fuck you 12's... and your fucking bobble head dolls
Comments
-
Brian Kelly thinks this may happen and so does Brian Kelly.RoadDawg55 said:
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.HuskyInAZ said: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.
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.HuskyInAZ said: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.
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 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.HuskyInAZ said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.HuskyInAZ said: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.
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 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.HuskyInAZ said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.HuskyInAZ said: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.
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.
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.HuskyInAZ said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.HuskyInAZ said: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.
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.
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.
