based on the numerous times Wilson has backpacked his team when needed and c. absurdly lazy

SEA would have less ability to get in touch with their QB via an app.

Two years plus playoffs is a tiny sample size?

And the offensive supporting casts are very close. Remember that the Colts' and Seahawks' RBs had effectively the same YPC last year. Defensive supporting casts have ~no correlation to QB production.

Mind explaining this?

Basic thought process is that defenses create turnovers which creates more opportunities/great situations to score. Not to mention playing behind less often theoretically--thus able to play balanced and tougher to read wrt pass/run.

Interested in your thoughts though, since perhaps I'm missing something.

You could come up with narratives either way (like the opposite would be bad defense => other team scores a lot => they play prevent defense => QB puts up numbers) but the data don't really show a correlation either way iirc.

Pretty sure I read Wilson's starting field position was 3 yards better than Luck's last year. That helps, but not very much.

It's not as simple as comparing USG's (which hugely favor Luck) or pocket presence (again Luck)- it's the type of plays they run and the type of passes they get to throw. It seems to me, and I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, that Wilson throws a huge % of his throws out of PA or with the pocket shifting so he can roll out. Simply put, for a few reasons, the level of difficulty on his passes is just much lower than Luck's.

1) His OL, while bad, is just not as ****ty as Luck's. Watching Luck avoid sacks with just a shift or a step up is a thing of beauty. Wilson just doesn't know how to do that he rather extends plays rolling outside the pocket. It's nice, but it also caps a plays ceiling compared to staying in the pocket and having the whole field at your disposal.

2) The Seahawks defense is much much better than the the Colts. The Seahawks played in spots where ESTABLISHING was believable more of the time. They also had Marshawn Lynch who defenses fear a helluva lot more than the guys running for the Colts. Defenses gameplan for the Seahawks rungame vs Seattle, while they gameplan for Luck vs Indy.

3) Wilson has a very smart coach. Luck does not. Carroll knows how to put his QB in the best spot possible for him to succeed. Wilson will always be most dangerous outside the pocket where he can use his legs. Combine that with the threat of Lynch and you've got a recipe to make a lot of your passing sets start with a run-fake.

I'm honestly a bit mind-blown that people can watch these guys and objectively think their skill levels are close. Perhaps Wilson's output has been superior, but I have enormous doubts that he has at any point in the past two years actually been the better player. I simply can't stress enough how amazing I think Seattle would be if you swapped QB's, and how mediocre Indy would be.

Never seen fans of 4 different teams so angry arguing over who has the best young QB in the game.

Lighten up, y'all. You're seriously yelling about Rustle and Luck. WGAF just be happy you got one of them.

Great post.

Yeah? It's like 40 games, in what world is that not small? Football is based on small sample sizes. The GOAT only has 1 Rang, Bradshaw has 4. It's a game full of variance.

Not everything has to be a masters thesis on advanced stats, just talk man.

Why do you keep talking about the YPC? It has literally not relevance. If teams fear BeefMoe more than TRich (lol) they're going to play games differently. Do you think any NFL teams look at the Colts and Hawks' running games as being equal?

well there's also the fact that the seahawks used a non-qb to run the ball 77 more times than the colts did despite running something like 300 fewer offensive plays.

Sometimes you just know

Rush gimmick always delivers.

And he completes them for a higher percentage with more yards per pass than Luck does. If this were easy, guys like Christian Ponder should be killing it with an elite running back behind them.

Their OLines were ranked 25th and 28th in pass blocking by PFF last year. I've seen other rankings that put the Seahawks 31st or 32nd in pass protection. The difference is negligible.

And saying Wilson doesn't know how to step up in the pocket is obviously false, but even if it weren't, there's nothing inherently better about stepping up than scrambling if the scrambler can produce. You don't get extra style points for stepping up in the pocket, nor do you get points for degree of difficulty of your throws. It's about your production.

I'd post a gif of Wilson throwing a 45 yard dime off his back foot for a touchdown while scrambling with two guys in his face but I'm on my phone.

Completely irrelevant to their offensive production. I don't know why people keep invoking this.

Which ignores that Wilson's numbers are absurdly good when he's down big and defenses are sitting pass. Most QBs, including Luck, see a dip in their numbers here. Saying "Wilson relies on his running game" ignores that he can, and has, won games on his own, and that his numbers improve dramatically when he has to put the team on his back.

