Let's see. A QB who has the best D in the league with the most effective RB wants top shelf QB money.
Makes sense to me.
Hawks should lock him up and give him anything he wants. I'm sure when they have to get rid of half of the Defense and Wilson has to throw 40 times per game, he'll be even more productive.
Having money for the rest of the team is a concern, but in the NFL it starts and ends with the QB, especially in today's game. The key to continued success will be to draft well and have cheap replacements that can actually play.
I also disagree with your assessment of Russell Wilson. I think he could air it out 40 times and he would put up big numbers, but that's not what the Seahawks do. And while he may be somewhat flawed as a pocket passer (I don't think he actually is, but can kind of understand the argument), he's the best running QB of all time. He has also never played with a very good OL and has a receiving core that has probably been in the bottom third of the league. He's really fucking good.
So, now, all of the sudden, 'cause the grate rode dog sayz so, this topic has legs.
Fuck off you inconsistent basement dwelling cheeto freak.
My apartment doesn't have a basement. I can't remember the last time I had Cheetos either, although I do like the red hot ones.
Let's see. A QB who has the best D in the league with the most effective RB wants top shelf QB money.
Makes sense to me.
Hawks should lock him up and give him anything he wants. I'm sure when they have to get rid of half of the Defense and Wilson has to throw 40 times per game, he'll be even more productive.
Having money for the rest of the team is a concern, but in the NFL it starts and ends with the QB, especially in today's game. The key to continued success will be to draft well and have cheap replacements that can actually play.
I also disagree with your assessment of Russell Wilson. I think he could air it out 40 times and he would put up big numbers, but that's not what the Seahawks do. And while he may be somewhat flawed as a pocket passer (I don't think he actually is, but can kind of understand the argument), he's the best running QB of all time. He has also never played with a very good OL and has a receiving core that has probably been in the bottom third of the league. He's really fucking good.
So, now, all of the sudden, 'cause the grate rode dog sayz so, this topic has legs.
Fuck off you inconsistent basement dwelling cheeto freak.
My apartment doesn't have a basement. I can't remember the last time I had Cheetos either, although I do like the red hot ones.
Let's see. A QB who has the best D in the league with the most effective RB wants top shelf QB money.
Makes sense to me.
Hawks should lock him up and give him anything he wants. I'm sure when they have to get rid of half of the Defense and Wilson has to throw 40 times per game, he'll be even more productive.
Having money for the rest of the team is a concern, but in the NFL it starts and ends with the QB, especially in today's game. The key to continued success will be to draft well and have cheap replacements that can actually play.
I also disagree with your assessment of Russell Wilson. I think he could air it out 40 times and he would put up big numbers, but that's not what the Seahawks do. And while he may be somewhat flawed as a pocket passer (I don't think he actually is, but can kind of understand the argument), he's the best running QB of all time. He has also never played with a very good OL and has a receiving core that has probably been in the bottom third of the league. He's really fucking good.
Leaf may be whooshing you, RD55..
He's a fudgepacker fan and there are NFL fans who actually believe that the Seahawks could plug in 20 QB's and be just as good.
Probably the same fans who think Seattle is worse with Jimmy Graham because he doesn't block or something like that.
Let's see. A QB who has the best D in the league with the most effective RB wants top shelf QB money.
Makes sense to me.
Hawks should lock him up and give him anything he wants. I'm sure when they have to get rid of half of the Defense and Wilson has to throw 40 times per game, he'll be even more productive.
Having money for the rest of the team is a concern, but in the NFL it starts and ends with the QB, especially in today's game. The key to continued success will be to draft well and have cheap replacements that can actually play.
I also disagree with your assessment of Russell Wilson. I think he could air it out 40 times and he would put up big numbers, but that's not what the Seahawks do. And while he may be somewhat flawed as a pocket passer (I don't think he actually is, but can kind of understand the argument), he's the best running QB of all time. He has also never played with a very good OL and has a receiving core that has probably been in the bottom third of the league. He's really fucking good.
