Jump to content
Dutch

Let's put this to bed. Give me Andrew Luck.

Recommended Posts

People are just disregarding/ignoring the circumstances as if they don't matter and keep running to the raw numbers. They don't tell the entire story. The stats within stats breaks it down and reveal what the situation was. The situation was that Luck was being utilized as if he was an elite QB. He was asked to throw 627 times, throw more deep passes than anyone else in the league, behind a horrible offensive line, had no running game, and a bad defense. How does none of that play a factor? In all actuality, The Colts ARE a bad team outside of Luck and Wayne if you take a real look at their situation. They were 2-14 last season. The only substantial change was at QB. Bad team, extremely unfavorable play calling, elite work load and he still won games. He's not elite so having that elite work load won't do justice for his raw numbers but he carried that load and took that bad team to the playoffs enduring those circumstances. There's no downplaying or disregarding those factors.

 

You certainly have my curiosity at this point...time to break out the NFL Rewind ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro, that's exactly what you're trying to do. In my argument, I'm saying look at the passes 11-20 yards. Then you say if you take out the pass beyond 20 yards... What does that have to do with my stance? And then you have the nerve to say afterwards that you're not trying to take his passes beyond 20 yards away when that's EXACTLY what you said and even provided information on it lol (I'm about to address your information shortly).

 

You just pulled out pieces from my sentences, not even the whole sentence, pieces from the sentences. How can you get anything from pulling out, half of one of my sentences.

 

Here's the blimp in which I explained why I pulled out his splits.

I'm not trying to take away his passes beyond 20 yards to prove nothing more then to show the people who say that the reason why his accuracy %, QBR, INTs, ETC was so low was because of where he threw the ball.

 

Nobody (at least not me) has argued against your stance that he was asked to do more. Hence the reason why I never quoted you when I made my first post on this specific page.

 

All I tried to prove -and essentially did prove- by bringing out his splits is to highlight specifically that regardless of where he threw the ball, whether it was deep or short, he was wildly inaccurate and very unimpressive. That's it.

 

Luck attempted 627 passes. 27% of his passes (filter to regular season) were deep passes 15+ yards being 3rd in the league under Jay Cutler and Colin Kaepernick. Luck threw for a way higher volume of passes than they did. Luck threw a total of 169 passes beyond 15 yards which is the most in the league. THAT is my main point and you failed to address and tried to disregard it.

 

Here's what you're not understanding. I never came on here arguing how often he threw the ball. All I have simply done is argue that regardless of the amount of times he was asked to throw the ball, regardless of how many passes he threw deep or short, he was inaccurate and inefficient.

 

Let's take a look at the stats you provided. Andrew Luck threw for a total of 627 passes. Espn broke down Andrew Luck's splits passing attempts :

 

Behind LoS: 86 attempts

 

1-10: 279 attempts

 

11-20: 162 attempts

 

21-30: 59 attempts

 

31-40: 20 attempts

 

41+: 12 attempts

 

When you add all of that up, that's only 618 total attempts. Andrew Luck had 627. So, not only does that mean that information is wrong, it shows that you didn't do any real research and all you did was copy and paste and didn't do any work to check behind it. That makes your next quoted paragraph completely irrelevant because you're talking efficiency and numbers and yours Espn's was wrong.

 

11 passes? You're gonna try to throw everything I say as wrong, and question my legitimacy because ESPN missed 11 of his passes?

 

Because, after all, those 11 passes that ESPN missed would sure as hell make his accuracy % and QBR a whole lot better?

 

I'm done debating with you on this topic. Not only do you openly contradict yourself and fail to address my stances, you're copying and pasting wrong information and not doing any real work behind it. Your opinion of Luck is your opinion and that's fine. But putting so much effort to discredit a player and not doing any real homework behind it... c'mon now.

 

I have never contradicted myself. IDK why it is that you always try to highlight me on this forum as contradicting myself, and then you always get proven wrong. You read half my sentence from one paragraph, then link it to another sentence from a different paragraph or post and then call it contradicting?

 

I mean, I'm sorry that I missed the part where ESPN missed 11 of Luck's throws, I'm sure that that probably skewed the stats I bought a whole bunch since it's .2% of his total attempts. lol.

Edited by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely with Dutch on this one. When you consider what Luck was asked to do (carry the offense, throw deeper than almost everyone else, throw so often), what he was asked to do it with/without (no running game, league's worst line, inexperienced receivers outside of Wayne, a defense that couldn't hold a lead), and the tremendous amount of upside he still possesses, there is no question in my mind that he's going to be the best of the rookies and that what he did last year was the most impressive performance among the rookies.

