FanPost

Luck, Wilson, and supporting casts

So Chris Harris commented after the game that Russell Wilson is better than Andrew Luck, which naturally provoked some articles from ESPN deifying Luck. Most of the points they make are stuff we've heard before (Luck has inarguable advantages in height, draft position, and beard quality), but I wanted to put some stats out there for anybody confronted by the "Luck gets no support" argument.

As it happens, the Seahawks' defense doesn't help Russell Wilson throw passes, so let's compare offenses:

Seahawks:

Year Completions Attempts Yards TD INT Rating ANY/A
2011 (Jackson) 271 450 3091 14 13 79.2 5.07
2012 (Wilson) 252 393 3118 26 10 100 7.01

Colts:

Year Completions Attempts Yards TD INT Rating ANY/A
2011 (Orlovsky) 122 193 1201 6 4 82.4 5.11
2012 (Luck) 339 627 4374 23 18 76.5 5.66

Tarvaris Jackson put up a very similar performance with the Seahawks to what Dan Orlovsky managed with the Colts. Russell Wilson then put up significantly better rate stats than Andrew Luck the very next year. If we take Jackson and Orlovsky as roughly equivalent talents (replacement level backup QBs), then Russell Wilson has just plain performed better than Luck with relatively equal offensive talent around him.

I like Andrew Luck. He seems like a nice guy, he has a lot of talent, and he could be a good quarterback. He just hasn't shown that he can perform better than Russell Wilson, and I get tired of commentators pretending like he has.

Wilson-Luck is not Brady-Manning. Brady almost never put up rate stats that were better than Manning's, especially in the pre-2007 era that saw the very heated rings-stats debate.

Andrew Luck is to Russell Wilson what John Elway was to Joe Montana. One is a hyped up Stanford prospect with all the physical tools whose statistical shortcomings are always somebody else's fault. The other is a "system guy" who puts up massively superior numbers and wins championships.