Wilson is not the best running QB of all time, unless you are 30 years old and don't recognize the NFL was played before the year 2000. Fran Tarkenton, Randall Cunningham and Steve Young say hello. 3 years of game management does not make any player the best of anything in the NFL.
Seattle has spent a ton of their money on the defensive side of the ball. I love the approach. And the results have been outstanding. Since Wilson has been at the helm, Seattle has had the luxury of defense rated 4th, 1st and 1st in his first 3 years. Don't fuck it up has been the mantra.
But to have a boner over a QB who, in his first 3 years in the league has led his team to the 17th, 18th and 9th best offenses in the NFL, as worthy of a franchise type QB, doesn't square with me. Perhaps he has the potential, but past performance doesn't justify it.
The best argument I can think of to throw money at Wilson is who would replace him. He has shown he is a very good game manager, and any replacement would be, at a minimum, uncertain. But paying him 20% of the salary cap would be, IMO, FS.
Let's see. A QB who has the best D in the league with the most effective RB wants top shelf QB money.
Makes sense to me.
Hawks should lock him up and give him anything he wants. I'm sure when they have to get rid of half of the Defense and Wilson has to throw 40 times per game, he'll be even more productive.
Having money for the rest of the team is a concern, but in the NFL it starts and ends with the QB, especially in today's game. The key to continued success will be to draft well and have cheap replacements that can actually play.
I also disagree with your assessment of Russell Wilson. I think he could air it out 40 times and he would put up big numbers, but that's not what the Seahawks do. And while he may be somewhat flawed as a pocket passer (I don't think he actually is, but can kind of understand the argument), he's the best running QB of all time. He has also never played with a very good OL and has a receiving core that has probably been in the bottom third of the league. He's really fucking good.
Wilson is not the best running QB of all time, unless you are 30 years old and don't recognize the NFL was played before the year 2000. Fran Tarkenton, Randall Cunningham and Steve Young say hello. 3 years of game management does not make any player the best of anything in the NFL.
Seattle has spent a ton of their money on the defensive side of the ball. I love the approach. And the results have been outstanding. Since Wilson has been at the helm, Seattle has had the luxury of defense rated 4th, 1st and 1st in his first 3 years. Don't fuck it up has been the mantra.
But to have a boner over a QB who, in his first 3 years in the league has led his team to the 17th, 18th and 9th best offenses in the NFL, as worthy of a franchise type QB, doesn't square with me. Perhaps he has the potential, but past performance doesn't justify it.
The best argument I can think of to throw money at Wilson is who would replace him. He has shown he is a very good game manager, and any replacement would be, at a minimum, uncertain. But paying him 20% of the salary cap would be, IMO, FS.
Any replacement would be at a maximum uncertain. At a minimum, you are looking at a disaster that wastes Sherman/Thomas/Chancellor's prime years. The Jets' and Bills' defenses are probably on par with Seattle's this coming season, but both will finish 8-8 or worse because they have either average or shit QB's.
Whether or not you think Wilson is overrated, this is how the NFL works. If you find a good QB you have to keep him because it's way too hard to replace him. In order to keep him you have to shell out a ton of money because if you don't, someone else will.
@SteveInShelton is spot on. You have to pay him because you're not going to replace him. Drew Brees is about the only good QB that was allowed to hit free agency that I can remember. You don't let a good QB go.
@HuskyinAZ, calling Wilson the best QB running QB of all time might have been a little bit of a stretch at this point, but he ranks right up there. He's certainly the best running QB in the NFL right now. Kaepernick and Newton are probably the next best and they aren't that close.
Save the bullshit about where the Seahawks offense ranks in total yards. Who gives a shit? How is a team that runs the ball the most in the league supposed to rank higher than teams that air it out 50 times a game?
What about Russell Wilson isn't a franchise QB? He's efficiency ranks high. His QBR is good. His TD:INT is good. His YPA is good. He's a great runner. His intangibles are great. He's won big playoff games. He's not the best QB in the league, but you might be retarded if you don't think he's a franchise QB. And I know you'll deny it, but all of this bullshit still stems from the fact he's 5'10" and was drafted in the 3rd round.
