Greg Cosell On R Wilson, Kap…

[RFIP]

Very interesting listing to Greg Cosell this morning on Sirius as he talked about and broke down Wilson and Kap.

He said “Wilson already has the “label” that he’s a “winner”, whatever that means. But in his last 5-6 games he’s played like a below average QB as he did to start the season. He is holding the ball too long, making poor decisions when he does throw and has been inaccurate to very inaccurate on throws down the field BUT because he plays on a team with a great run game and has a defense that refuses to let the opposition move the ball much less score, all he has to do is make a few plays with his legs at the right time and everyone thinks he’s a great QB, which he is not.

Now I’m not saying one day he won’t be great but he’s not now.” He went on to say something I found VERY interesting; “I’ve talked to 2 DC’s who RECENTLY played against Wilson and they both said the exact same thing, all you have to do is stop the Seahawk run game and you stop their offense. NEITHER DC had any concerns about Wilson beating them from the pocket.

He went on to insinuate that if he was on a bad team he’d be viewed differently.

He said Kapernick is playing much better than Wilson but that he’s far from a finished product too. Said Kap is still a first option thrower who gets antsy and runs most times when that option is shut down. Because of his GREAT running ability though, Cosell said DC’s must spend countless hours worrying how to shut that off because he’s good enough in that regard to wreck your defensive game plan.

 

[Rambitious1]

Sounds about right.

 

[BigRamFan]

I get so sick of these two, and Andrew got Lucky, being anointed as the "Young Guns" or "Future Faces of the NFL" when all fell into perfect storms. Luck is obviously the best of the 3 but, IMO, gets WAY too much latitude when it comes to scrutiny.

 

[Thordaddy]

I get so sick of these two, and Andrew got Lucky, being anointed as the "Young Guns" or "Future Faces of the NFL" when all fell into perfect storms. Luck is obviously the best of the 3 but, IMO, gets WAY too much latitude when it comes to scrutiny.

Gotta disagree about Luck if you look at the three teams records before and after those three guys ascended ,it's clear Luck isn't JUST better ,he accounts for most of a remarkable improvement.
Wilson and Kaep fit a mold for the QB of the future scribes and pundits have been trying to sell since Mike Vick HAD a future,I won't buy it as long as the pass is part of the game.
I will forever contend that QB's who run instead of passing on called passing plays "sell out" on the play at a lower level of commitment than is demanded of the rest of the team,which to me is upside down.After a time recs. lose the belief that if they run the route the right way and get open they will get the ball, linemen lose confidence in the need to establish a pocket ,no they won't SAY SO, but it creeps into the consciousness when it happens too often.
It flies in the face of the concept that this is the ultimate team game,JMO I could be wrong.

 

[nighttrain]

Gotta disagree about Luck if you look at the three teams records before and after those three guys ascended ,it's clear Luck isn't JUST better ,he accounts for most of a remarkable improvement.
Wilson and Kaep fit a mold for the QB of the future scribes and pundits have been trying to sell since Mike Vick HAD a future,I won't buy it as long as the pass is part of the game.
I will forever contend that QB's who run instead of passing on called passing plays "sell out" on the play at a lower level of commitment than is demanded of the rest of the team,which to me is upside down.After a time recs. lose the belief that if they run the route the right way and get open they will get the ball, linemen lose confidence in the need to establish a pocket ,no they won't SAY SO, but it creeps into the consciousness when it happens too often.
It flies in the face of the concept that this is the ultimate team game,JMO I could be wrong.

you could be wrong, but then we're both wrong, and so are many HC's
train

 

[LesBaker]

This is why I'm confident that I win my bet with X about the contract. He has plenty of time to prove his average ability over the next season. Hahahahaha

 

[BigRamFan]

Gotta disagree about Luck if you look at the three teams records before and after those three guys ascended ,it's clear Luck isn't JUST better ,he accounts for most of a remarkable improvement.
Wilson and Kaep fit a mold for the QB of the future scribes and pundits have been trying to sell since Mike Vick HAD a future,I won't buy it as long as the pass is part of the game.
I will forever contend that QB's who run instead of passing on called passing plays "sell out" on the play at a lower level of commitment than is demanded of the rest of the team,which to me is upside down.After a time recs. lose the belief that if they run the route the right way and get open they will get the ball, linemen lose confidence in the need to establish a pocket ,no they won't SAY SO, but it creeps into the consciousness when it happens too often.
It flies in the face of the concept that this is the ultimate team game,JMO I could be wrong.

