Andrew Luck and the Colts

[Bucman 891]

Luck OL was awful and the scheme he played in made it worse. Luck is going to get better, but no way was he the best rookie QB. Not saying that like its a bad thing though, we had 3 really good rookie QBs last year and one decent guy.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Luck OL was awful and the scheme he played in made it worse. Luck is going to get better, but no way was he the best rookie QB. Not saying that like its a bad thing though, we had 3 really good rookie QBs last year and one decent guy.

 

Ya, he had a solid year that was (or should have been) overlooked because of what Russ and RGIII did -- which was above and beyond anything we could have expected.

 

Luck is no Peyton Manning, and the fact that his decision making was so poor at times against bad competition, it really has to scare you when the Colts field real tests. They added a bunch of terrible FA this offseason, which won't make his life any easier.

 

I would be willing to bet it will be a similar season stat-wise for Luck, maybe even a bit of a drop off from last year. Depends how often he throws to Reggie. >_>

[Beta 1]

Not much more to add to a great discussion here.

 

I was a big fan of Luck in college and touted him all season last year before he even started with all the spectacular comebacks.

 

Kid is amazing and a very smart player. He will only get better with time.

 

He won't be my starting QB each week, but he is def my backup or starter when matched up well for the week.

[Jules 98]

Ya, he had a solid year that was (or should have been) overlooked because of what Russ and RGIII did -- which was above and beyond anything we could have expected.

 

Luck is no Peyton Manning, and the fact that his decision making was so poor at times against bad competition, it really has to scare you when the Colts field real tests. They added a bunch of terrible FA this offseason, which won't make his life any easier.

 

I would be willing to bet it will be a similar season stat-wise for Luck, maybe even a bit of a drop off from last year. Depends how often he throws to Reggie. >_>

 

Peyton Manning threw more interceptions then Luck did his rookie season with more offensive talent around him and we won 3 games.

 

Besides, I don't want Luck to be the next Manning even though many Colts fans don't like that opinion of mine. My hope is that we build something in Indy where we don't just become regular season warriors again but can make some legit postseason noise more often. I have gotten beef from Colts fans before in the past when I have criticized Manning's postseason performances, especially as a favorite at home. I KNEW Manning was going to throw a pick in OT vs. the Ravens.....I knew it and said it out loud that he would end the game on an interception for the Broncos. I think he is an all time great but he presses too much in the playoffs and falters at the worst times. He over thinks and is a perfectionist. It has it's pros and cons....

 

I appreciate all the opinions you guys have though and it's interesting to hear from fans of other teams.

 

I think the general vibe is that Luck can be the real deal but needs to clean up his interceptions. It's a fair argument since I agree. I did see a lot from him though in terms of intangibles and leadership which give me a lot of hope for the future.

 

So far Manning and Luck are vastly different to me in terms of personality. I think Arians did bring out some fire in him so it will be interesting to see if Hamilton can do the same.

 

BTW if you think Luck was the second best or third best rookie QB last year or even first that's fine. I enjoyed watching Wilson/RGIII too and they are in different situations and a different conference so I wish the best for them as well.

[Jules 98]

Not much more to add to a great discussion here.

 

I was a big fan of Luck in college and touted him all season last year before he even started with all the spectacular comebacks.

 

Kid is amazing and a very smart player. He will only get better with time.

 

He won't be my starting QB each week, but he is def my backup or starter when matched up well for the week.

 

 

I see you are a Saints fan! Interesting since a Saints fan I know from forums last year also adored Luck. Hmmm.

 

Also good luck to the Saints this year, I think they were jobbed last year by the powers to be. I still like Brees a lot.

[Jules 98]

BWT Luck does not get enough credit at times for his mobility. His legs alone kept a lot of plays alive last year....a lot of drives....contributed to wins. But, running/scrambling for him is not a crutch, he can do it all. I still maintain that a lot of QBs would not have survived this offense last year with the protection.

 

Look beyond the stats at times. This was a team dead in the water after cleaning house last offseason. It was revived by a bright new coaching staff, a bright young rookie gm and a bright young QB.....

 

[UndecidedFrog 12]

The only difference is that the Colts had an absolute cheesecake schedule. And if you look at advanced stats, in addition to the INTs he threw, the defense dropped another 14-17, don't remember the exact number, putting Luck at upwards of 30+ balls he threw that should have been picked off. Compare that to Wilson's numbers and INTs.

 

To me, Wilson was clearly #1.

 

RG3 and Luck are debatable which is 2 and which is 3.

 

 

The Colts' schedule last season was what it was. Even with that schedule, IMO, neither Wilson nor RG3 would have achieved what Luck did, if they were inserted into the Colts' starting QB position last season, even with the schedule.

