Top 10 QBs

[Dutch 874]

Not 100% relevant... But who so this say more about... Alex Smith or Andrew Luck? Ew.

#Chiefs' Alex Smith: 308-508 (60.6), 3,313, 6.52/att, 23 TD, 7 int, 89.1 rating. #ColtsAndrew Luck: 343-570 (60.2), 3,822, 6.71, 23/9, 87.0

 

 

The stats look very similar. But we know of the deception stats can tell at first glance. We've already dug deeper into Alex Smith's stats. 26% of his throws were behind the LoS and 52% within 10 yards. We know that Jamaal Charles did all of Alex Smith's dirty work. Beyond the stats are deeper stats as well as the eye test. There was nothing impressive about Alex Smith. He was solidly average in his game manager role. Luck however made plays all throughout the field and actually was capable of throwing the ball outside and down the field.

 

The Chiefs beat who they were suppose to beat last year. They lost against ever single playoff team except a Michael Vick led Eagles. Smith wasn't really impressive in those games. However, I saw Luck play some outstanding games against some of the best teams in the league. Knocking off the undefeated Broncos and that amazing come back win over the Seahawks which was one of the best games of the year. I saw Luck make some great throws and willed his team to win games while I saw Alex Smith check down to Jamaal Charles the entire season.

 

The game is deeper than baseline stats.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Dutch

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Ranking Andrew Luck on lists like this is challenging because we all know what he's capable of. He hasn't really performed on that elite level yet, at least not consistently, but entering his third year with the receivers Indy has assembled for him, I'd say he's primed to explode, or else the "overrated" tag will really start to stick.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

 

The stats look very similar. But we know of the deception stats can tell at first glance. We've already dug deeper into Alex Smith's stats. 26% of his throws were behind the LoS and 52% within 10 yards. We know that Jamaal Charles did all of Alex Smith's dirty work. Beyond the stats are deeper stats as well as the eye test. There was nothing impressive about Alex Smith. He was solidly average in his game manager role. Luck however made plays all throughout the field and actually was capable of throwing the ball outside and down the field.

 

The Chiefs beat who they were suppose to beat last year. They lost against ever single playoff team except a Michael Vick led Eagles. Smith wasn't really impressive in those games. However, I saw Luck play some outstanding games against some of the best teams in the league. Knocking off the undefeated Broncos and that amazing come back win over the Seahawks which was one of the best games of the year. I saw Luck make some great throws and willed his team to win games while I saw Alex Smith check down to Jamaal Charles the entire season.

 

The game is deeper than baseline stats.

 

Ya, and we also know that the Chiefs have one of the worst offensive units in all of football, and Alex Smith still put up number on par with the great one. And are you going through and analyzing strength of opponents for everyone on your list, too? I sure hope so... If you go those lengths to defend the horrible play of Andrew Luck,.

 

Let's not make excuses for Andrew Luck... He was heralded as the next great QB of the era, and thus far, he is up there in the ranks of Alex Smith which all of you constantly tear down.

 

I don't blame anyone for putting Luck on their list, even though I would lean towards disagreement. I see the allure of it. But let's just keep reality in check. There are some, less popular and experienced players, that just don't get the attention nor the praise (no matter how big or small) they deserve. Meanwhile, comparable players who have had the good attention and has the big name... We make excuses for them when they fall short.

 

It's not all that insane that somebody had Alex Smith on their list...

Edited July 9, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[KempBolt 498]

Andrew Luck is polarizing. He's either underrated or overrated by just about everyone. Personally, I think that right now he's an above average starter who wouldn't make it into my top ten list, but is solidly above Smith. Which is totally fine for a QB going into his 3rd year. The two big differences are 1) Luck largely carries his offense, whereas Smith's offense largely carries him. And 2) he's getting better at 24 years of age, whereas the 30 year old Smith basically is what he is.

 

If we want a fair comparison...

 

Smith 2005-2006: 56% completion, 6.2 YPA, 17 TD (2.8 TD%), 27 INT (4.4 INT%), 70% PA < 10 yds, 74 carries, 250 yds, 3.4 YPC, 2 TD, 2 TD, 21 total fumbles in 25 games

 

Luck 2012-2013: 57% completion, 6.9 YPA, 46 TD (3.8 TD%), 27 INT (2.3 INT%), 62% PA <10 yds, 125 carries, 632 yds, 5.1 YPC, 9 TD, 16 total fumbles in 32 games

 

In a few categories, Luck only has a modest edge on Smith. But when it comes to scoring points or turning the ball over, Luck is well ahead. And clearly more has been asked of Luck. He's also been vastly more effective as a runner, despite the fact that Smith was known as a better runner coming out of Utah.