 

Luck did not have the league's worst offensive line. People keep saying this, and it's false.

 

Adjust his sacks for the amount of throws he tired and you'll see they were pretty average. Same goes for his hits. Lions fans used to say the same thing about Stafford 2 years ago and the majority of this past season.

 

The Colts almost always had a guy running open 6-10 yards. Arian's offense is a vertical one, but Arians isn't the one throwing the ball or leading the offense on the field, if Luck as a QB sees that he won't have time in the pocket to go deep, he should settle for shorter. If he doesn't that's as much on him as it is on his coach, isn't that what separates the good/average QBs from the great ones? Ability to adjust to the situations?

 

The receiver excuse to this point is BS. Most of these guys have been playing football for a good portion of their lives, experienced or not, they still know how to play the game, and they were still talented.

 

The defense not being able to hold the lead is also BS. I can highlight you at least 4 or 5 of the games Luck played in which the defense either held the lead to give the Colts a win, or they were the only reason Luck was allowed to make a GWD.

 

For as much potential as Luck showed he had, and as promising as his season was, there was as much in both tape and in stats to prove that he in the long term could be nothing more then average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just pulled out pieces from my sentences, not even the whole sentence, pieces from the sentences. How can you get anything from pulling out, half of one of my sentences.

 

Here's the blimp in which I explained why I pulled out his splits.

 

 

Nobody (at least not me) has argued against your stance that he was asked to do more. Hence the reason why I never quoted you when I made my first post on this specific page.

 

All I tried to prove -and essentially did prove- by bringing out his splits is to highlight specifically that regardless of where he threw the ball, whether it was deep or short, he was wildly inaccurate and very unimpressive. That's it.

 

 

 

Here's what you're not understanding. I never came on here arguing how often he threw the ball. All I have simply done is argue that regardless of the amount of times he was asked to throw the ball, regardless of how many passes he threw deep or short, he was inaccurate and inefficient.

 

 

 

11 passes? You're gonna try to throw everything I say as wrong, and question my legitimacy because ESPN missed 11 of his passes?

 

Because, after all, those 11 passes that ESPN missed would sure as hell make his accuracy % and QBR a whole lot better?

 

 

 

I have never contradicted myself. IDK why it is that you always try to highlight me on this forum as contradicting myself, and then you always get proven wrong. You read half my sentence from one paragraph, then link it to another sentence from a different paragraph or post and then call it contradicting?

 

I mean, I'm sorry that I missed the part where ESPN missed 11 of Luck's throws, I'm sure that that probably skewed the stats I bought a whole bunch since it's .2% of his total attempts. lol.

 

You can't talk about anyone being wrong if you're presenting inaccurate information. 11 passes or not, that just shows that you copy and paste and really don't go over the information. As far as the sentences, I only needed to pull out the main points... and if you can't see that they are contradicting each other... Either way, I'm done with debating with you because this won't get anywhere. We agree to disagree so let's just keep it at that.

Edited by dutchff7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like how half the people are using Luck playing horribly as a positive... But, but... He had Bruce Arians as an OC! He threw the ball 9001 times (beware, this number MAY be inaccurate). Yup, and we know he (Arians) sucks (don't tell the Cardinals). Whether he would play better without Arians or in that scheme is fairly irrelevant to what we saw last year.

 

When we judge QBs, why don't we just look at what they did, not what they might have done on another team in a different scheme. I actually agree that it would have helped him, but we don't know for sure and never will. It's a hypothetical, a make-believe reality.

 

If you want to use it as a means to defend Luck moving forward and how he will (or should) play better this season. Go for it. I think pretty much everyone is expecting him to be better -- it's not like he can get that much worse.

 

But you can't use those hypotheticals to twist reality and alter things that have already happened. A QB that was heralded as a scheme-diverse guy would could carry his team from Day 1 proved that he needs a scheme tailored to him and he most definitely can not carry his team (yet).

 

Let's stop making excuses for the guy. :yep:

Edited by Favre4Ever
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like how half the people are using Luck playing horribly as a positive... But, but... He had Bruce Arians as an OC! He threw the ball 9001 times (beware, this number MAY be inaccurate). Yup, and we know he (Arians) sucks (don't tell the Cardinals). Whether he would play better without Arians or in that scheme is fairly irrelevant to what we saw last year.

