WEEK 5: Luck, Wilson, and the Most Valuable Yards

In analyzing the Sophomore Sensation match-up of week 5, I want begin by taking a look at the “simple” stats for Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson.

Here are their passing numbers

	Completions	Attempts	Yards	TDs	Ints
Luck	16	29	229	2	0
Wilson	15	31	210	2	1

And here are the rest of their numbers

	Rush Attempts	Rush Yards	Sacks	Sack Yards	Fumbles
Luck	4	9	2	-17	1
Wilson	13	102	2	-7	1

THE CONUNDRUM

Now, I want to play around with a hypothetical. You see, both of Wilson’s turnovers came on fourth down situations when, in one instance, an 8 yard run and, in another, a 14 yard pass would have added the same value to the offense that his turnovers did. Additionally, one came as time expired in the first half, and the other came at the end of the game, with the Colts kneeling on the ball on the next drive. So not only were the turnovers not the drive killers that other turnovers might be, they also didn’t put the Colts in a position to score more points. Compare that to Luck’s fumble, which killed a drive on a 2^nd and 4 and gave the Seahawks the ball at the Colts 30 yard line in the third quarter.  

Now, let’s just imagine that instead of a fumble and an INT, Wilson ran for 8 yards and passed for 14, still failing to pick up the first down both times. His QB Support numbers and his TAVA would remain identical. In this hypothetical, Wilson now has the same completions as Luck, the same amount of TDs, 5 less passing yards, one less turnover, and 88 more total yards… and yet, Luck still has the significantly higher TAVA. I also want to note that Luck ends up besting Wilson not just in the mercurial “wins added” score; Luck posted a higher “points added” score as well. What gives?

MORE YARDS + BETTER FIELD POSITION = LESS POINTS?

Wilson had a lower QB Support score than Luck, but that was only because he was tasked with overcoming 32 points (the Colts’ 34 minus the safety scored on the blocked punt) while Luck was tasked with overcoming only 21 points (the Seahawks 28 minus the Colts’ TD on the blocked FG). After that, Wilson received more rushing yards from his teammates, had more drives, and had better field position than Luck. Wilson’s teammates rushed for 116 yards, and the Seahawks had drives start at the Seattle 36, the Seattle 35, 43, the Seattle 48, and the Indianapolis 30.

What did Wilson do with his 11 drives, his teammates rushing attack, and some strong field position? He led the offense to 26 points on six scoring drives. Luck, who had only 9 active drives (his tenth was simply kneel downs), started all nine of them behind his own 30, three of them at the 20 yard line exactly, and five of them behind that. Luck, nevertheless, led five scoring drives for, wait for it, 27 points. That’s one better than Wilson.

Less total yards. Less yards from his teammates. Worse field position. Fewer drives. More points? If Wilson's turnovers weren't the problem, then what was? 

THE ANSWER(s)

 Part of the answer is that Luck also generated 51 yards of offense with defensive pass interference calls, 35 of which came on savvy decision to throw a risky pass after he already drew the Seahawks offside on a hard count. But even adding penalty yards, Luck still has fewer yards than Wilson, worse support on offense, and he still got more points out of his offense.

The big reason is that Luck made the plays “when it counted the most.” Yes, I know that’s a cliché. And no, I am NOT talking about the 4^th Quarter. As far as I know, touchdowns still count for 7 points in the 1^st Quarter and 7 points in 4^th Quarter. I’m talking about 3^rd and 4^th downs, and I’m talking about big plays. Luck's pretty pass to T.Y. Hilton that turned into a 73 yard TD pass certainly added value, but it was his 3rd down play that set him apart from Wilson in week 5. 

Luck had an active role in 11 3^rd or 4^th down situations. He was 5/9 for 50 yards, drew 2 pass interference calls, and converted a first down 7 out of 11 times. In Seattle territory, Luck was actively involved in 5 such situations, going 4/5 for 39 yards, converting 4 first downs.

Wilson had an active role in 15 3^rd or 4^th downs. He passed in 11 of those situations, going 2/10 for 36 yards with 1 sack, 1 fumble lost, and 1 interception, converting only a single first down. In rushing the ball, he was better, converting 2 out of 4 situations with 25 rushing yards, but that still left him with only 3 first downs on 15 active plays. Things were even worse when the Seahawks were in scoring position. On 3^rd and 4^th downs in Indianapolis territory, Wilson was 0/5 passing with a sack and a lost fumble. That was a big reason why the Seahawks had to settle for 4 field goals in their 6 scoring drives and a big reason why, ultimately, they lost the game. 

Wilson had a strong effort, and it’s why he had a positive TAVA score despite losing (unlike week 4, when he had a negative TAVA score despite winning). But he needs to help the Seahawks improve on critical downs or they may find themselves “outplaying” but losing to their opponents more often.