Edited July 9, 2014 by KempBolt

[KempBolt 498]

1. Aaron Rodgers

 

2. Peyton Manning

 

3. Drew Brees

 

4. Tom Brady :patriots:

 

5. Philip Rivers

 

6. Ben Roethlisberger

 

7. Matt Ryan

 

8. Tony Romo

 

9. Russell Wilson

 

10. Cam Newton

[BradyFan81 404]

Most people only hate Luck cause of the media hype, no real valid reasons based off his play. Just haters. He's had a terrific start to his career, and if he keeps improving is going to be one of the best QBs for the next decade.

[GA_Eagle 595]

Keeping Luck out of a top 10 does not equal hating on him. He's good and has a high ceiling but he has not done anything so incredible in his couple of years to rank him above a lot of vets that he's being ranked above in a lot of these lists. Top 5? Please.

 

Also Matt Ryan is really really good. About # 6 on my hypothetical list.

[KempBolt 498]

Most people only hate Luck cause of the media hype, no real valid reasons based off his play. Just haters. He's had a terrific start to his career, and if he keeps improving is going to be one of the best QBs for the next decade.

 

In a lot of cases, yes. In others, I think it's an overcorrection to what they're seeing in people who are too effusive in their praise for Luck. A lot of people see where they think Luck is headed (elite status) and treat him as though he's already there, when he isn't. So when contrarians see that, they go the other way and seek to tear him down beyond what's reasonable.

 

Personally, I think Luck will eventually be the best QB in the NFL. I see that kind of greatness in him. But QB's don't develop as quickly as other positions.

[Dutch 874]

1. Aaron Rodgers

 

2. Drew Brees

 

3. Tom Brady :Patriots:

 

4. Peyton Manning

 

5. Ben Roethlisberger

 

6. Phillip Rivers

 

7. Matt Ryan

 

8. Tony Romo

 

9. Andrew Luck

 

10. Cam Newton

Edited July 9, 2014 by Dutch

[Cherry 1,302]

Playoffs after half time. Andrew Luck is the Chiefs QB and Smith is the Colts. Who wins?

 

 

Basically, if you want a guy who won't sink or rise the team (Say you're talented like the Seahawks or 49ers) then he will go with you to the super bowl and potentially win. If you are a shitty team looking for a franchise QB who is insanely clutch and can be your guy for 12-14 years, you take Luck.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Chernobyl426

[Cobresol 18]

RE: Luck vs. Smith, the deciding factor is that this was only Luck's second season. He's every bit as good as Smith is in a quarter of the time.

 

As for why I put both Luck and Wilson on my top-10 list, especially so high over 'proven' vets... they both pass the 'eye test'.

 

I've seen more of Wilson than Luck, but both QBs do things that literally make me say 'wow!' or 'how did he do that?!' They both play so naturally and fluidly out there, then unleash flashes of skill usually only exhibited by 'better' vets (specifically, Wilson reminds me of a better version of Ben Roethlisberger).

 

They also continually show off that improvable 'clutch' gene. It's not so much that what they do is so unique (although to some extent it is), but more when they do it. Perhaps it's just random coincidence that both get so many chances and then convert them with the game on the line, but there's something to be said for players that do that consistently and seemingly 'without fear'.

 

There's just a confidence with those guys. And I would genuinely be terrified of either guy if my team were playing their team and kicking off to them [tied or only up by a score] with 2:00 to go in a game.

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

Lol. This "clutch" stuff is killing me.

[Dutch 874]

Eight 4th quarter comebacks and 11 game winning drives is only the best in NFL history by a QB in their first two seasons.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Josh Freeman had a lot of comebacks early in his career too.

 

*strawman away*

[Turry 755]

Comebacks are an overrated stat. Comebacks are not done by the individual and if you did not play like dogshit at the begging you would not need to comeback.

Edited July 10, 2014 by monstersofthemidway

[Dutch 874]

A win period isn't done by one person alone.There is a visible impact you can see that a QB can have on the game being the most impactful position. A football team is like a body with many body parts. All the body parts need each other in order to function properly as a whole. However, there are some body parts that are more important than others and can have a greater impact. That's the same situation with the QB position. Ofcourse no one is saying that one QB did it all by himself. There had to be someone to block and someone to catch the ball, and for the defense to slow down the opposing teams offense etc. BUT, the impact of the QB position is so great, when the QB makes plays, they can make a substantial difference in the game unlike any other position. And that's what Luck does in those clutch situations.