 

When we judge QBs, why don't we just look at what they did, not what they might have done on another team in a different scheme. I actually agree that it would have helped him, but we don't know for sure and never will. It's a hypothetical, a make-believe reality.

 

If you want to use it as a means to defend Luck moving forward and how he will (or should) play better this season. Go for it. I think pretty much everyone is expecting him to be better -- it's not like he can get that much worse.

 

But you can't use those hypotheticals to twist reality and alter things that have already happened. A QB that was heralded as a scheme-diverse guy would could carry his team from Day 1 proved that he needs a scheme tailored to him and he most definitely can not carry his team (yet).

 

Let's stop making excuses for the guy. :yep:

 

There's a difference between saying that what he actually did was impressive because of difficult circumstances and saying that he could have done X, Y, or Z had circumstances been different. I, for one, am not hypothesizing about what his numbers would have been in a better situation- only saying that his performance impresses me when when I consider the setting in which he did it.

 

I disagree with you about just looking at what a player did. Circumstances must always be factored. And I think you probably actually agree. I mean, would you say that Lance Moore was a better receiver than Larry Fitzgerald in 2012? Because Moore had about 240 more yards receiving. But I'm guessing you'd still take Fitz after considering the circumstances.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like how half the people are using Luck playing horribly as a positive... But, but... He had Bruce Arians as an OC! He threw the ball 9001 times (beware, this number MAY be inaccurate). Yup, and we know he (Arians) sucks (don't tell the Cardinals). Whether he would play better without Arians or in that scheme is fairly irrelevant to what we saw last year.

 

When we judge QBs, why don't we just look at what they did, not what they might have done on another team in a different scheme. I actually agree that it would have helped him, but we don't know for sure and never will. It's a hypothetical, a make-believe reality.

 

If you want to use it as a means to defend Luck moving forward and how he will (or should) play better this season. Go for it. I think pretty much everyone is expecting him to be better -- it's not like he can get that much worse.

 

But you can't use those hypotheticals to twist reality and alter things that have already happened. A QB that was heralded as a scheme-diverse guy would could carry his team from Day 1 proved that he needs a scheme tailored to him and he most definitely can not carry his team (yet).

 

Let's stop making excuses for the guy. :yep:

 

He took a previous 2-14 team to 11-5 and in the play offs. How is that not carrying his team lol? You guys are talking as if Luck failed.

 

And I am judging Luck on what he did. I'm not talking hypotheticals. What I'm also doing (which it seems that nobody else is) is taking into account of what was around him and the circumstances of the situation. That always plays a factor when evaluating a player.

 

So, here goes my first hypothetical. So considering you feel as though Luck failed (even though he made the play offs), if Luck had a better efficiency and less interceptions but missed the play offs, how would you judge that season? Would he still have failed then for not making the playoffs? Or would it have been his teams fault?

Edited by dutchff7
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the largest problem people are having when talking about Andrew Luck is that his touchdowns to interceptions just isn't what they expected. As much hype as Luck received both pre-draft and post draft, I don't think anyone was expecting a 23/18 ratio for him. Andrew Luck is a great quarterback, and he's certainly a guy you want to build around.

 

I think that if you're going to argue Luck had no running game behind him to open up the passing lanes, I can buy that. Vick Ballard probably isn't a #1 running back anywhere else in the league last year. If you're going to argue that he had no talent at the receiver positions around him though, I don't think that's valid. Reggie Wayne was absolutely amazing this past season and he made catches when it mattered the most. We can't decipher the amount of talent that T.Y. Hilton has yet, but I'm almost certain he is going to turn out to be a great wide receiver.

 

Either way you look at it, how can anyone say that Luck wasn't great in his rookie year? I think that ever since 2008 when Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan took the league by storm as rookies, it's almost expected that guys do it every year when they are drafted. Rookies aren't supposed to be all-pros in their rookie year. Hell, I don't even believe they should be starting. For Luck to take a 2-14 team to 11-5, that's just great. The kid is going to have a big time career.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between saying that what he actually did was impressive because of difficult circumstances and saying that he could have done X, Y, or Z had circumstances been different. I, for one, am not hypothesizing about what his numbers would have been in a better situation- only saying that his performance impresses me when when I consider the setting in which he did it.

 

I disagree with you about just looking at what a player did. Circumstances must always be factored. And I think you probably actually agree. I mean, would you say that Lance Moore was a better receiver than Larry Fitzgerald in 2012? Because Moore had about 240 more yards receiving. But I'm guessing you'd still take Fitz after considering the circumstances.