I could give a shit about how tall a QB is or when they were drafted. At issue is whether or not Wilson is a franchise QB. He does a great job of not fucking up. But then he's got the best defense in the NFL to back him and the offense up.
My point was declaring him as the best running QB "of all time" was beyond FS. "A bit of a stretch" is quite the understatement. And paying him franchise QB money is highly questionable. A franchise QB looks more like Brady, Rodgers and Luck. At this point, IMO, that's where the list ends. It's not their size, but their production. Wilson may be there one day, and I hope it happens, but after his first 3 years, declaring him franchise material is premature.
@SteveInShelton is spot on. You have to pay him because you're not going to replace him. Drew Brees is about the only good QB that was allowed to hit free agency that I can remember. You don't let a good QB go.
@HuskyinAZ, calling Wilson the best QB running QB of all time might have been a little bit of a stretch at this point, but he ranks right up there. He's certainly the best running QB in the NFL right now. Kaepernick and Newton are probably the next best and they aren't that close.
Save the bullshit about where the Seahawks offense ranks in total yards. Who gives a shit? How is a team that runs the ball the most in the league supposed to rank higher than teams that air it out 50 times a game?
What about Russell Wilson isn't a franchise QB? He's efficiency ranks high. His QBR is good. His TD:INT is good. His YPA is good. He's a great runner. His intangibles are great. He's won big playoff games. He's not the best QB in the league, but you might be retarded if you don't think he's a franchise QB. And I know you'll deny it, but all of this bullshit still stems from the fact he's 5'10" and was drafted in the 3rd round.
I could give a shit about how tall a QB is or when they were drafted. At issue is whether or not Wilson is a franchise QB. He does a great job of not fucking up. But then he's got the best defense in the NFL to back him and the offense up.
My point was declaring him as the best running QB "of all time" was beyond FS. "A bit of a stretch" is quite the understatement. And paying him franchise QB money is highly questionable. A franchise QB looks more like Brady, Rodgers and Luck. At this point, IMO, that's where the list ends. It's not their size, but their production. Wilson may be there one day, and I hope it happens, but after his first 3 years, declaring him franchise material is premature.
I'll give you Cunningham, but Russell ran for more yards last year than Young ever did. Their averages are both similar. I'll give you Vick too. I don't think it's out of the question that one day Russell Wilson will break Vick's record of 6,010 yards one day. Tarkenton was before my time. If RW's not the best running QB of all time, whatever. He's the best right now and it's not disputable.
To the bold part, I agree that Brady and Rodgers are better. Luck is damn good, but how is he clearly better? Because he throws for more yards and TD's? His completion percentage is lower, his TD:INT is significantly worse, his rating is lower, and so is his QBR. And we haven't even gotten to running where RW is clearly superior. But Luck doesn't have Marshawn Lynch? Luck has better WR's. Both OL's suck. Russell Wilson may have Lynch and a great defense, but his WR's and OL are not good.
Luck is the prototypical QB and I agree that he will likely be a great one. He's a franchise QB. If you're being objective though, it's hard to say with certainty that he is better than RW. Luck is a prime example of if you switched their sizes and draft positions, perceptions would likely be different. They are peers imo. I'm interested why Luck is so much better?
We disagree on franchise QB's. There are more than 3. Drew Brees is a franchise QB. Ben Roethlisberger is another. There are 4 or 5 others that are damn good (Ryan, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Flacco) and imo are franchise QB's. A few of these guys will make the Hall of Fame one day.
I could give a shit about how tall a QB is or when they were drafted. At issue is whether or not Wilson is a franchise QB. He does a great job of not fucking up. But then he's got the best defense in the NFL to back him and the offense up.
My point was declaring him as the best running QB "of all time" was beyond FS. "A bit of a stretch" is quite the understatement. And paying him franchise QB money is highly questionable. A franchise QB looks more like Brady, Rodgers and Luck. At this point, IMO, that's where the list ends. It's not their size, but their production. Wilson may be there one day, and I hope it happens, but after his first 3 years, declaring him franchise material is premature.