I agree that Luck is the best of those 3, but I don't think he's any better than Sam. Similar career numbers, with Sam being much better of taking care of the ball, and with Luck falling into a MUCH better team situation. Add to that Luck played in a similar offense for 4 years in college and was able to team up with his favorite college receiver (okay, TE) and his college OC in his 2nd year.

Also, look at the team records in the 3 years prior to Sam's and Luck's arrival. Indy was much better prepared for a playoff run. The down year before he was drafted to a talented team was largely due to having to play the likes of Curtis Painter at QB. Look at what happened just this season when he did not have a Pro Bowl WR at his disposal. I just find it annoying when he is constantly referred to as "the best QB to come into the NFL since Manning" and Sam is frequently bashed for a similar performance, minus the TEAM wins, after coming into a much less fortunate situation.

 

[V3]

I get so sick of these two, and Andrew got Lucky, being anointed as the "Young Guns" or "Future Faces of the NFL" when all fell into perfect storms. Luck is obviously the best of the 3 but, IMO, gets WAY too much latitude when it comes to scrutiny.

Have to disagree on Luck as well. That team was bad before Luck got there. Two wins. Two. Hardly anything changed from that season to the season Luck started. They had a bad defense, bad O-line, and no running game. Luck gets there and takes them to the playoffs. Luck does have a couple good receiving targets but that doesn't make up for all the other areas where they still weren't good. Luck was the main reason they went from a 2 win team to a playoff team the very next season. I'm not sure I'd call that "Lucky". Luck may make some mistakes but it's his 2nd season and he does far more good than bad. If it weren't for him, Indy would still be pretty bad.

 

[Thordaddy]

I agree that Luck is the best of those 3, but I don't think he's any better than Sam. Similar career numbers, with Sam being much better of taking care of the ball, and with Luck falling into a MUCH better team situation. Add to that Luck played in a similar offense for 4 years in college and was able to team up with his favorite college receiver (okay, TE) and his college OC in his 2nd year.

Also, look at the team records in the 3 years prior to Sam's and Luck's arrival. Indy was much better prepared for a playoff run. The down year before he was drafted to a talented team was largely due to having to play the likes of Curtis Painter at QB. Look at what happened just this season when he did not have a Pro Bowl WR at his disposal. I just find it annoying when he is constantly referred to as "the best QB to come into the NFL since Manning" and Sam is frequently bashed for a similar performance, minus the TEAM wins, after coming into a much less fortunate situation.

Can't argue with that , IMO Luck has an enthusiasm that infects his team ,Sam is less demonstrative, I like Sams release better and his body language is more nimble IMO, so I think whichever you prefer is justifiable.
My analysis of the two include the opportunity cost they each would represent to this team and in that regard Sam wins going away cuz for that analysis it becomes RG vs. Sam by pragmatic proxy ,IOW IMO had Indy taken RG Washington would have given the same for Luck,gotta make some assumptions and that's where I start.

We are in the best position of those three teams, and our record against them sorta backs that up NOT to mention what are yet to realize from this year #2 overall ,so yeah I'm all in on Sam.