 

I completely understand the reason you are high on Luck, and while I don't agree with it, I can see why someone else would.

 

But IDK if the comparison is all that fair. We've seen years of both those wide outs and know who's better from their past if nothing else. We know that under more favorable circumstances, Fitz can perform substantially better.

 

The same can't be said about Luck who's only been in the league for one year, we know he had some obstacles to overcome, like other rookies, but based on what history do we have of Luck in the NFL can we make the claim that had he been in a different circumstance, he'd of performed substantially better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the largest problem people are having when talking about Andrew Luck is that his touchdowns to interceptions just isn't what they expected. As much hype as Luck received both pre-draft and post draft, I don't think anyone was expecting a 23/18 ratio for him. Andrew Luck is a great quarterback, and he's certainly a guy you want to build around.

 

I think that if you're going to argue Luck had no running game behind him to open up the passing lanes, I can buy that. Vick Ballard probably isn't a #1 running back anywhere else in the league last year. If you're going to argue that he had no talent at the receiver positions around him though, I don't think that's valid. Reggie Wayne was absolutely amazing this past season and he made catches when it mattered the most. We can't decipher the amount of talent that T.Y. Hilton has yet, but I'm almost certain he is going to turn out to be a great wide receiver.

 

Either way you look at it, how can anyone say that Luck wasn't great in his rookie year? I think that ever since 2008 when Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan took the league by storm as rookies, it's almost expected that guys do it every year when they are drafted. Rookies aren't supposed to be all-pros in their rookie year. Hell, I don't even believe they should be starting. For Luck to take a 2-14 team to 11-5, that's just great. The kid is going to have a big time career.

 

I wouldn't say Luck had a great rookie year. I'd say he had a good one, but not great.

 

Once again, the issue though rises with the idea that Luck turned around the Colts. People always like to say winning is a team accomplishment, so why does Luck get the credit for the Colts being 11-5? Especially when his numbers weren't anything but average at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with whoever said the whole Chuck Pagano inspiration went a long way the Colts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely understand the reason you are high on Luck, and while I don't agree with it, I can see why someone else would.

 

But IDK if the comparison is all that fair. We've seen years of both those wide outs and know who's better from their past if nothing else. We know that under more favorable circumstances, Fitz can perform substantially better.

 

The same can't be said about Luck who's only been in the league for one year, we know he had some obstacles to overcome, like other rookies, but based on what history do we have of Luck in the NFL can we make the claim that had he been in a different circumstance, he'd of performed substantially better?

 

That illustration was only meant to illustrate that circumstances matter. It's definitely not a perfect analogy for Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that if you're going to argue Luck had no running game behind him to open up the passing lanes, I can buy that. Vick Ballard probably isn't a #1 running back anywhere else in the league last year. If you're going to argue that he had no talent at the receiver positions around him though, I don't think that's valid. Reggie Wayne was absolutely amazing this past season and he made catches when it mattered the most. We can't decipher the amount of talent that T.Y. Hilton has yet, but I'm almost certain he is going to turn out to be a great wide receiver.

 

Can't speak for anyone else arguing for Luck, but I didn't say anything in this thread about no talent at the WR position. I did however give Reggie Wayne credit. My focus on the offensive side of the ball was no running game and Arian's extreme play calling dialing up so many long deep developing pass plays under one of the worst O-lines in the league.

 

Here's a video that I just watched. It's a highlight video so ofcourse it only shows the good plays. Noted, that I didn't use any highlight videos in my analysis/evaluation of Luck. I watched actual footage. But I do tend to watch a lot of highlights. It's a nice compilation of Luck plays. It's a nice watch. Granted it's a small percentage of all his throws, look how many receivers in each set are going deep. Again, this isn't meant to prove anything because afterall, it's a highlight video.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with whoever said the whole Chuck Pagano inspiration went a long way the Colts.

 

That definitely could play a part. But that is considered a circumstance as well. So it appears they are picking and choosing between circumstances. Choosing positive circumstances that was responsible for the positive effects of the team but disregarding and ignoring other circumstances that had negative effects on the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That definitely could play a part. But that is considered a circumstance as well. So it appears they are picking and choosing between circumstances. Choosing positive circumstances that was responsible for the positive effects of the team but disregarding and ignoring other circumstances that had negative effects on the team.

