Dutch 874 Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Apparently, several people are forgetting that it was proved that Andrew Luck wasn't cleaning up his own mess from the games he came back and won. That's a false perception of people who might have been just looking at stats. Luck didn't bury his team with turnovers. Luck was carrying and willed his team to wins. Edited July 10, 2014 by Dutch 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted July 13, 2014 Luck had a better year than Tom Brady so....yeah.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.AirMcNair. 1,232 Posted July 13, 2014 Luck had a better year than Tom Brady so....yeah.... No, he didn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted July 13, 2014 No, he didn't. Oh yeah ? how so ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.AirMcNair. 1,232 Posted July 13, 2014 Oh yeah ? how so ? Brady played at a high(arguably higher, but whatever) level with a much worse supporting cast. Seems pretty simple to me. Some people even argue that last year was Brady's best year ever given the circumstances. I dunno if I agree with that, but he was still playing at an elite level, something Luck hasn't reached just yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted July 14, 2014 Brady played at a high(arguably higher, but whatever) level with a much worse supporting cast. Seems pretty simple to me. Some people even argue that last year was Brady's best year ever given the circumstances. I dunno if I agree with that, but he was still playing at an elite level, something Luck hasn't reached just yet. Ok lets talk about this all pro cast that Luck had shall we. Ok TY Hilton Was his number one for the majority of the season, his #2 was none other than all pro DHB. his TE was Coby Fleener, His 3rd was a Deion Branch the Patriots no longer found useful or Lavon Brazil. So I mean when we talk about do shit receivers who really had it worse ? So all things considered Edelman is better than hilton, DHB/Branch is right there with Thompkins/Dobkins. TE's is a wash except for the seven games Gronk was healthy but I will save that to mitigate the 7 games Wayne was healthy. Then consider Amendola started 1 game less than Wayne and played in 5 more this actually isnt hard to call. Then lets talk about O line, I mean does this one even need to be debated ? Brady in a landslide. Running game, again does this need to even be discussed ? Brady not by a landslide but a sizable margin. As to defense The Patriots ranked higher in the two most important categories for helping you QB. Turnovers, and Points allowed. Then look at performance of both. Brady had .3 higher on his QBR as well as about 200 yards more from scrimmage. Luck had 2 more touchdowns, .2% higher completion rating, and 2 less interceptions. I really cant see how Luck does not win considering Brady actually had the better pieces around him and still only out performed Luck in 2 of the 5 major categories for QB's. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted July 14, 2014 Edelman is not better than TY Hilton. That is crazy talk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted July 14, 2014 (edited) I don't think that Luck is better than Brady yet (though he's ascending and Brady's declining) and I certainly don't agree that Edelman is better than Hilton, but I do think that Ngata makes some good points re: supporting casts. The other thing I'll add to the equation is that Luck ran the ball 63 times for 377 yds, 4 touchdowns, and 23 1DNs. So yeah, I'd say that the two teams had comparable receiving corps, but that the Pats had better OL play in both phases. That might seem reversed based on how many times Brady was sacked, but you have to consider Luck's mobility and how many times he escaped pressure to get rid of the ball. Had Wayne and Allen stayed healthy, it would have been no contest in favor of the Colts having the better group. But they didn't so it wasn't. Edited July 14, 2014 by KempBolt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted July 14, 2014 If you take Luck's rushing stats out of the equation, the Colts ran 346 times for 1366 yards at a 3.9 YPC clip. If you take Brady's rushing stats out of the equation, the Pats ran 438 times for 2047 yards at a 4.7 YPC clip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dutch 874 Posted July 14, 2014 It's a no contest. Brady definitely had a stronger supporting cast. How great his offensive line was having forever to throw in the pocket and being a huge factor in how successful their run game alone wins it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BradyFan81 404 Posted July 14, 2014 The Patriots offensive line was not good last year. They were pretty damn inconsistent. Probably the worst oline I've seen us have in years. I didn't watch a ton of Colts games so I don't know how ours compares with them but I know that the Patriots offensive line was pretty bad this year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted July 14, 2014 The Patriots offensive line was not good last year. They were pretty damn inconsistent. Probably the worst oline I've seen us have in years. I didn't watch a ton of Colts games so I don't know how ours compares with them but I know that the Patriots offensive line was pretty bad this year. It didn't look like they were elite in protection by any stretch, but I still think they were a little better than the Colts in that regard. And they were pretty obviously better blocking the run. Luck got hit 109 times last season. Brady, 81. