Luck > Wilson, this isnt even disputeable anymore.

[58Miller]

We have heard from Seattle fans how great Wilson is! I don't care that Vernon Davis says he is the best QB besides *Colin Kapernick in the league.
*(49ers had the leagues 29th ranked pass game last season ?)

Two simple questions:
1. If Indy took Wilson instead of Luck #1 in 2012 would they have won the Superbowl last year instead of Seattle?

2. If Seattle landed Luck instead of Wilson would they still have won the Superbowl in 2013?

I don't need a bunch of if's I want honest opinions.

My Opinions:
I think if Indy took Wilson #1 overall the Colts would have gone 8-8 in 2012 and 9-7 this last season and not won the Superbowl.

Luck was able to lead wins vs the 49ers, Broncos, and Seahawks so I think he would have been able to make plays when needed like Wilson did and lean on that defense and run game.
There numbers aren't as far off as Seahawk fans would have you believe.
Player Pass:Att /Pct./Yds /Td/Int/ Rush:Att/yds/avg./tds
Russell Wilson, 407/63.1/3,357 /26/9 96/539/5.7/ 1
Andrew Luck, 570/60.2/3,823 /23/9 63/377 6.0 / 4

[onanygivensunda]

The 1st question should be...

1. If Indy took Wilson instead of Luck #1 in 2012 would they have gone 11-5, beat KC hosting a wild card game. and lost to New England in New England in the divisional playoff game... or would they have fallen short of that... or would they have done better than that?

My rationale... the hypothetical is the two switching teams and would their teams have accomplished the same in 2013 with the other QB.

To leave it the way you have it is blatantly biased against Wilson.

[Rancid]

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.....what's the point?

[martz11]

Luck. Indy has hands down one of the worst rosters in the league and he's getting them to the playoffs. Wilson rides the coattails of a strong running game and awesome defense.

[58Miller]

The 1st question should be...

1. If Indy took Wilson instead of Luck #1 in 2012 would they have gone 11-5, beat KC hosting a wild card game. and lost to New England in New England in the divisional playoff game... or would they have fallen short of that... or would they have done better than that?

My rationale... the hypothetical is the two switching teams and would their teams have accomplished the same in 2013 with the other QB.

To leave it the way you have it is blatantly biased against Wilson.

In other words you can run your mouth for 70 plus pages about Wilson being the best in the league but cant argue that Indy missed on their #1 pick!

[58Miller]

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.....what's the point?

The point is to call out Seattle fans who keep bringing up PFF stats to try and state their case that Wilson is elite, and his success has nothing to do with the league #1 defense and a powerful run game, while Luck has carried a team in Indy.

[onanygivensunda]

In other words you can run your mouth for 70 plus pages about Wilson being the best in the league but cant argue that Indy missed on their #1 pick!

You are definitely weird, dude.

If you really want to start an argument about Indy missing on their #1 pick then the question becomes... Should Indy have selected someone other than Luck (like Wilson?) with that pick?

You should really pick one question... or a set of questions... and stick to it/them.

You are weird.

[OrangeFaithful]

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.....what's the point?

The most rancid-bandwagon seahawk fan on these boards, Rigelian, posted an article stating his zealous opinion over Wilson. That article believed Wilson is better than Tom Brady, on par with Brees, not yet as good as Manning or Rodgers, but will no doubt, inevitably become the best QB in the league.

Ritalin unabashedly will say that Wilson, without a doubt, is better than Luck.

58Miller's just taking a gauge to see if the other seachicken fans follow that same sort of logic.

Either way it's humorous to watch them have a homer seizure after being told Wilson is no where near as good as Luck.

[OrangeFaithful]

You are definitely weird, dude.

If you really want to start an argument about Indy missing on their #1 pick then the question becomes... Should Indy have selected someone other than Luck (like Wilson?) with that pick?

You should really pick one question... or a set of questions... and stick to it/them.

You are weird.

What are you a Seachicken? Scared to answer the question? It's pretty clear, would the colts be better off with Wilson...

By your amount of weaseling I'd say you don't think they would be. Which means you know Luck is a better QB.

[58Miller]

You are definitely weird, dude.

If you really want to start an argument about Indy missing on their #1 pick then the question becomes... Should Indy have selected someone other than Luck (like Wilson?) with that pick?

You should really pick one question... or a set of questions... and stick to it/them.

You are weird.

I think Luck was the right pick.

[martz11]

The point is to call out Seattle fans who keep bringing up PFF stats to try and state their case that Wilson is elite, and his success has nothing to do with the league #1 defense and a powerful run game, while Luck has carried a team in Indy.

See: Joe Flacco

[Rigelian]

The point is to call out Seattle fans who keep bringing up PFF stats to try and state their case that Wilson is elite, and his success has nothing to do with the league #1 defense and a powerful run game, while Luck has carried a team in Indy.

Here you go with the elite lie. I put Wilson over Luck. I think his career stats are superior at this point. I also find it troubling that Luck is a turnover machine in the playoffs.

As far as team rosters are concerned, I think Wilson would do well playing against the weak AFC south teams twice rather than the Rams, Cardinals, 49ers twice a year.

As far as the Colts having the worst roster in the NFL, I don't think a team withWayne and Hilton is all that bad. Nor is a team with Mathis.

D I think that Luck would have won with Seattle? If he threw interceptions like he did in Indy...no.

[Rigelian]

In other words you can run your mouth for 70 plus pages about Wilson being the best in the league but cant argue that Indy missed on their #1 pick!

Alright 58Miller find his post where he said Wilson is the best in the league. Is blatant lying your new technique?

[58Miller]

Here you go with the elite lie. I put Wilson over Luck. I think his career stats are superior at this point. I also find it troubling that Luck is a turnover machine in the playoffs.

As far as team rosters are concerned, I think Wilson would do well playing against the weak AFC south teams twice rather than the Rams, Cardinals, 49ers twice a year.

As far as the Colts having the worst roster in the NFL, I don't think a team withWayne and Hilton is all that bad. Nor is a team with Mathis.

D I think that Luck would have won with Seattle? If he threw interceptions like he did in Indy...no.

He threw 9 picks in 570 passes while Wilson also threw 9 in just 407?
The Seahawks could have won with Luck! The Colts wouldn't have been better with Wilson, period! Oh and Wayne missed 1/3of the year and the playoffs.

[Rigelian]

He threw 9 picks in 570 passes while Wilson also threw 9 in just 407?
The Seahawks could have won with Luck! The Colts wouldn't have been better with Wilson, period! Oh and Wayne missed 1/3of the year and the playoffs.

Somehow you missed the word "career" in my post. You also missed the 7 interceptions he threw in the playoffs... How could you miss those?

As far as Wayne missing a third of the year... Rice and Harvin missed more of the year than that. But let me guess...Wilson losing his receivers doesn't count right?