[Dutch 874]

Comebacks are an overrated stat. Comebacks are not done by the individual and if you did not play like dogshit at the begging you would not need to comeback.

 

This is truly becoming a circular argument. That wasn't the case for Luck. In those comeback games.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Comebacks might be an overrated stat but playing well at the end of games with the pressure that comes with that situation isn't an overrated quality. It's hard to put that kind of stuff into numbers, but when you see it, you know it.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Ya, and in Andrew Luck's case he is usually throwing games away early... Why should I give him so much credit for "comebacks" when it's his fault they are down because of him to begin with. Congrats for rebounding, but you shouldn't be in that position that often anyway. Keep moving down the list, bro.

[Dutch 874]

Ya, and in Andrew Luck's case he is usually throwing games away early... Why should I give him so much credit for "comebacks" when it's his fault they are down because of him to begin with. Congrats for rebounding, but you shouldn't be in that position that often anyway. Keep moving down the list, bro.

 

You aren't elaborating on anything and continuously keep saying the same thing when it was already proven that he doesn't throw games away. So please, explain, give examples of when Andrew Luck throws games away and then rebounds for the comeback (only case was the Chiefs game) because your claims seem to be faulty observations with no real substance.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Ya, and in Andrew Luck's case he is usually throwing games away early... Why should I give him so much credit for "comebacks" when it's his fault they are down because of him to begin with. Congrats for rebounding, but you shouldn't be in that position that often anyway. Keep moving down the list, bro.

You're right, but lets keep in mind that he's a really young QB on a pretty young team, especially when they lost Wayne. From the jump he was thrown into the thick of it and asked to do things that veteran QB's do. He's asked to throw down field A LOT. The ability to shake off a bad game and make the plays at the end of the game to win is important. Every QB has bad games, but if your defense can keep you in that game, having a QB with a short memory is key. Lets not forget how bad the Colts were before Luck came to town. Since he's been there they haven't missed the playoffs. You can say he's overrated or he'll never be that good, but honestly you'd just be wrong. Is he an elite QB right now? No, but he's inarguably one of the top 15 QB's in the league and still getting better.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

You aren't elaborating on anything and continuously keep saying the same thing when it was already proven that he doesn't throw games away. So please, explain, give examples of when Andrew Luck throws games away and then rebounds for the comeback (only case was the Chiefs game) because your claims seem to be faulty observations with no real substance.

Andrew Luck's 1st 10 attempts per game are his worst bar none.. With under a 60% completion and nearly a 1:1 TD INT ratio. His next 10 attempts aren't much better... With just barely over 55% completion but much fewer INT.... It isn't until he throws over 30 times in a game before he puts up elite type numbers.

 

Andrew Luck's passer rating is 20 points higher when he throws more than 30 times (by the time he hits 31+ attempts, we can both agree it's late in the game, correct?) than any other point. And it's 30 points higher than his first 10 attempts.

 

His 2nd half numbers also have quite a large difference.

 

1st Half --- Under 60% completion... Under 7 YPA... 12TD to 7 INT

2nd Half --- 62% completion... Nearly 8 YPA... 17 TD to 9 INT

 

 

 

You're right, but lets keep in mind that he's a really young QB on a pretty young team, especially when they lost Wayne. From the jump he was thrown into the thick of it and asked to do things that veteran QB's do. He's asked to throw down field A LOT. The ability to shake off a bad game and make the plays at the end of the game to win is important. Every QB has bad games, but if your defense can keep you in that game, having a QB with a short memory is key. Lets not forget how bad the Colts were before Luck came to town. Since he's been there they haven't missed the playoffs. You can say he's overrated or he'll never be that good, but honestly you'd just be wrong. Is he an elite QB right now? No, but he's inarguably one of the top 15 QB's in the league and still getting better.

Absolutely.. I am the one staggering expectations here. Lol. I am calling it as I see it, and that is the fact that Andrew Luck is nowhere near elite and while he very well may (and be expected) be down the road... That isn't right now. Obviously people don't exactly like how I construct my lists either... but I am not going to put a guy Top 10 or whatever because of what he might become or the potential he has.

