lol

did you watch football this year?

Luck completed 54% of his passes. Made one of the worst throws I've ever seen in my life against the Chiefs.

Wilson is, at this point, a better passer than Luck. WTF does yardage have to do with anything? Luck is a better passer because he passed more? Ha ha.

I'm arguing with someone who has never seen Russell Wilson play.

Russell Wilson is a pocket passer. Did you watch him play one time this year?

OK.

Because Luck is still playing with what's basically a 2-4 win team. I don't understand why that's difficult to comprehend. Any rookie QB doing what these three guys did is amazing. I have a hard time digesting this argument that the Colts were basically equal in talent of the Seahawks.

Russell Wilson's team won 58-0 in a game where he only had to throw 13 passes man....

To suggest he wasn't hidden somewhat by a vastly superior supporting cast is bullshit.

Guess what his record was when the Seahawks had to throw more than 30 times?

1-3....

It really has.

RGIII directly accounted for just over 4,000 yards of offense to Luck's 4,600. Luck also had more games passing for 300 yards and more 4th quarter comebacks.

RGIII had a MUCH higher completion percentage, a higher yard per completion average, took less sacks, and his QB rating was 25+ points higher for the season. All that said, I still didn't mention the most important part- RGIII was only responsible for 7 turnovers all year compared to Luck's 23.

RGIII deserved this award over Luck. Easily.

I'll give Russell Wilson credit for one thing...he showed up big time in the playoffs and Luck did not.

Other than that...Luck is and will be the better QB.

And he's a pretty good scrambler too, who had more rushing TDs, but the media won't tell you that.

I'm not arguing against RGIII. His ceiling is completely unlimited. I think he was deserving of the award. But you can go back and look it up... my concern with him was staying healthy. It's difficult because I think RGIII can win games with his arm... but his speed is such an amazing weapon you can't tell him not to run.

I'm arguing against Captain Insano Hootie who's basing his whole argument on Wilson's great 2nd half against the Greg Robinson Falcons' secondary, while bashing Luck because he had a bad game against the Chiefs (and like so many of Luck's games, still found a way to win it in the end).... while turning around and accusing everyone else of not having watched these guys actually play.

RGIII was well deserving and Wilson was #2 in my eyes. Luck a distant third. Outside of Luck's comebacks against crappy opponents, he was pretty Tannehill'esque if you ask me.

Bottom line...I don't think there is any way Russell Wilson or RGIII take the Colts to 11-5.

More than likely that line would have ruined both their knees by Week 8.

But Luck is a real QB so he survived and dragged them to the playoffs.

you're cherry picking stats...

that's one game that got WAY out of hand.

I agree with you. The Hawks are WAY more talented than the Colts. ESPECIALLY on defense.

The Hawks were NEVER in position for the entire year to have to break off gameplan and go into PASS mode.

So just because the Colts were always in pass mode for a coach who is a pass heavy coach...Luck is better because he threw SO many more passes? Why? What? Doesn't make any sense.

Anybody who watched Russell Wilson for the last two months and wasn't impressed is insane.

If you want to argue that Luck is more talented than Wilson be my guest. That's a totally valid argument. 100% valid.

He was not better in 2012, though. He wasn't a better passer. He just wasn't.

By STARTING NFL QB metric (and not factoring in the fact he was a rookie) he was MEDIOCRE this year. Plain and simple. He was mediocre and was clutch in crunch time. That's how you can define Luck's 2012.

Exactly. If you want to talk stats, put Luck's stats next to Tannehill's stats and make a case that Luck was better.

You're going full reerun here, GoChiefs.

Russell Wilson is every bit a REAL QB.

I watch a LOT of football and I am absolutely FASCINATED by good QB play.

Andrew Luck was inconsistent and mediocre. That's expected. He was a rookie.

Russell Wilson, after the 49ers game where he threw 3 picks, was flat out FANTASTIC and played the QB position in HIS offense as good as anyone else in the NFL including Peyton Manning and Tom Brady for 2 straight months. He also brought his team back down from 2 scores TWICE in the postseason (as a rookie) and had one of the greatest postseason performances by a QB in recent memory (as a rookie).

I'm sorry.

The Luck was better in 2012 than Wilson is invalid and untrue.

And Wilson and RGIII aren't comparable. Wilson is a pocket QB who runs a pro style offense with a READ OPTION as part of their running game. He's not a gimmick.

He has a 6th sense in the pocket and his escapability and the way he extends plays is something that can't be taught and something only a few NFL QB's have EVER had.

I'd take Wilson over Luck in 2012 and beyond. I do understand that is the minority opinion for beyond. I don't understand how 32 teams passed on him two times while scouts and "experts" were saying he had top 5 pick talent if he was 3 inches taller (ridiculous).

I hate that he's not a Chief. I hate Scott Pioli.

GoChiefs is a quality board member and is great on the computer and has amazing skills in that regard. His ability to judge QB talent is non-existant.

Referring to Russell Wilson as a gimmick QB is RIDICULOUS.