I'll give you Cunningham, but Russell ran for more yards last year than Young ever did. Their averages are both similar. I'll give you Vick too. I don't think it's out of the question that one day Russell Wilson will break Vick's record of 6,010 yards one day. Tarkenton was before my time. If RW's not the best running QB of all time, whatever. He's the best right now and it's not disputable.
To the bold part, I agree that Brady and Rodgers are better. Luck is damn good, but how is he clearly better? Because he throws for more yards and TD's? His completion percentage is lower, his TD:INT is significantly worse, his rating is lower, and so is his QBR. And we haven't even gotten to running where RW is clearly superior. But Luck doesn't have Marshawn Lynch? Luck has better WR's. Both OL's suck. Russell Wilson may have Lynch and a great defense, but his WR's and OL are not good.
Luck is the prototypical QB and I agree that he will likely be a great one. He's a franchise QB. If you're being objective though, it's hard to say with certainty that he is better than RW. Luck is a prime example of if you switched their sizes and draft positions, perceptions would likely be different. They are peers imo. I'm interested why Luck is so much better?
We disagree on franchise QB's. There are more than 3. Drew Brees is a franchise QB. Ben Roethlisberger is another. There are 4 or 5 others that are damn good (Ryan, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Flacco) and imo are franchise QB's. A few of these guys will make the Hall of Fame one day.
Brian Kelly thinks this may happen and so does Brian Kelly.
I could give a shit about how tall a QB is or when they were drafted. At issue is whether or not Wilson is a franchise QB. He does a great job of not fucking up. But then he's got the best defense in the NFL to back him and the offense up.
My point was declaring him as the best running QB "of all time" was beyond FS. "A bit of a stretch" is quite the understatement. And paying him franchise QB money is highly questionable. A franchise QB looks more like Brady, Rodgers and Luck. At this point, IMO, that's where the list ends. It's not their size, but their production. Wilson may be there one day, and I hope it happens, but after his first 3 years, declaring him franchise material is premature.
I'll give you Cunningham, but Russell ran for more yards last year than Young ever did. Their averages are both similar. I'll give you Vick too. I don't think it's out of the question that one day Russell Wilson will break Vick's record of 6,010 yards one day. Tarkenton was before my time. If RW's not the best running QB of all time, whatever. He's the best right now and it's not disputable.
To the bold part, I agree that Brady and Rodgers are better. Luck is damn good, but how is he clearly better? Because he throws for more yards and TD's? His completion percentage is lower, his TD:INT is significantly worse, his rating is lower, and so is his QBR. And we haven't even gotten to running where RW is clearly superior. But Luck doesn't have Marshawn Lynch? Luck has better WR's. Both OL's suck. Russell Wilson may have Lynch and a great defense, but his WR's and OL are not good.
Luck is the prototypical QB and I agree that he will likely be a great one. He's a franchise QB. If you're being objective though, it's hard to say with certainty that he is better than RW. Luck is a prime example of if you switched their sizes and draft positions, perceptions would likely be different. They are peers imo. I'm interested why Luck is so much better?
We disagree on franchise QB's. There are more than 3. Drew Brees is a franchise QB. Ben Roethlisberger is another. There are 4 or 5 others that are damn good (Ryan, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Flacco) and imo are franchise QB's. A few of these guys will make the Hall of Fame one day.
Good response. And I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said. And I'll get off the "best rushing QB of all time" thing. One thing that I do disagree with is the comparison between Luck and Wilson. If you had to pick a QB for your franchise over the next 10 years, would you go with Luck or Wilson? My opinion......I'd go with Luck, it would take me about 2 seconds to make that call.
I could give a shit about how tall a QB is or when they were drafted. At issue is whether or not Wilson is a franchise QB. He does a great job of not fucking up. But then he's got the best defense in the NFL to back him and the offense up.
My point was declaring him as the best running QB "of all time" was beyond FS. "A bit of a stretch" is quite the understatement. And paying him franchise QB money is highly questionable. A franchise QB looks more like Brady, Rodgers and Luck. At this point, IMO, that's where the list ends. It's not their size, but their production. Wilson may be there one day, and I hope it happens, but after his first 3 years, declaring him franchise material is premature.