 

Just like with people putting Alex Smith on their lists, I am not completely bashing the idea that people think Luck is Top 10. I will debate that idea, but I can see the perspective. Which is why I spoke up when people got all upset at Alex Smith being on somebody's list... I am not asking you to agree with it, but open your mind enough to at least try seeing through someone else's perspective for a second.

 

Although it is a question I think should be noted and you kind of hinted on... With the Colts drafting Luck and with the expectations being SO high and the fact they threw him in right away and asked him to do SO much.. Does that permanently stunt his growth and development as a QB? Obviously younger guys are going to have a slightly different approach and vision than slightly more experienced ones who know how the league and defenses work before they actually face them...

 

Is Luck going to be able to take those same steps in his growth because of the circumstances he found himself in?... Or is he more or less going to just kinda flat line. Not saying he won't get better, because he should... But will it be less drastic of improvement than we expect because he is already set in his ways?

Edited July 10, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[KempBolt 498]

Among players who started at least 8 games last season, Luck's INT% ranked him 4th best in the NFL. A mere 1.6% of his passes were picked off. Pretty low number for a guy who is treated like a turnover machine by the contrarians.

[Dutch 874]

Andrew Luck's 1st 10 attempts per game are his worst bar none.. With under a 60% completion and nearly a 1:1 TD INT ratio. His next 10 attempts aren't much better... With just barely over 55% completion but much fewer INT.... It isn't until he throws over 30 times in a game before he puts up elite type numbers.

 

Andrew Luck's passer rating is 20 points higher when he throws more than 30 times (by the time he hits 31+ attempts, we can both agree it's late in the game, correct?) than any other point. And it's 30 points higher than his first 10 attempts.

 

His 2nd half numbers also have quite a large difference.

 

1st Half --- Under 60% completion... Under 7 YPA... 12TD to 7 INT

2nd Half --- 62% completion... Nearly 8 YPA... 17 TD to 9 INT

 

 

Luck's 1st 10 attempts are his lowest of the bunch but it is by no means as horrible as you claim "throwing the game away" worthy label. His numbers are comparably close to Tom Brady's first 10 attempts give or take 1-2 TDs and interceptions (Also, his next 10 attempts are better because he actually throws no interceptions). Furthermore, Luck's first 10 attempts can't bury his team like you claim he does when out of 180 attempts only 5 interceptions while still throwing for more TDs. That's definitely an over exaggeration. It's not like he performed like Eli throwing 7 ints and 2 TDs; not throwing enough TDs as an equalizer.

 

You picked the most minuscule of stats and blew it out of proportion to try and use it to your advantage. Does he make more impact plays as the game goes along? Yes, he does. However, he doesn't play so bad to the extent that he buries the team like you are claiming lol. Check out Eli, Geno, and RG3 for guys who buried their teams in the beginning of games. Luck doesn't fit that mold, sorry. Not to mention, the first 10 attempts is such a small sample size to where the effect isn't that great. You were much better off doing it by quarters rather than using the 1st 10 attempts. It would have made a better/stronger case for your argument.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Dutch

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

He plays like a bottom tier QB in those situations. Under 60% completion? Under 7 YPA? 1:1ish TD:INT ratio. That's bad. If this wasn't Andrew Luck we were talking about, you guys would be ripping him to shreds for putting up pathetic type numbers like that.

If you give him those numbers for an entire game or season, that's not good enough in this day and age to be a full time starting QB. You can pretend like I am over-exaggerating, but are you going to volunteer to take a QB with those numbers? My guess is no. It flat out is not good enough. Maybe 50 years ago... But not in today's NFL.

If Luck plays better to start games or even in the first half... His team wouldn't always be put into situations requiring his "heroics". Period. If you want to sit there and tell me that Luck playing better to open games wouldn't alleviate the need for all of those comeback wins, I will straight up call you a liar... lol.

Honestly his numbers are very luke warm across the board, anyway. Obviously it goes beyond the numbers, and I totally agree with that. But it's still hard to not be put off by the guy elected to the HOF before being drafted and seeing numbers like that. The only thing that is actually impressive about those numbers are just how much better he is after he throws the ball 30 times. It's almost uncanny.

I also don't think I would be extremely excited to employ a QB who can only look elite when I ask him to throw 40 times.

We obviously have very different criteria when looking at the success of QBs... And that's fine. Andrew Luck, right now... Is pretty mediocre to below average.