 

And we all know what Pagano told the team after they beat the Dolphins last year in an emotional speech:

 

 

"I've got circumstances. You guys understand it, I understand it," Pagano said. "It's already beat. It's already beat. My vision is that I'm living to see two more daughters get married, dance at their weddings and then lift the Lombardi Trophy several times.''

 

Overall though, I hope Pagano stays cancer free more then anything that involves football.

 

Besides, to compare...another tragedy happened to the Colts in 2005. Tony Dungy's son took his life near the end of the regular season. The team was so shook up by it I felt they never truly got their emotional groove back despite being such a talented squad who was the Super Bowl favorite. And I understood too, James Dungy was often at practices and Dungy was our leader. It hit them all pretty hard to see a young man they knew well suddenly end it all...

 

I think an awful event on a team can work in either way in the end. I feel as if Arians (even if I sometimes hated his play calling) did a terrific job guiding this young team to keep their minds on football as well as team leaders such as Reggie Wayne.

 

2012 really started in 2011 with 2-14 and the eventual and inevitable release of the legend Peyton Manning, several veterans and the Polian era. Many fans were distraught at the changes.

 

During the course of last season I felt this Colts team really BONDED as a TEAM. It was a joy to watch...forget stats. I was truly in awe at times just seeing these guys come together as a group and learning to win games in the clutch with so much youth. Perhaps the Pagano story was inspiring but even if it was. And it should have been....they learned a lot in the 2012 season..and hopefully these lessons carry over. This team had FUN last year. Sometimes I miss the element of fun in sports. I had more fun watching the 2012 Colts then I do some of the perfect robotic powerhouses we sometimes see in this league.

 

You can't just be talented and put up good numbers. You have to learn how to WIN too. Sometimes just a few things in a game are the difference between a win and a loss. Sometimes just ONE PLAY. Talent and stats alone do not win games.

 

But, have to understand. Pagano was also inspiring this team from the second he got here. He was making rousing speeches going back to camps in the offseason....I heard one that made me want to play football even lol.

 

Win or lose I found the Colts last year to be almost inspiring as a fan and I know not everyone feels the same who is not a Colts fan. I was pretty proud of them so at times I do get over protective...like a mother almost lol. The ride they gave me as a fan was beyond anything I can truly nitpick....cause I can't criticize anything. The Colts last year were that damn exciting to me as a lifelong fan of the team. The comebacks fit us perfectly too....we were a team THAT NEVER QUIT.

 

It will change now though. Now a more fundamentally sound football team is going to have to start developing in Indy to become serious. And the magical ride of unexpected wins is over now that there is more of a target on us.

 

But, win or lose I hope this team maintains it's heart and never gives up and maintains the lessons/intangibles they developed last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colts this season will be interesting to say the least. I will be keeping an eye out on Luck in year two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colts this season will be interesting to say the least. I will be keeping an eye out on Luck in year two.

 

Go draft son!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP ignores runs for 3rd down conversions (and everywhere else) and doesn't include YPA. Also doesn't mention the journeys each player took. RG3 was given the reins and a designer offense, same with Luck. Wilson beat out Flynn, kicked the training wheels off after 6 weeks, and still had that year. He went furthest in the playoffs and has the most poise. He was also a much scarier NCAA QB, he's been outdueling them for 3 years. It will continue.

 

Go Wilson. The first QB that makes me feel like I'm watching some bizzaro universe football where Madden is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP ignores runs for 3rd down conversions (and everywhere else) and doesn't include YPA. Also doesn't mention the journeys each player took. RG3 was given the reins and a designer offense, same with Luck. Wilson beat out Flynn, kicked the training wheels off after 6 weeks, and still had that year. He went furthest in the playoffs and has the most poise. He was also a much scarier NCAA QB, he's been outdueling them for 3 years. It will continue.

 

Go Wilson. The first QB that makes me feel like I'm watching some bizzaro universe football where Madden is real.

 

Glad to see not everyone here is lining up to suck Luck's cock.

 

I like the kid. I do. I think he'll go far and be a successful QB for the Colts. I've just never been able to understand all this "OMG LUCK IS TEH BESTEST ROOKIE QB EVER!!!" talk being spouted. It's like he gets a free pass on all his mistakes and is examined under an entirely different set of rules than all the other rookies. That is unfair and horribly biased.

 

I mean, all I hear from Luck supporters about RG3 and Wilson is "Oh they've only played for one year so we can't say they're great yet." Meanwhile these same people go on and on about how awesome Luck is and how he's the next Peyton Manning. Uh... double standard much? Why is Luck not held to the same "Only One Year" rule as everyone else?