I'll give you Cunningham, but Russell ran for more yards last year than Young ever did. Their averages are both similar. I'll give you Vick too. I don't think it's out of the question that one day Russell Wilson will break Vick's record of 6,010 yards one day. Tarkenton was before my time. If RW's not the best running QB of all time, whatever. He's the best right now and it's not disputable.
To the bold part, I agree that Brady and Rodgers are better. Luck is damn good, but how is he clearly better? Because he throws for more yards and TD's? His completion percentage is lower, his TD:INT is significantly worse, his rating is lower, and so is his QBR. And we haven't even gotten to running where RW is clearly superior. But Luck doesn't have Marshawn Lynch? Luck has better WR's. Both OL's suck. Russell Wilson may have Lynch and a great defense, but his WR's and OL are not good.
Luck is the prototypical QB and I agree that he will likely be a great one. He's a franchise QB. If you're being objective though, it's hard to say with certainty that he is better than RW. Luck is a prime example of if you switched their sizes and draft positions, perceptions would likely be different. They are peers imo. I'm interested why Luck is so much better?
We disagree on franchise QB's. There are more than 3. Drew Brees is a franchise QB. Ben Roethlisberger is another. There are 4 or 5 others that are damn good (Ryan, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Flacco) and imo are franchise QB's. A few of these guys will make the Hall of Fame one day.
Good response. And I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said. And I'll get off the "best rushing QB of all time" thing. One thing that I do disagree with is the comparison between Luck and Wilson. If you had to pick a QB for your franchise over the next 10 years, would you go with Luck or Wilson? My opinion......I'd go with Luck, it would take me about 2 seconds to make that call.
I honestly think both are great QB's. Luck has more talent and likely has a higher ceiling. He's huge, he's smart, he has a great arm, and he's accurate. He has better tools than probably every QB in the NFL. Luck also has greater responsibility. Wilson has less responsibility, but is more efficient. He also has a better team and coach around him.
In a way, I think these two are kind of like the Tom Brady - Peyton Manning debate, except they won't play each other every year in the playoffs. Peyton was the #1 pick and put up huge numbers. Brady was the underdog who won more and had the benefit of playing for the better team/coach.
I could give a shit about how tall a QB is or when they were drafted. At issue is whether or not Wilson is a franchise QB. He does a great job of not fucking up. But then he's got the best defense in the NFL to back him and the offense up.
My point was declaring him as the best running QB "of all time" was beyond FS. "A bit of a stretch" is quite the understatement. And paying him franchise QB money is highly questionable. A franchise QB looks more like Brady, Rodgers and Luck. At this point, IMO, that's where the list ends. It's not their size, but their production. Wilson may be there one day, and I hope it happens, but after his first 3 years, declaring him franchise material is premature.
I'll give you Cunningham, but Russell ran for more yards last year than Young ever did. Their averages are both similar. I'll give you Vick too. I don't think it's out of the question that one day Russell Wilson will break Vick's record of 6,010 yards one day. Tarkenton was before my time. If RW's not the best running QB of all time, whatever. He's the best right now and it's not disputable.
To the bold part, I agree that Brady and Rodgers are better. Luck is damn good, but how is he clearly better? Because he throws for more yards and TD's? His completion percentage is lower, his TD:INT is significantly worse, his rating is lower, and so is his QBR. And we haven't even gotten to running where RW is clearly superior. But Luck doesn't have Marshawn Lynch? Luck has better WR's. Both OL's suck. Russell Wilson may have Lynch and a great defense, but his WR's and OL are not good.
Luck is the prototypical QB and I agree that he will likely be a great one. He's a franchise QB. If you're being objective though, it's hard to say with certainty that he is better than RW. Luck is a prime example of if you switched their sizes and draft positions, perceptions would likely be different. They are peers imo. I'm interested why Luck is so much better?