 

[LesBaker]

Have to disagree on Luck as well. That team was bad before Luck got there. Two wins. Two. Hardly anything changed from that season to the season Luck started. They had a bad defense, bad O-line, and no running game. Luck gets there and takes them to the playoffs. Luck does have a couple good receiving targets but that doesn't make up for all the other areas where they still weren't good. Luck was the main reason they went from a 2 win team to a playoff team the very next season. I'm not sure I'd call that "Lucky". Luck may make some mistakes but it's his 2nd season and he does far more good than bad. If it weren't for him, Indy would still be pretty bad.

It was not a bad team, it had won 14 and 10 games prior to going 2-14 without Manning. Painter was terrible, he was the biggest reason that team didn't win 8-10 games. Tony Banks could have gotten 6-7 wins, Painter was that bad.

Luck stepped into the best situation a #1 overall draft pick ever has, at least in my memory.

 

[V3]

It was not a bad team, it had won 14 and 10 games prior to going 2-14 without Manning. Painter was terrible, he was the biggest reason that team didn't win 8-10 games. Tony Banks could have gotten 6-7 wins, Painter was that bad.

Luck stepped into the best situation a #1 overall draft pick ever has, at least in my memory.

The reason that team won that many games with Manning was because it was Peyton Manning. That should give you an idea of how good Luck really is. The Colts D was horrible(only a couple good players), their O-line was/still is horrible, and they had no running game. The Rams had zero running game at the beginning of the season and Bradford gets all kinds of excuses because of it. Luck has no running game and it doesn't matter. Huh?

 

[BigRamFan]

Their passing game was only marginally better than their running game, 17th and 21st respectively and people were already preparing Luck's bust for Canton. Huh?

 

[LesBaker]

The reason that team won that many games with Manning was because it was Peyton Manning. That should give you an idea of how good Luck really is. The Colts D was horrible(only a couple good players), their O-line was/still is horrible, and they had no running game. The Rams had zero running game at the beginning of the season and Bradford gets all kinds of excuses because of it. Luck has no running game and it doesn't matter. Huh?

The reason they lost so many was Painter, that's what I'm saying. Luck landed on a decent team. Usually the guys picking first overall suck from top to bottom, the Colts didn't they were an average team waiting for a QB that was good.

 

[V3]

Their passing game was only marginally better than their running game, 17th and 21st respectively and people were already preparing Luck's bust for Canton. Huh?

They lost their best WR early. Last year when Luck was a rookie and had his best WR they ranked 7th- and that was with a running game that was 22nd. When a team knows you can't run, it's going to make passing harder yet Luck was still able to do it as a rookie.

There's a reason so many experts are in love with Luck. It's not just me.

 

[BigRamFan]

They lost their best WR early. Last year when Luck was a rookie and had his best WR they ranked 7th- and that was with a running game that was 22nd. When a team knows you can't run, it's going to make passing harder yet Luck was still able to do it as a rookie.

There's a reason so many experts are in love with Luck. It's not just me.

Not sure where you're getting those numbers. According to NFL.com their 2012 rankings were 17th and 21st and he did not lose his #1 WR that year.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/statistics?season=2012&team=IND&seasonType=

I know there is a lot of "Luck love" out there. That in part is what I find an annoyance, it's like he can do no wrong. As I mentioned before, his career numbers are VERY similar to Sam's, with a better surrounding cast, mind you, yet Luck in a future HOF'er and we should "move on from Sam". Craziness in this Rams fan's opinion.

 

[V3]

The reason they lost so many was Painter, that's what I'm saying. Luck landed on a decent team. Usually the guys picking first overall suck from top to bottom, the Colts didn't they were an average team waiting for a QB that was good.

Other than some receivers and Mathis(maybe Freeney but he's really slowing down), who did they have that was good? Their O-line was bad. Their running game was bad. Their secondary was bad. You might say Freeman and Butler but they aren't anything special, either. I wouldn't call that roster in 2012 a decent team. They've gotten better since but I still maintain that Luck and his receivers are the primary reasons the Colts win any games. A good QB and two good WRs doesn't make a good team.