This I agree with.

Pretty sure I've seen studies that PA success is far far more reliant on the skill of the QB than the RB. Like, the RB is borderline irrelevant.

And I'm a bit mind blown that you can look at both of their stats and seriously argue that Luck is better. That's really all this post boils down to: your eye test says Luck is better without citing any stats to back it up. If the stats were close, the eye test would be a fine tiebreaker, but they're not close. It's a sign that your eye test isn't as good as you think it is, and you overvalue things like pocket presence vs. actual production.

Wilson has been better than Luck because he has been more accurate and less mistake-prone without sacrificing the ability to make big plays.Both stats and eye test back this up.

pff's oline grades are pretty funny. they still haven't figured out that "whatever offensive line is in front of peyton manning" is going to score extremely well at pass blocking no matter what.

Paul McQuistan

yeah they both had garbage offensive lines and i sure as hell wouldn't want to try to figure out which one was worse at pass blocking.

mostly i just wanted to lol at pff grades. they have tons of useful stats but the only thing anyone wants to use is their grades.

edit:

lol

Feels like SS's argument is much more believable than whatever the Luck camp is trying to say.

If you have NFL rewind and want to see some cover-your-eyes protection fire up Atlanta vs Tampa week 11. Watch all of Atlanta's passing plays. Matt Ryan gets hit more or less every drop back. Atlanta uses a different player at right guard on each of the first three series; none of them can block Gerald McCoy.

You mean, other than being full of wrong?

Yes, Wilson throws the most PA passes in the NFL, 34.1% of the time compared to 19.5% of the time for Luck. Is that the difference maker? By no means.

Wilson, non-PA passes only: 7.5 Y/A (5th in the NFL), 95.1 Rating, 17.9 PFF Grade (4th in the NFL).

Luck, non-PA passes only: 6.4 Y/A, 85.5 Rating, 2.9 PFF Grade

With play action, both players improve, but its a split decision. Wilson has a better Y/A and rating, but Luck gets the better PFF grade.

Wilson rolls out a lot, too, but is it the difference maker? By no means.

Wilson, non-roll-out, non-scramble passes only: 8.1 Y/A, 101.3 Rating, 12.2 PFF Grade

Luck, non-roll-out, non-scramble passes only: 6.8 Y/A, 88.3 Rating, 6.6 PFF Grade.

Wilson absolutely wafflecrushes Luck on scrambles and designed rollouts, where he's one of the very best in the NFL, but the little guy can pass from the pocket.

In virtually all of those comparisons above, Wilson faced pressure an average of about 0.1 seconds earlier than Luck did.

I think you need to $how some work if you want to argue that defensive performance correlates with QB production. Also, Colts RB team YPC not significantly different from Seahawks team YPC.

See above.

So am I.

Stats source. Pick whatever stats you want if you want to lol at Y/A, rating, and PFF Grade. Those were just a few of the options, but the trends are similar across the board for any rate stat.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo.../qbs-in-focus/

pretty sure those pocket passing stats are being affected by the fact that wilson's receivers only dropped 9 passes in 295 attempts while luck's dropped 33 in 527.

Why do people keep quoting Rushing YPC as if it matters?


So you are of the opinion that someone needs to show their work to prove Luck has the worse coach? Or show work that bad coaching can harm a team?

Both seem sort of LDO here.

As an example, through week 14 of the 2013 season, the Hawks used the read-option on 21% of their running plays. Do I have to show my work or can you take common sense's word that teams that run the read option are harder to stop/gameplan for*. The Colts have said many times, and have kept their word on the field, that they will not have Luck execute any designed runs (beyond the sneak).

That lack of variety likely helps spare Luck some punishment, but could it, combined with TRich looming so small in the back field make it much easier for defenses to game plan against the Colts? IsSuchAThingEvenPossible.gif

Maybe there's a way to quantify this (Def Blitz %?) but it's not at all a stretch to think that a defensive player at the NFL level is aware of the Colts' inability to run the ball and cheats back reflexively at the snap more than they would if they were facing a more balanced team.

Carroll is willing to put Rustle in harms way to help keep his offense dynamic, Pagano isn't. That's a pretty big difference in philosophy that undoubtedly makes Luck's job harder.

*Getting easier tho. Read-option YPP is way down after only 2 years front-and-center.

Sorry, I grant that Luck has a worse coach. I was referring to the PA stats.