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted July 15, 2014 It didn't look like they were elite in protection by any stretch, but I still think they were a little better than the Colts in that regard. And they were pretty obviously better blocking the run. Luck got hit 109 times last season. Brady, 81. Part of the reason Brady doesn't take as many hits is he's, what, a 15 year vet? I don't like the guy either, but come on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted July 15, 2014 Part of the reason Brady doesn't take as many hits is he's, what, a 15 year vet? I don't like the guy either, but come on. What come on? Is it radical to argue that Brady's OL is slightly better in pass pro than Indy? Looking at the rosters, I'd call that obvious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted July 15, 2014 Part of the reason Brady doesn't take as many hits is he's, what, a 15 year vet? I don't like the guy either, but come on. What come on? Is it radical to argue that Brady's OL is slightly better in pass pro than Indy? Looking at the rosters, I'd call that obvious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted July 15, 2014 Using that stat isn't a very powerful argument though. That's all I'm saying. You'd expect Luck to take more sacks/hits because he's a really young player. Young players take more negative plays than a guy like Brady who has been in the league for a long time always under a great coaching staff. I might even expect Brady to take less sacks/hits with an average oline and with Luck having an awesome one. Brady knows that especially at his age not taking hits is going to keep him healthy and it's also going to give him less chance of being picked off or sacked or fumbling. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GA_Eagle 595 Posted July 15, 2014 I know this sounds like homer speak and maybe it is, but if we're putting stuff to bed, give me Nick Foles over Luck, Wilson, Griffen or Kaep. I don't think his season was a fluke and am excited to see him in the future. All have bright futures but his past season was better than any. I hope I'm not wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted July 15, 2014 Using that stat isn't a very powerful argument though. That's all I'm saying. You'd expect Luck to take more sacks/hits because he's a really young player. Young players take more negative plays than a guy like Brady who has been in the league for a long time always under a great coaching staff. I might even expect Brady to take less sacks/hits with an average oline and with Luck having an awesome one. Brady knows that especially at his age not taking hits is going to keep him healthy and it's also going to give him less chance of being picked off or sacked or fumbling. Brady took more negative plays (40 sacks vs 32 for Luck). Luck was just hit more often. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted July 15, 2014 Brady took more negative plays (40 sacks vs 32 for Luck). Luck was just hit more often. What about INT's and Fumbles off pressure? I actually would have never guessed that. That's very impressive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted July 15, 2014 What about INT's and Fumbles off pressure? I actually would have never guessed that. That's very impressive. I have no way of knowing which INT's and/or fumbles were caused by pressure, but on the whole Luck had fewer of both. Luck: 9 Interceptions (1.6 INT%) and 6 fumbles Brady: 11 Interceptions (1.8 INT%) and 9 fumbles 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241 Posted July 15, 2014 I know this sounds like homer speak and maybe it is, but if we're putting stuff to bed, give me Nick Foles over Luck, Wilson, Griffen or Kaep. I don't think his season was a fluke and am excited to see him in the future. All have bright futures but his past season was better than any. I hope I'm not wrong. Even as a Lions fan who couldn't care less about the Eagles fan, Nick Foles is easily the #1 thing I'm looking to forward to for this upcoming season. Not because i'm a fan (or not) but because I'm actually curious to see how he looks after that crazy season. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RazorStar 4,025 Posted July 15, 2014 Pressure stats for Luck and Brady via PFF Indianapolis Colts 31 sacks, 68 hits, 147 hurries on 570 attempts New England Patriots 41 sacks, 37 hits, 145 hurries on 628 attempts Now PFF's sack numbers do not match up with the official numbers due to the way they measure scrambles and such, but it does paint a nasty picture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bay 2,003 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) I'm glad Dmac agrees about the Colts defense sucking argument. And contrary to popular beliefs, he doesn't just throw the ball a lot because he digs his team into holes. The Colts have to throw the ball because that's the only way they can move down the field. And that's the only way to not lose games when your defense gives up a ton of big plays. Naturally he's going to turn the ball over a lot. Teams know they have to throw, and Luck while having to throw as much as a Peyton Manning doesn't have the luxury of having the talent that he has. I know he really doesn't, see green smiley. Edited July 17, 2014 by Bay Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turry 755 Posted July 18, 2014 I don't like the running game argument. Colts were dumb and stubborn and decided to start player who they gave a first rd (loltrich) for over the better guy. With that same line Donald averaged 5 yards per clip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KempBolt 498 Posted July 18, 2014 I don't like the running game argument. Colts were dumb and stubborn and decided to start player who they gave a first rd (loltrich) for over the better guy. With that same line Donald averaged 5 yards per clip. But the final result was still that Luck didn't have an effective running game to help him most of the time right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
