As most of my friends know love football. Not just fantasy football, but real football. I also know I have a lot of friends who have the ridiculous notion that Russell Wilson is better than Andrew Luck because he wins...because winning is what counts when comparing two players in a team sport. Right? Wrong. Russell Wilson plays on a far superior team with a defense that can destroy almost any opponent and a running game that has play action so easy, Jamarcus Russell could have won quite a few games in Seattle (though probably not a Superbowl. Let's not get too carried away).
First, let me say that in my opinion, in order for Russell Wilson to be considered better than Andrew Luck, his numbers would have to be far superior to Luck's. Luck does have better WR's, although, having Jimmy Graham this year, means Wilson has the best target between the two. I'm a huge Andre Johnson fan, but he's not what he was 5 years ago any more.
The first talking point for people to say Wilson is better is he 'doesn't have the negative plays Luck does'. This also goes hand in hand with 'he has all those rushing yards as well.' Well, good for Wilson. Andrew Luck has 43 interceptions to only 26 by Wilson. Wow, he turns it over so much more often. Luck also has 1,813 attempts to only 1,252 attempts for Wilson. Luck throws an interception approximately 1 in every 42 attempts. Wilson throws it to the other team every 48 attempts. That is taking care of the ball. Which is his main goal with Marshawn Lynch and that defense, whereas Luck has to try to make up points the defense is going to get up. Seattle gave up 15.9 points per game on defense. Indianapolis gave up 23 points per. If you don't think that 7 points per game matters (112 for the whole season), then stop reading and go back to the sport you actually enjoy, which may be Quidditch for all I know.
Here's a fun number. Play action draws the attention of the front seven and makes it much easier for an offensive line to pass protect because defensive linemen can't sell out and go all in on the pass rush. (I was an offensive lineman most of junior high and high school, so I have a slight understanding of that position). So, with all of that, and the 600 less pass attempts, give or take, Wilson should have only been sacked about half as many times as Luck. But wait, over those same numbers, Luck was sacked 19 times less. He gave up 83 less yards on sacks as well. For a ball control offense, sacks are a drive killer. Even if their offensive lines were the same, and they weren't, Seattle has been superior there, that's a huge advantage for Luck.
Wilson does have a much better yards per attempt number than Luck. Again, I chalk that up to play-action, thank you, Marshawn, and being able to put up chunk yards. Now, the names of the targets are much better than they have been for Wilson. Reggie Wayne and Andre Johnson are two probably Hall of Famers. Here's the thing, Reggie Wayne the past 3 years versus prime Reggie is a pretty big difference. T.Y. Hilton is the name to throw to, and he's a great slot, good stretch the field wideout, but not a top shelf number one. Turns out Golden Tate was pretty good. Those Detroit numbers last year showed the world what he is capable of. Percy Harvin, while a head case, had a pretty good Superbowl in their win, albeit running reverses.
I could continue going, but my lunch break is about over, so I'll end with this. This is not a John Elway versus Dan Marino or Peyton Manning versus Tom Brady Argument. This is a Dan Marino versus Brad Johnson argument. I'm not saying Wilson is bad (although if he let's nano-bubbles or whatever get into his head, he's going to go insane), I'm just saying Brad Johnson had a really awesome career and was a really good Superbowl winning team where he just had to be smart and make a few plays.