[UndecidedFrog 12]

I really don't think there's a valid argument for Luck being the best rookie QB. Switching coordinators was probably the best move because Luck's talents don't fit that of Arian's offense.

 

He'll play better this season. And will probably dodge the "softmore slump" for the majority of the season.

 

 

Sorry, but I do have a contrary opinion that there are many valid arguments for Luck being the best rookie QB last season. Inserting either RG3 or Wilson into the Colts' starting QB position last season would not have yielded the same success Luck experienced. That is my opinion.

[UndecidedFrog 12]

Ah here is the site I was talking about:

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2013/adjusted-interceptions-2012

 

Luck has 30 adjusted INTs.

 

 

Yes, Luck has 30 potential total INTs. However, he also has 11 real wins with an eviscerated team coming off a 2 win season.

[UndecidedFrog 12]

Don't worry, bro.

 

Jake Locker and Blaine Gabbert are gonna make Luck look bad and make Peyton a distant memory.

 

...

 

 

.......

 

 

.................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by UndecidedFrog

[UndecidedFrog 12]

 

Besides, I don't want Luck to be the next Manning even though many Colts fans don't like that opinion of mine.

 

 

I'm with you there Jules.

 

I don't want Luck to be the next Manning. I want Luck to be the first Luck.

I expect him to succeed under his own criteria.

[UndecidedFrog 12]

 

Look beyond the stats at times. This was a team dead in the water after cleaning house last offseason. It was revived by a bright new coaching staff, a bright young rookie gm and a bright young QB.....

 

 

 

Many people forget that at this time last year, the pundits ranked the Colts dead last in the power rankings..... #32.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Sorry, but I do have a contrary opinion that there are many valid arguments for Luck being the best rookie QB last season. Inserting either RG3 or Wilson into the Colts' starting QB position last season would not have yielded the same success Luck experienced. That is my opinion.

 

You wanna expand on this? What exactly did Luck do last year that either of the others couldn't in his situation?

[UndecidedFrog 12]

You wanna expand on this? What exactly did Luck do last year that either of the others couldn't in his situation?

 

 

Sure.

 

1) Luck took over a 2-win team that was then eviscerated and ranked #32 (bottom) in power ratings before the season.

 

2) Luck won 11 games with that team

 

3) Luck operated without a highly ranked run game to support him

 

4) Luck operated without a highly ranked defense to support him

 

5) Luck operated without a passable OL to protect him

 

6) Luck was asked to operate in an offensive scheme that was not tailored to his college scheme

 

I think this will do for a start.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Luck was not the only improvement the Colts made though. The defense went from allowing 450 points, to 387 points or from 28.1 PPG to 24.2 PPG. If you look at the points for and points against, the Colts don't really look like an 11 win team, especially with a negative point differential. Using the Pythagorean Win theory or (PF^2.37)/((PF^2.37)+(PA^2.37)) = Pyth Win Percentage, The Colts were closer to a 7 win team. If you subscribe to the idea that close games (within one possession or 8 points) are basically coinflips, the Colts are 2-4 in 'blowouts', and 9-1 in those close games. Which again paints them as a 7 win team that got lucky.

 

Compare them to their playoff contemporaries:

Colts 2-4 in 'blowouts', 9-1 in close games (7.2-8.8) (-3.8)

 

Patriots 8-0 in 'blowouts', 4-4 in close games (12.4-3.6) (+1.4)

Ravens 4-2 in 'blowouts', 6-4 in close games (9.4-6.6) (-.6)

Bengals 5-2 in 'blowouts', 5-4 in close games (9.9-6.1) (-.1)

Texans 7-4 in blowouts, 3-2 in close games (10.1-5.9) (-1.9)

Broncos 9-1 in blowouts, 4-2 in close games (12.3-3.7) (-.7)

 

Redskins 4-1 in 'blowouts', 6-5 in close games (9.1-6.9) (-.9)

Packers 7-1 in 'blowouts', 4-4 in close games (10.3-5.7) (-.7)

Vikings 5-5 in 'blowouts', 5-1 in close games (8.8-7.2) (-1.2)

Falcons 6-1 in 'blowouts', 7-2 in close games (11.0-5.0) (-2.0)

49ers 7-3 in 'blowouts', 4-1-1 in close games (11.3-5.7) (-.2)

Seahawks 6-0 in 'blowouts', 5-5 in close games (12.4-3.6) (+1.4)

 

In most cases you can see that these close games are approximately 50-50 for most teams, with the Colts, Vikings and Falcons being exceptions in this case. It would stand to reason that these teams will do worse next season, as those close games regress to the mean.

[Jules 98]

I usually hate bleacher report but this was a good read to me:

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477009-ignore-the-raw-numbers-andrew-luck-had-a-great-rookie-season

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I hate people overrated Luck's "clutch" factor. If he didn't throw so many picks and incomplete passes, there would be no need to bring the Colts from behind. Lol.