 

Another thing is this whole rookie yardage record thing Luck fans like to tout. "Look at how many yards he threw for! He's amazing!" This while ignoring that... while impressive... anyone can pad their yardage when all they do is throw deep-balls. It means nothing except that Colts were always playing from behind. Meanwhile these same people who go nuts for Luck's yardageagain give the cold shoulder to Wilson (Who tied the rookie TD record) and RG3 (Who probably would have broken it if he'd stayed healthy). Call me crazy but I always thought TDs were more important than yardage. Not to these people.

 

This of course beings up the tired "He had no offense" argument. Which, of course, totally ignores the fact that Luck was throwing at one of the best WRs in the league (Reggie Wayne), and a backfield that combined for about 1350 yards and 6 tds. Not the best ground game ever, but he had far more help from the running game than Luck fans are prepared to admit.

 

I also like the fact that Luck fans, in their zeal to point out how many times Luck threw the ball and for how many yards, like to ignore his 18 ints and 10 fumbles. Now to me, there is nothing more important in a QB than taking care of the football. This is something that Luck failed gloriously at. do Luck fans care? Of course not. They just point at Manning's rookie season (As if that actually proves anything. just because Manning had alot of turnovers his rookie year and turned himself around doesn't guarantee Luck will.) and change the subject back to his passing Yardage.

 

Also there's the illusion that Luck "led" this team to the playoffs. While he certainly factored into it. What got this team to the playoffs was not simply Luck. It was, as mentioned previously by others, the Colts rallying around Chuck Pagano, and beating up on all the bottom-feeders carded up on their "softest-in-the-league" schedule, and Luck managing to barely dig his team out of a few of the holes he dug them into for those much glorified "come-back wins". which brings me to another point. Why is Luck glirified for his comeback wins instead of being picked apart for constantly getting his team behind with dumb turnovers in the first place?

 

Now, I do think Luck will improve, but I'm sick of the double-standards of his fans. He isn't the best rookie QB ever. He isn't even the best rookie QB of his draft class so far. Yards and passing attempts prove nothing. They are empty stats being clung to by desperate fanboys. Do yourselves a favor and hold luck to the same standards as all the other rookies. Stop giving him free passes he doesn't deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also led the league in dropped INTs by defenders and had 10 fumbles. He was also in the most 'wreckless' of the 3 offenses in question. We can come up with lots of facts to back ourselves up. Watch them play, I am most impressed by Wilsons behavior waiting for things to develop, he also plays in the most traditional of the 3 offenses in question and poise goes a long way there.

 

But the media has incentive to sell the other 2 much aggressively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the arguments leveled against Luck fans here seem to purposefully skirt around the strongest arguments. They also suggest (incorrectly) that people who think that Luck will, in time, be the best of the young QB's also think there's some huge, gaping divide between Luck and the other two. I think everyone recognizes that they're all very good, and it's a close call regardless of how you slice it. Or at least I haven't seen anyone trying to say that Luck is/was wayyyy better than the others.

 

Also- the fact that Wilson played in a conservative, ball control offense to start the season is not an argument in his favor. There's some manipulation of the facts going on there to try and make the circumstances reflect well on Wilson. Lots of reasons to love Wilson. And even some valid ones to prefer him to Luck. But that's not one of them.

 

It's also bullshit to suggest that anyone who thinks Luck is the best is simply influenced by the media and their Luck-love. That's a cop out argument to try and discredit the opposing arguer, rather than his argument. I don't even watch ESPN, NFLN, etc... I just watch football and do my share of reading on alternative sites like FO, PFF, etc. Right or wrong, my opinion is my own and is based on what I've seen and what good football minds have had to say on the matter. And I'd say that goes for a number of the other posters in here that prefer Luck.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as though this is my thread, I feel inclined to reply.

 

Glad to see not everyone here is lining up to suck Luck's cock.

 

I like the kid. I do. I think he'll go far and be a successful QB for the Colts. I've just never been able to understand all this "OMG LUCK IS TEH BESTEST ROOKIE QB EVER!!!" talk being spouted. It's like he gets a free pass on all his mistakes and is examined under an entirely different set of rules than all the other rookies. That is unfair and horribly biased.