We disagree on franchise QB's. There are more than 3. Drew Brees is a franchise QB. Ben Roethlisberger is another. There are 4 or 5 others that are damn good (Ryan, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Flacco) and imo are franchise QB's. A few of these guys will make the Hall of Fame one day.
Good response. And I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said. And I'll get off the "best rushing QB of all time" thing. One thing that I do disagree with is the comparison between Luck and Wilson. If you had to pick a QB for your franchise over the next 10 years, would you go with Luck or Wilson? My opinion......I'd go with Luck, it would take me about 2 seconds to make that call.
Luck needs to prove it. No, the Colts haven't had the supporting cast the Hawks have had. Still, Wilson is a two time Super Bowl player and a one time winner. He's 36-12 in his regular season gaymes. His rating and TO rate are both extremely respectable.
Luck is smart, articulate, bigger, relatively fast, and has a really good arm. People (MEDIA) get enamored with those qualities too much and overlook his faults. He needs to win at least two Super Bowls now to surpass Wilson. It could happen, but Wilson could just as easily win two more in the same time span.
I could give a shit about how tall a QB is or when they were drafted. At issue is whether or not Wilson is a franchise QB. He does a great job of not fucking up. But then he's got the best defense in the NFL to back him and the offense up.
My point was declaring him as the best running QB "of all time" was beyond FS. "A bit of a stretch" is quite the understatement. And paying him franchise QB money is highly questionable. A franchise QB looks more like Brady, Rodgers and Luck. At this point, IMO, that's where the list ends. It's not their size, but their production. Wilson may be there one day, and I hope it happens, but after his first 3 years, declaring him franchise material is premature.
I'll give you Cunningham, but Russell ran for more yards last year than Young ever did. Their averages are both similar. I'll give you Vick too. I don't think it's out of the question that one day Russell Wilson will break Vick's record of 6,010 yards one day. Tarkenton was before my time. If RW's not the best running QB of all time, whatever. He's the best right now and it's not disputable.
To the bold part, I agree that Brady and Rodgers are better. Luck is damn good, but how is he clearly better? Because he throws for more yards and TD's? His completion percentage is lower, his TD:INT is significantly worse, his rating is lower, and so is his QBR. And we haven't even gotten to running where RW is clearly superior. But Luck doesn't have Marshawn Lynch? Luck has better WR's. Both OL's suck. Russell Wilson may have Lynch and a great defense, but his WR's and OL are not good.
Luck is the prototypical QB and I agree that he will likely be a great one. He's a franchise QB. If you're being objective though, it's hard to say with certainty that he is better than RW. Luck is a prime example of if you switched their sizes and draft positions, perceptions would likely be different. They are peers imo. I'm interested why Luck is so much better?
We disagree on franchise QB's. There are more than 3. Drew Brees is a franchise QB. Ben Roethlisberger is another. There are 4 or 5 others that are damn good (Ryan, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Flacco) and imo are franchise QB's. A few of these guys will make the Hall of Fame one day.
Good response. And I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said. And I'll get off the "best rushing QB of all time" thing. One thing that I do disagree with is the comparison between Luck and Wilson. If you had to pick a QB for your franchise over the next 10 years, would you go with Luck or Wilson? My opinion......I'd go with Luck, it would take me about 2 seconds to make that call.
Luck needs to prove it. No, the Colts haven't had the supporting cast the Hawks have had. Still, Wilson is a two time Super Bowl player and a one time winner. He's 36-12 in his regular season gaymes. His rating and TO rate are both extremely respectable.
Luck is smart, articulate, bigger, relatively fast, and has a really good arm. People (MEDIA) get enamored with those qualities too much and overlook his faults. He needs to win at least two Super Bowls now to surpass Wilson. It could happen, but Wilson could just as easily win two more in the same time span.
I would take Luck too but it would be pretty close. Wilson does have a much better team around him, but also plays a much tougher schedule every year. The amount of top defenses Wilson has to go through every season is ridiculous, where as Luck gets a free pass to the AFC title game via the AFC South and drawing playoff Peyton. The mental toughness for Wilson is proven and that is important in making deep playoff runs.