 

He threw as many picks as Mark Sanchez and had a worse passer rating than Blaine Gabbert. Even worse than I would have given him credit for. Tsk tsk.

[Jules 98]

I hate people overrated Luck's "clutch" factor. If he didn't throw so many picks and incomplete passes, there would be no need to bring the Colts from behind. Lol.

 

He threw as many picks as Mark Sanchez and had a worse passer rating than Blaine Gabbert. Even worse than I would have given him credit for. Tsk tsk.

 

I am a whore for clutch-ness......

 

A main reason why I still consider Joe Montana THE GOAT.

 

But, the real test will be in future postseason games when/if we make it back now that the rookie phase is over.

 

In his rookie season Luck did show me some intangibles I hope continue on as he progresses in the game and cleans things up.

 

I think something big I never quite understood is if people predict a slump for Luck what are they basing it on? His raw numbers were not great. I think people are speaking on a win total slump which I have already said is a fair argument to make.

 

RGIII/Wilson seem more suited for the second year slump IMO due to their rookie stats and maybe even Kaepernick even though he technically was not a rookie last season.

 

There were no frills or gimmicks last year in the Colts offense..Arians lined him up and played him as if he was an experienced vet. We did not cater to him as a rookie or try to make it easier for him. Maybe we should have but 11-5 is 11-5, I can't complain even if the numbers were not the best all the time.

 

Maybe I am wrong and Luck takes a swan dive, his numbers are even worse and he loses his late game touch. I don't see it though right now......

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Sure.

 

1) Luck took over a 2-win team that was then eviscerated and ranked #32 (bottom) in power ratings before the season.

 

2) Luck won 11 games with that team

 

These are team accomplishments. Not trying to take anything away from Luck but they say more about how much the team progressed as a whole then how much impact Luck had.

 

3) Luck operated without a highly ranked run game to support him

 

This may hold some weight against Wilson, but non against RGIII, RGIII was a reason for that running game being as good as it was.

 

4) Luck operated without a highly ranked defense to support him

 

This too could hold weight against RW, but none against RGIII, his defense was no better.

 

5) Luck operated without a passable OL to protect him

 

The amount of pressure that Luck faced is inflated by the amount of times that he dropped back to throw the ball. He was sacked around 7% of his total dropbacks, Wilson was sacked about the same amount of rate and RGIII was sacked at around 8%.

 

6) Luck was asked to operate in an offensive scheme that was not tailored to his college scheme

 

Why exactly does this matter? It says that Luck may of had a tougher transition but how does is this an argument for him performing better?

[UndecidedFrog 12]

... the Colts don't really look like an 11 win team, especially with a negative point differential.

 

 

You're right. The 2012 Colts did not have the talent to be an 11 win team. When they lost, they lost big. When they won, they squeaked the win.

 

So, we are back to the elephant in the room....if the Colts did not have the talent to be an 11 win team, how did they win 11 games? How did they manage to have so many comebacks? What is it about them? It wasn't talent, so what was it?

[UndecidedFrog 12]

I hate people overrated Luck's "clutch" factor. If he didn't throw so many picks and incomplete passes, there would be no need to bring the Colts from behind. Lol.

 

He threw as many picks as Mark Sanchez and had a worse passer rating than Blaine Gabbert. Even worse than I would have given him credit for. Tsk tsk.

 

 

Hate is a strong word.

 

FYI, Luck threw less INTs in his rookie season than P Manning did in his corresponding rookie season. P Manning had a better OL, and better receivers and RBs too.

[UndecidedFrog 12]

These are team accomplishments. Not trying to take anything away from Luck but they say more about how much the team progressed as a whole then how much impact Luck had.

 

It is very handy to attribute good outcomes to team accomplishments and assign negatives (INTs, %completions) as personal faults. I cannot imagine the Colts winning 11 games last season with RG3 or Wilson behind center.

 

 

This may hold some weight against Wilson, but non against RGIII, RGIII was a reason for that running game being as good as it was.

 

This is not clear. The only way to find out for sure is to see how Kirk Cousins performs with the same RB and team. With RG3 missing some games last season, I think we know that Cousins did fine. I am more apt to believe the running game was good without RG3.

 

 

This too could hold weight against RW, but none against RGIII, his defense was no better.

 

Both RG3's defense and Wilson's defense were much better than the Colts' defense. That was my point.

 

The amount of pressure that Luck faced is inflated by the amount of times that he dropped back to throw the ball. He was sacked around 7% of his total dropbacks, Wilson was sacked about the same amount of rate and RGIII was sacked at around 8%.

