clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Is Andrew Luck Better than Russell Wilson?

New, comments

I'm really getting tired of this debate.

Joe Nicholson-USA TODAY Sports

Thank you, Chris Harris. You spoke your mind, and you gave your two cents. I have to say that we agree. Andrew Luck is a good quarterback. He's got everything you'd want in a quarterback. He's big, he's got quickness, he can make every throw, he's accurate, and in my opinion, he's not as good as Russell Wilson. Proving this as fact is an exercise in futility, though.

Here's why it's a debate:

People point to the teams around these young QBs as really one of two arguments against Wilson and there is something to be said about that. The Seattle Seahawks' defense is better than that of the Indianapolis Colts, I don't think there's a debate there, and Marshawn Lynch is better than Ahmad Bradshaw (the guy who should be the #1 back). That being said, Reggie Wayne is better than Doug Baldwin, Hakeem Nicks is arguably better than Jermaine Kearse, TY Hilton is far better than Riccardo Lockette, and Dwayne Allen is certainly more athletic than Zach Miller, though I don't know how well he blocks (I'm not going to compare Percy to anyone here, and I don't know how I feel about him after these last couple weeks).

Shouldn't receiving weapons be included in "the team around him"? And for that matter, people often give the offensive line of Seattle far too much credit. They're good at run blocking, pass blocking...ehh...not so much. Wilson has been sacked more than Luck both in their careers and this season. He's been under pressure more than Luck too. Hey...isn't that what the running game is supposed to help with? Maybe time to rethink that.

The second argument is that Luck is more important to the team's success, and it has a point. The Seahawks don't depend on Wilson like the Colts do on Luck. Having said that, using game winning drives and 4th quarter comebacks to point to why Andrew Luck is better is ridiculous. I know why Andrew Luck gets the praise for "most 4th quarter comebacks since 2012" but why do Russell Wilson and Tony Romo get left out? They have the exact same amount, after all. Taking all that out of the picture, why take points off of Wilson because of how good his team is? Do we take points off of Joe Montana or Terry Bradshaw? Those teams were some of the best to ever play the game! Joe Montana often had about 35-45% of his passing yards come from one player (you don't need me to tell you who, you already know). Terry Bradshaw played with some of the most dominant defenses that have ever played the game. Those guys didn't carry their teams on their backs, not all the time at least. They had games where they were carried.

Now we get to the meat of the matter, analysis of the two quarterbacks themselves.

Here're the stats:

Russell Wilson

Andrew Luck

passing yards















completion %






TD %






passer rating



4th quarter comebacks



game winning drives



Luck certainly has the volume stats on his side. The same cannot be said for the rate stats however. Luck has been leaned on more for getting the offense down the field, that's for sure, but get in the redzone and Wilson takes over for the Seahawks.

(Oh, and if you take away this season for both QBs, Wilson gets a bigger advantage in completion percentage, touchdown percentage, yards per attempt, and passer rating, though he does have a higher interception percentage and loses one of his GWDs.)

Really, what this debate depends on is point of view. Do you think that efficiency is more important? Russell Wilson is your guy. Do you think that the guy who does the most is the best? Meet Andrew Luck.

There's no way to know that Russell Wilson and Andrew Luck wouldn't be doing just as well on the other's respective team. I think Wilson would do just fine on the Colts, and Andrew Luck would be good on the Seahawks.

Let's not crown either of them, shall we?