 

[-X-]

Have to disagree on Luck as well. That team was bad before Luck got there. Two wins. Two. Hardly anything changed from that season to the season Luck started. They had a bad defense, bad O-line, and no running game. Luck gets there and takes them to the playoffs. Luck does have a couple good receiving targets but that doesn't make up for all the other areas where they still weren't good. Luck was the main reason they went from a 2 win team to a playoff team the very next season. I'm not sure I'd call that "Lucky". Luck may make some mistakes but it's his 2nd season and he does far more good than bad. If it weren't for him, Indy would still be pretty bad.

There's a difference between a 2-14 team that's perennially that bad, and the 2011 Colts. That team had gone to the playoffs 11 times the 12 years prior to Manning behing hurt. And their O-line was a disaster that year. The defense too (28th). You can't win with Painter. No team wins with Painter. That dude should be an ACTUAL Painter instead. Not taking anything away from Luck, because he had a great rookie year, but was it really THAT great?

Let's do a little contrast. Bradford's rookie year vs Luck's rookie year.*

Luck threw for 54 yards more per game than Bradford.
Luck had a 54% completion percentage. Bradford had a 60% completion percentage.
They both had the same exact QB rating (76.5)
Luck had 5 more TDs, but a higher interecption total and interception %.
Luck got sacked 41 times - Bradford 34.

In a vacuum, it doesn't look like one QB is that much better than the other. The Rams' TEAM, however, lost 4 games by a margin of 4, 2, 1, and 3 points before their receivers started dropping like flies - one after the other. A little bit of 'Luck' of their own, and the Rams could have been 11-5 themselves. But as it turns out, they lost in OT to the 49ers, lost by 1 point to Tampa who scored in the last second of the game, bad bounce here, defensive let down there...

*Disclaimer: Luck is clearly a better QB and was 100% more ready for the pro game, but he's 1 of 53 on that team.

 

[LesBaker]

Other than some receivers and Mathis(maybe Freeney but he's really slowing down), who did they have that was good? Their O-line was bad. Their running game was bad. Their secondary was bad. You might say Freeman and Butler but they aren't anything special, either. I wouldn't call that roster in 2012 a decent team. They've gotten better since but I still maintain that Luck and his receivers are the primary reasons the Colts win any games. A good QB and two good WRs doesn't make a good team.

Let me clarify, you seem to think I'm implying they were talented across the board, they weren't. But they were way better than a two win team for sure.

 

[V3]

Not sure where you're getting those numbers. According to NFL.com their 2012 rankings were 17th and 21st and he did not lose his #1 WR that year.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/statistics?season=2012&team=IND&seasonType=

I know there is a lot of "Luck love" out there. That in part is what I find an annoyance, it's like he can do no wrong. As I mentioned before, his career numbers are VERY similar to Sam's, with a better surrounding cast, mind you, yet Luck in a future HOF'er and we should "move on from Sam". Craziness in this Rams fan's opinion.

According to NFL.com, the Colts were 17th in passing for 2013 where they lost Wayne early. In 2012 they were 7th.

Luck may have better WR's than Bradford but Bradford had a better running game. I'd call the O-lines a push until this year where the Rams were better. And when you say surrounding cast, I look at the whole team where I don't think the Colts' team as a whole is better than the Rams.

I'm not calling for Luck to be inducted to Canton but I do recognize a really good QB when I see it. If you don't think he's that great, that's fine. I personally think he's already just barely below the best QB's in the league. His biggest issue I see is his propensity to force some things and possibly not seeing/knowing all the looks the defenses are giving him. That comes with experience.

 

[BigRamFan]

According to NFL.com, the Colts were 17th in passing for 2013 where they lost Wayne early. In 2012 they were 7th.

I stand corrected...on this part.

I have never contended that Luck in not a GOOD QB, I just feel he is over-hyped. Also, I am admittedly biased, but IMO, he's no better than Sam. As for his "experience", I know it's not NFL experience, but Luck has now had 5 years in the same offence as well.