I could actually see Luck making multiple Superbowls and getting prison raped each time because the AFC is going to be dogshit after Brady and Peyton retire, and the Colts will dominate their division for the next 10 years.
Comments
Seattle has spent a ton of their money on the defensive side of the ball. I love the approach. And the results have been outstanding. Since Wilson has been at the helm, Seattle has had the luxury of defense rated 4th, 1st and 1st in his first 3 years. Don't fuck it up has been the mantra.
But to have a boner over a QB who, in his first 3 years in the league has led his team to the 17th, 18th and 9th best offenses in the NFL, as worthy of a franchise type QB, doesn't square with me. Perhaps he has the potential, but past performance doesn't justify it.
The best argument I can think of to throw money at Wilson is who would replace him. He has shown he is a very good game manager, and any replacement would be, at a minimum, uncertain. But paying him 20% of the salary cap would be, IMO, FS.
Whether or not you think Wilson is overrated, this is how the NFL works. If you find a good QB you have to keep him because it's way too hard to replace him. In order to keep him you have to shell out a ton of money because if you don't, someone else will.
@HuskyinAZ, calling Wilson the best QB running QB of all time might have been a little bit of a stretch at this point, but he ranks right up there. He's certainly the best running QB in the NFL right now. Kaepernick and Newton are probably the next best and they aren't that close.
Save the bullshit about where the Seahawks offense ranks in total yards. Who gives a shit? How is a team that runs the ball the most in the league supposed to rank higher than teams that air it out 50 times a game?
What about Russell Wilson isn't a franchise QB? He's efficiency ranks high. His QBR is good. His TD:INT is good. His YPA is good. He's a great runner. His intangibles are great. He's won big playoff games. He's not the best QB in the league, but you might be retarded if you don't think he's a franchise QB. And I know you'll deny it, but all of this bullshit still stems from the fact he's 5'10" and was drafted in the 3rd round.
My point was declaring him as the best running QB "of all time" was beyond FS. "A bit of a stretch" is quite the understatement. And paying him franchise QB money is highly questionable. A franchise QB looks more like Brady, Rodgers and Luck. At this point, IMO, that's where the list ends. It's not their size, but their production. Wilson may be there one day, and I hope it happens, but after his first 3 years, declaring him franchise material is premature.
To the bold part, I agree that Brady and Rodgers are better. Luck is damn good, but how is he clearly better? Because he throws for more yards and TD's? His completion percentage is lower, his TD:INT is significantly worse, his rating is lower, and so is his QBR. And we haven't even gotten to running where RW is clearly superior. But Luck doesn't have Marshawn Lynch? Luck has better WR's. Both OL's suck. Russell Wilson may have Lynch and a great defense, but his WR's and OL are not good.
Luck is the prototypical QB and I agree that he will likely be a great one. He's a franchise QB. If you're being objective though, it's hard to say with certainty that he is better than RW. Luck is a prime example of if you switched their sizes and draft positions, perceptions would likely be different. They are peers imo. I'm interested why Luck is so much better?
We disagree on franchise QB's. There are more than 3. Drew Brees is a franchise QB. Ben Roethlisberger is another. There are 4 or 5 others that are damn good (Ryan, Rivers, Peyton Manning, Flacco) and imo are franchise QB's. A few of these guys will make the Hall of Fame one day.
In a way, I think these two are kind of like the Tom Brady - Peyton Manning debate, except they won't play each other every year in the playoffs. Peyton was the #1 pick and put up huge numbers. Brady was the underdog who won more and had the benefit of playing for the better team/coach.
Luck is smart, articulate, bigger, relatively fast, and has a really good arm. People (MEDIA) get enamored with those qualities too much and overlook his faults. He needs to win at least two Super Bowls now to surpass Wilson. It could happen, but Wilson could just as easily win two more in the same time span.
I could actually see Luck making multiple Superbowls and getting prison raped each time because the AFC is going to be dogshit after Brady and Peyton retire, and the Colts will dominate their division for the next 10 years.