 

First off, you saying that people here are lining up to suck Luck off and proclaiming he is the best rookie ever is extremely exaggerated. Just about my entire post was pure statistical factual information. So trying to put an emphasis on the idea that there is any bias or extreme homerism in this thread is ignorant and almost falls short of acknowledgement. But I'll indulge.

 

Secondly, no one is giving him a free pass. He definitely needs to work on the turnovers. Furthermore, no one is evaluating these QBs under a different set of rules. I laid out data of all 3 QBs and considered the circumstances surrounding them and made my own evaluation.

 

I mean, all I hear from Luck supporters about RG3 and Wilson is "Oh they've only played for one year so we can't say they're great yet." Meanwhile these same people go on and on about how awesome Luck is and how he's the next Peyton Manning. Uh... double standard much? Why is Luck not held to the same "Only One Year" rule as everyone else?

 

There is a distinction between being great and saying someone has the potential to be great. Again, I don't recall seeing any of that in this thread. However though, I do recall me giving all of these young QBs praises.

 

 

Another thing is this whole rookie yardage record thing Luck fans like to tout. "Look at how many yards he threw for! He's amazing!" This while ignoring that... while impressive... anyone can pad their yardage when all they do is throw deep-balls. It means nothing except that Colts were always playing from behind. Meanwhile these same people who go nuts for Luck's yardageagain give the cold shoulder to Wilson (Who tied the rookie TD record) and RG3 (Who probably would have broken it if he'd stayed healthy). Call me crazy but I always thought TDs were more important than yardage. Not to these people.

 

Again, I don't recall mentioning Luck's yardage record let along giving it praise and no one is giving the cold shoulder to RG3 or Wilson.

 

This of course beings up the tired "He had no offense" argument. Which, of course, totally ignores the fact that Luck was throwing at one of the best WRs in the league (Reggie Wayne), and a backfield that combined for about 1350 yards and 6 tds. Not the best ground game ever, but he had far more help from the running game than Luck fans are prepared to admit.

 

This is the perfect example of cherry picking circumstances. Again, if you read my post, it's pretty obvious that I didn't ignore Reggie Wayne's contributions giving him recognition. You cherry pick one WR for your stance but disregard all the help that the other QBs had with running games and a #1 defense as if that plays no part in it at all. Also, saying that Luck didn't have the best ground game ever is an understatement. The Colts were 22nd in the league in rushing. The Colts RBs absent Lucks rushing yards would be 28th in the league and only 5 TDs on the season without Luck's stats. Your last sentence is based off nothing factual and appears to be nothing but a generalization.

 

I also like the fact that Luck fans, in their zeal to point out how many times Luck threw the ball and for how many yards, like to ignore his 18 ints and 10 fumbles. Now to me, there is nothing more important in a QB than taking care of the football. This is something that Luck failed gloriously at. do Luck fans care? Of course not. They just point at Manning's rookie season (As if that actually proves anything. just because Manning had alot of turnovers his rookie year and turned himself around doesn't guarantee Luck will.) and change the subject back to his passing Yardage.

 

Also there's the illusion that Luck "led" this team to the playoffs. While he certainly factored into it. What got this team to the playoffs was not simply Luck. It was, as mentioned previously by others, the Colts rallying around Chuck Pagano, and beating up on all the bottom-feeders carded up on their "softest-in-the-league" schedule, and Luck managing to barely dig his team out of a few of the holes he dug them into for those much glorified "come-back wins". which brings me to another point. Why is Luck glirified for his comeback wins instead of being picked apart for constantly getting his team behind with dumb turnovers in the first place?

 

I'm willing to say a quantifiable factor can play a part in success but not the sole reason for success if that's what you were trying to infer. Luck only did beat 3 playoff teams: Packers, Texans and the Vikings but you can't control who you play. No one is calling them an elite team but playing in the NFL and winning games as a rookie QB isn't easy regardless of who you play; especially with the lack of support that Luck had which seems to be greatly disregarded to the Luck opposers. The lack of a running game which was one of the worst in the league which you demean, one of the worst O-lines in the league in a pass heavy offense, and a bad defense all on the shoulders of a rookie QB. You claim it Chuck Pagano's inspiration and a WR. Definitely contributing factors. But no doubt Luck carried that team when just about every facet of his team was average to below average and the burden fell on him. It's undeniable that he carried his team. Luck's stats weren't pretty but it goes to show how effective he was with the plays he did make which was the reason for the Colts success.

