They got Sproles and Jordan Matthews, also Maclin is back after missing all last year. Plus another year in the system. I think they'll be much better as an offensive unit. I disagree, he is very talented. Wilson's college metrics graded out as an elite NFL prospect. The only question mark bringing him down was his height. Well, the height has been a non-factor.
The easy answer is Aaron Rodgers. He's on a different level than any other QB you can currently put in the young qb category.
Lets hope that when this question comes up next offseason he will be a legit candidate. Well of course he's talented. But I dont think he was ever 1st round talented. I remember the height thing being the big knock against him and thought Seattle got a steal with where they got him but even if he was 6-2 I dont think he woulda went 1st round.
I agree, even with height he still woulda been an under the radar guy. thats why I like to follow what's going on at the metrics sites, they're not always right but they'll put guys on your radar that the mainstream is ignoring.
It's really about age/longevity versus immediacy. Obviously Rodgers is the best for today, but he's got 6 years on Luck. Luck may never reach Rodgers level but you're going to get an additional 6 years at a very high level out of him. 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Can't go wrong with either, depends are you looking long or short term. _
IMO Rodgers is the best QB in the league. But yeah Luck would get the edge due to his age if I were starting a team.
Yup. And Luck is such a big durable guy, it's as much as a sure bet he's going to be relatively healthy over the years. But again he's probably never going to be as exceptional as Rodgers is. _
Luck. It seems impossible that Rodgers is heading into his 10th season already, but for me that's the deciding factor. I disagree about his ceiling... I think it's higher than Rodgers'. He's done an awful lot in Indy these two past years and not always with a lot of help.
I've been on the record on this board that I am not ready to crown Luck yet and think he is being overrated severely. I read alot of the advanced stats, analytics stuff and Luck is nothing special there. I have gotten a lot of flack from you fucks for my opinion...You may be right and I should crawl into a dark hole but I am not alone in my thinking at least. Great article from ESPNs fivethirtyeight analytics blog came out today, you might be interested to read. Compares both sides of the coin: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-good-is-andrew-luck/ I think it's most interesting that they compare Luck to Newton. I'd take Newton in a heartbeat myself, interestingly everyone rips him apart and worships Luck
Wilson. Luck is good but he's a gun slinger. He's like the love child of Big Ben and Brett Favre. Nothing wrong with that at all, and I'd be happy to have him, but if I can take anyone, I'm taking Wilson, and I started saying that in 2012, not after he won a Superbowl. Wilson is as cool as ice. Like someone already said, his big game composure really reminds me of a young Tom Brady, and I think that's what you really want in a QB, because that's where the season is going to eventually lead. Wilson plays in the toughest division in the NFL, makes great decisions, is a great leader for his team, and the bright lights on the big stage don't rattle him. I can see Luck being another guy who people love to watch, but 8 years from now the talking heads are asking each other if he's ever going to get the ever elusive Superbowl ring. Meanwhile, Wilson is already going to be chasing his 2nd championship next year and has a good shot at a repeat.
I agree. I don't want to say he's overrated in the "he sucks" sense, but he's definitely overrated in the overrated sense. Not all he's advertised to be. Indy kicked Peyton to the curb for him and he was the #1 draft pick so the geniuses at BSPN crowned him the heir to the throne and the future greatest of his generation. That's just BS so far. I think it's unfair that the 24/7 news cycle over hypes these guys before they have any freaking credentials just to have something to babble about, because he's a good football player and seems to be a good kid. He's just not everything they say he is
Russell Wilson has a higher INT % than Andrew Luck in their careers. Andrew Luck INT % was 0.6 points better than Wilson last year. If Luck is a gunslinger, so is Wilson. They both have the same amount of 4th quarter comebacks and Luck has one more game winning drive. If my first pick has to be QB between those two, it goes to Luck because he's done more with less. Wilson is on a much more talented team and has been asked to do less to carry the offense/team. He's thrown the ball 800 times vs Luck's 1197. So if I need my pick amongst young QBs, Luck goes first in my list because of what he's done with less. You know he can hide mediocre pieces of your team and ask him to carry the passing offense load. I wouldn't want to build my team all around a passing offense, but you know if injuries occur or the rest of the hypothetical draft breaks bad or what not, you have a QB who can produce. That's not to say he's elite or a top tier QB in the NFL. But once you throw out all the older QBs, you have a short list to choose from.
Except we have not seen Wilson in an offense that is REALLY opened up. I believe Wilson can lead a high powered offense on a winning team, but again we wont see that for a couple seasons because its not necessary right now for a Seattle team that has a pretty solid defense.
That's how I feel about him to, he got way to much credit for his rookie year. His colts team wasn't that bad, its just that all the experts set the bar so low so when they did win they all had to give Luck the credit because for months they were saying how bad the roster was.