 

The opposing defense knew that the Colts would throw against them, since the Colts did not have even an average running game. Given that, I am pleased that Luck managed to only get sacked at the same rate as RG3 and Wilson, who had good running games to hold back some blitzes.

 

 

Why exactly does this matter? It says that Luck may of had a tougher transition but how does is this an argument for him performing better?

 

Comparatively looking at the offensive schemes used by the Skins and the Seahawks, Luck performed well in a scheme not suited to him. RG3 basically operated in his Baylor scheme. Wilson also had a healthy dose of his college scheme to work with. Luck (last year) did not operate in the Stanford offense.

Performance is measured also with some consideration as to the environment in which you perform. e.g. If a QB has 20 seconds to throw behind an OL that protects that well, and if he has seasoned receivers who can get open, I would expect him to perform well, and grade him accordingly. However, if a QB has less than 3 seconds to throw behind an OL that "protects" that "well", and if he has a majority of his receivers being rookies who do not often get open, and he still performs well, I would grade his performance a bit higher. Wouldn't you?

[RazorStar 4,025]

Luck. The phenomenon, not the player. If reason holds, they'll be back to a 7-8 win team next year. Winning close games is generally a coin flip and some teams are luckier than others. It's not like Luck wasn't contributing to his team's poor play, they just had a lot going for them. Riding on the resurgence of your coach getting cancer will give you that extra edge when you need it. (Of course this means that Luck as a rookie is a 5 win improvement over Curtis Painter.)

 

Looking at teams who had a larger than -1.0 difference in pythagorean wins and actual wins is pretty damning evidence. The 2011 Raiders (8-8), (6.3-9.7) went 1-6 in blowouts, and 7-1 in close games last year. Next year, they're picking 3rd overall. 2011 Giants go from winning the Super Bowl at 9-7 to missing the playoffs the next year. Surprisingly, their team got better by pythagorean wins, despite having the same record (from 7.9 to 10.0). Even the 2011 Packers fall victim to pythagorean wins, (15-1), (11.9-4.1). They went 9-0 in blowouts and 6-1 in close games. The next season, they had 11 wins, so they certainly fell back to earth. The 2011 Broncos are a notable exception because they got rid of Tebow and drafted Manning so they really don't fit the trend.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Hate is a strong word.

 

FYI, Luck threw less INTs in his rookie season than P Manning did in his corresponding rookie season. P Manning had a better OL, and better receivers and RBs too.

 

This is true, but another thing that is very unfair to Luck. He is no P. Manning. Maybe for the better, probably for the worse.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

It is very handy to attribute good outcomes to team accomplishments and assign negatives (INTs, %completions) as personal faults. I cannot imagine the Colts winning 11 games last season with RG3 or Wilson behind center.

 

Like I said, this makes no sense. Based on what? RGIII led the 4th ranked offense in terms of scoring. You really don't think he'd be able to win with the Colts? With their schedule? With two great rookie TE prospects, and Reggie Wayne?

 

This is not clear. The only way to find out for sure is to see how Kirk Cousins performs with the same RB and team. With RG3 missing some games last season, I think we know that Cousins did fine. I am more apt to believe the running game was good without RG3.

 

This is based on what? The one game that Kirk played from start to finish was the game against the Browns, and that rushing performance from he Redskins wasn't all that impressive.

 

 

Both RG3's defense and Wilson's defense were much better than the Colts' defense. That was my point.

 

The Colt's defense gave up 24 points per game. The Redskins also gave up... 24 points per game...

 

The opposing defense knew that the Colts would throw against them, since the Colts did not have even an average running game. Given that, I am pleased that Luck managed to only get sacked at the same rate as RG3 and Wilson, who had good running games to hold back some blitzes.

 

Wilson and RGIII's ability to run with the ball is the reason why defenses held back blitzes.

 

Comparatively looking at the offensive schemes used by the Skins and the Seahawks, Luck performed well in a scheme not suited to him. RG3 basically operated in his Baylor scheme. Wilson also had a healthy dose of his college scheme to work with. Luck (last year) did not operate in the Stanford offense.

Performance is measured also with some consideration as to the environment in which you perform. e.g. If a QB has 20 seconds to throw behind an OL that protects that well, and if he has seasoned receivers who can get open, I would expect him to perform well, and grade him accordingly. However, if a QB has less than 3 seconds to throw behind an OL that "protects" that "well", and if he has a majority of his receivers being rookies who do not often get open, and he still performs well, I would grade his performance a bit higher. Wouldn't you?

 

1. None of these guys had 20 seconds to throw the ball. And in fact, they all had around the same amount of time to throw the ball. All three QBs were in the top 10 among QBs in terms of time to throw the ball.

 

2. Rusell Wilson ran a pro style offense in college. And he ran a pro style offense in the NFL, and it wasn't until late in the season that they incorporated some read option.