 

Furthermore, again, I've already acknowledged Luck's turnovers and the affect they had on his comeback winning games; none. In those 7 comeback winning / 4th quarter winning games, opposing teams scored only 10 points off his turnovers. So, there was no hole for him to dig himself out of.

 

Now, I do think Luck will improve, but I'm sick of the double-standards of his fans. He isn't the best rookie QB ever. He isn't even the best rookie QB of his draft class so far. Yards and passing attempts prove nothing. They are empty stats being clung to by desperate fanboys. Do yourselves a favor and hold luck to the same standards as all the other rookies. Stop giving him free passes he doesn't deserve.

 

A lot of your ranting either seems to be aimed towards things I already addressed/acknowledged, faulty generalizations or arguing stances that no one even proposed; which has me thinking your ranting is aimed towards the general population of Luck fans which makes a good portion of your post irrelevant because some of the stuff you said isn't even mentioned in this thread [empty arguments].

 

No one is proclaiming Luck the best rookie ever or even saying he's way better than the other two rookie QBs. My main argument was the burden he had to carry which was undeniably heavier at a higher difficulty level (asked to do way more with less) still having success on a very average team and was the main reason they did have success (carrying). Comparing with two other rookie QBs who had great success with more favorable eye satisfying numbers but also in more favorable situations with better supporting casts/better teams and less complicated systems/schemes. What I'm not doing is demeaning or discrediting other people with contrasting opinions but managing to have healthy discussions with people who are providing their arguments on the matter. Ultimately, no one is wrong because everyone is entitled to their opinion and arguments can be made on all accounts and I shared mines. You just need to calm down with the condescending attitude and exaggerated claims as if this thread consisted of any bias or senseless homers. The post provided in this thread were well thought out, researched, took effort, and provided factual data. Their were no Luck nutt huggers or fanboys in this thread. With you coincidentally being a Seahawks fan and with the disposition of post, you're coming off more sour then informative.

Edited by dutchff7
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like all three of them. Of the three, I see Wilson and Luck having the greatest chance to bring home a championship. While I like Griffin too, and he's undoubtedly a bona fide franchise QB (as all three are), it still remains to be seen how he will transition to a legitimate NFL style offense. This past year the offense was tailored to suit his college experience. But beyond even that, it's clear that he cannot continue to play that style and hope to have any longevity in his career. Now I do think he's capable of making that transition too even though I concede it's not a given.

 

But ultimately, I'd look at that franchise and it's just horrible. They don't draft particularly well. They don't add a lot of talent. Organization wise, they don't really have a definitive direction. To me, they appear to be a more talented, but equally chaotic version of the Philadelphia Eagles. I don't have any expectation that franchise is going to even reach the conference championship based on their modest success in adding talent that fits outside of round 1. Although I'm sure Morris will be propped up to rebut that assertion, he is a decided outlier in that regard. The rebuttal typically begins and ends with his name.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wilson played the most 'NFL style' of the offenses, and as his attempts show he was eased off the training wheels in a run heavy offense. Ill end with they're all TOP 10 potential and I wouldn't be shocked to see any of them get a ring. Ill take Wilson for what I like in a QB though. Would happily have any, but given the option, Wilson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of difficult circumstances, it must have been really tough on Luck to have to face the easiest schedule of any team in the NFL last year. Russell Wilson is so dang lucky for getting to play the 49ers, Rams, and Cardinals defenses 6 times a year!

 

As for the people making the excuse that Luck's numbers are mediocre because he was forced to throw downfield so much, ahhh no....his stats on shorter distance throws are poor as well. Check out these numbers based on throwing distance.

 

Throws 1-10 yards passed line of scrimmage:

165/279, 59.1% completions, 1637 yards, 9 TDs, 4 INTs, 80.6 passer rating (25th best rating in NFL)

 

Throws 11-20 yards passed line of scrimmage:

77/162, 47.5% completions, 1302 yards, 4 TDs, 8 INTs, 62.8 passer rating (26th best rating in NFL)

 

As for downfield throws, Luck only attempted 3 more passes 31+ yards downfield than Russell Wilson did. Luck had 32 attempts and Wilson had 29. Luck's rating on those throws is actually slightly better than Wilson. Luck's is 75.3 and Wilson's is 72.8. Bottom line is that Luck's inefficiencies throwing the ball short to intermediate distances is why his numbers are so mediocre.

 

Update: I looked back and realized these numbers have already been mentioned and disputed. I DO believe the ineptitude of the talent around Luck is being exaggerated a bit by other posters.

Edited by Minny
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×