Tannehill is a POS ... you don't need stats to tell you that
Luck's a pretty damn good QB ... he had a bad year last year for a number of different reasons ...
Unlike Wilson, he's been on a team where they've had to outscore the opposition and as a result he's probably felt like he's had to take chances that Wilson doesn't. While both have shitty OL's, the Hawks had Marshawn Lynch whereas the Colts really have never had a running game. Add to it the fact that Wilson's far more mobile and therefore hasn't had to take anywhere close to the hits that Luck has and you probably start going a long way towards explaining the difference between the two.
If you set a Yes/No bet right now on whether or not Luck would eventually be a Super Bowl winning QB, he's got way too much talent at this point to think that the Yes bet wouldn't be a favorite.
@Tequilla huh? Far more mobile? That's racist. Check out the 3 cone drill.
Tanny is just God awful. I'd say him and dalton tie for shittiest QB who people debate is not shitty.
Luck is good. He's had no running game his whole career and the colts defense is a puke fest. But he lacks the winning mental thing. That dude high fives guys who plant his ass. I don't want that in my QB.
I'd place Luck on par with Phillip Rivers, but he isn't even at Roethlisberger or Eli level at this point.
Russell Wilson is a top 3 quarterback only behind Rodgers and Brady. Yes he's better than Newton IMO.
I knew watching the Rose Bowl that Wilson was going to be a star in the NFL. He has a great arm, accurate, and mobile without being reckless. Wilson will be a HOF quarterback.
Technically...I could have been the QB on Super Bowl night and beat Denver with that defense, but yes, without Wilson, Seattle doesn't get by San Francisco for sure.
Technically...I could have been the QB on Super Bowl night and beat Denver with that defense, but yes, without Wilson, Seattle doesn't get by San Francisco for sure.
So the argument is that Wilson is better because he got his team to a Super Bowl and so did Cam. Genius.
Technically...I could have been the QB on Super Bowl night and beat Denver with that defense, but yes, without Wilson, Seattle doesn't get by San Francisco for sure.
So the argument is that Wilson is better because he got his team to a Super Bowl and so did Cam. Genius.
I was arguing that Luck couldn't get that Hawk team to a Super Bowl. I think Cam is a bigger stronger Wilson.
Technically...I could have been the QB on Super Bowl night and beat Denver with that defense, but yes, without Wilson, Seattle doesn't get by San Francisco for sure.
So the argument is that Wilson is better because he got his team to a Super Bowl and so did Cam. Genius.
I was arguing that Luck couldn't get that Hawk team to a Super Bowl. I think Cam is a bigger stronger Wilson.
Technically...I could have been the QB on Super Bowl night and beat Denver with that defense, but yes, without Wilson, Seattle doesn't get by San Francisco for sure.
So what you're saying is the Hooks do t win the Super Bowel without Wilson.
Comments
http://www.catscratchreader.com/2012/2/26/2826206/2012-nfl-combine-quarterbacks-results-updates-throughout-the-day
Luck is good. He's had no running game his whole career and the colts defense is a puke fest. But he lacks the winning mental thing. That dude high fives guys who plant his ass. I don't want that in my QB.
Luck is slightly above average
I'd place Luck on par with Phillip Rivers, but he isn't even at Roethlisberger or Eli level at this point.
Russell Wilson is a top 3 quarterback only behind Rodgers and Brady. Yes he's better than Newton IMO.
I knew watching the Rose Bowl that Wilson was going to be a star in the NFL. He has a great arm, accurate, and mobile without being reckless. Wilson will be a HOF quarterback.
True???
Top 3 QBs don't make Jimmy Graham worse.