Andrew Luck not ready to start regular season

[Royale with Cheese]

And Luck lost his games against the Jags and Texans right?

Luck is 9-0 against the Titans

Luck is 6-2 against the Jags

Luck is 5-3 against the Texans

[GoBills808]

Luck is the real deal. Living just outside Indy I am forced to watch him. You can't argue with his talent. But he's like other QBsvthat don't have much of a team around them; he forces stuff a lot. He takes too many hits. Think of Elway before he got a real O line and running game and respectable defense. Soon as he got those two SB wins.

This. The vast majority of people who watch him play get it. For the rest, I guess there's Tyrod Taylor.

[Alphadawg7]

So when you said "...Because he does well in fantasy as a high volume thrower, people over look that he has more Int's and Fumbles than TDs in his career. Its amazing how most people don't even know that..." you were talking about his career in the postseason? Because you said his career, and then were amazed how most people don't even know that.

 

Colts are trapped with Luck...and you're trying to equate his and Taylor's respective 'struggles'...please go on.

Are you guys being serious? Is this what the guy meant the other day when he said Bills fans were stupid?

 

Literally the very next sentence clarifies I was talking about the post season...but you carefully removed that to create a new context. You don't think I know how to count? Geezus. Said he has more turnovers that TDs in his career in the playoffs like 10 times in this thread. But keep trying to pretend I said something I didn't. I already acknowledged it wasn't CRYSTAL clear, but it was also still pretty obvious. I mean I even further elaborated stating in those 3 post seasons he never even had one with more TDs than Int to be clear his more turnovers than TDs wasn't skewed by one bad year, that he's had 3 bad postseasons after compiling a bunch of fantasy stats in the regular season. And yes, it amazes me how most people don't know that as I have people always argue he was great in the post season

Edited August 30, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[GoBills808]

 

Literally the very next sentence clarifies I was talking about the post season...but you carefully removed that to create a new context. You don't think I know how to count? Geezus. Said he has more turnovers that TDs in his career in the playoffs like 10 times in this thread. But keep trying to pretend I said something I didn't. I already acknowledged it wasn't CRYSTAL clear, but it was also still pretty obvious. I mean I even further elaborated stating in those 3 post seasons he never even had one with more TDs than Int to be clear his more turnovers than TDs wasn't skewed by one bad year, that he's had 3 bad postseasons after compiling a bunch of fantasy stats in the regular season. And yes, it amazes me how most people don't know that as I have people always argue he was great in the post season

I just don't see what you're trying to prove. That Luck isn't a good QB? Because he is. His talent for the position is undeniable. I don't know what we're arguing about anymore.

 

He's consistently top 10 in the league for me, and closer to 5 than 10 more often than not. I consider him a lead pipe lock franchise guy, and I would trade pretty much anything to get one of those. That's it.

[Royale with Cheese]

 

Sorry I was talking about Playoffs...as you see in rest of the paragraph, but realize I said playoffs after that sentence and wasn't clear, so my bad.

 

But on his regular season totals, you forgot his 27 fumbles while passing. The fumbles you mention are only on plays where he was labeled a runner. He has 105 Interceptions and Fumbles in the regular season combined. Anyone who throws a pick or fumbles 105 times in 70 games (less than 4 and a half seasons of games) is not worth 4 first round picks and a cap strangling contract. Anyone who has more INTs than TDs in 3 playoff seasons, including never having one with more TDs than INTs doesn't deserve 4 first round picks and a cap killing contract. Add in that he has become a serious injury concern, and I will again say its one of the worst contracts in the NFL right now.

 

Colts are trapped with him, for better or worse.

 

I do find it interesting that people here will validate Luck, his struggles, etc over and over again, but if anyone here tries to logically discuss contributing factors to Taylors struggles its all excuses. Luck has become infallible, yet he's only played 5 years and managed 105 Fumbles and Interceptions and has been more fragile than Sammy the last 2 years.

 

Can you send me a link of how many of those fumbles and the ones that are lost? I can't find a site that tracks QB fumbles that aren't rushing attempts or beyond the LOS.

 

Interesting enough....the QB Luck replaced, Peyton Manning, had more INT's that TD's in his first 3 playoff seasons. His QB rating was around a 50.

[GoBills808]

 

Can you send me a link of how many of those fumbles and the ones that are lost? I can't find a site that tracks QB fumbles that aren't rushing attempts or beyond the LOS.

 

Interesting enough....the QB Luck replaced, Peyton Manning, had more INT's that TD's in his first 3 playoff seasons. His QB rating was around a 50.

I would be interested in those stats as well.

[Chuck Wagon]

Whispers around town here are that Luck may be out for the year

 

 

That's what I'm really beginning to wonder. It kind of has the feeling of him opening the season on PUP, them being 0-6 or 1-5 and deciding to shut him down. Ballard is new, has plenty of job security and doesn't seem to be in a huge rush to win now.

[Alphadawg7]

I just don't see what you're trying to prove. That Luck isn't a good QB? Because he is. His talent for the position is undeniable. I don't know what we're arguing about anymore.

 

He's consistently top 10 in the league for me, and closer to 5 than 10 more often than not. I consider him a lead pipe lock franchise guy, and I would trade pretty much anything to get one of those. That's it.

 

I said repeatedly he is a good QB...the point I made is that he has one of the worst contracts in football right now.

 

1. He has yet to play up to it.

2. His injury issues are compounding it.

3. That contract is a cap choking contract, and all Luck has proved up to this point is that he can carry a bad roster against bad teams, but not against good teams or the playoffs.

 

I have aslo repeatedly stated that he can still improve. But the bottom line is undeniable, he has been too mistake prone. And many of his "comebacks" he gets heralded for were both against bad teams and also comebacks from holes HE put them in with bad mistakes.

 

And as far as fumbles vs fumbles lost...who cares what the balance is between them, a fumble is a fumble.. A fumble, even when retaining the ball, is a terrible play resulting most often in negative yards, drive ending plays, turnovers, or significantly increasing the distance for a first down. 105 INTs and Fumbles in just 70 games is not very good, especially when you consider that was the regular season and the only time he actually had any success. His TD to Turnover ratio is atrocious in the postseason.

 

Luck has 80 Interceptions in 76 career games between Regular Season and Playoffs. Thats more than 1 per game. He also has 38 fumbles in 76 career games. Thats an average of a combined INT/Fumble rate of 1.55 per game played. Thats is not very good at all.

 

He has been more Jay Cutler than Aaron Rodgers. He has been more Jeff George than Steve Young. He has been a lot less than his LEGEND makes people believe he has been. Is he a bad QB, by no means...I am simply stating his success is over exaggerated and I would not want to be in the Colts shoes right now with that contract, his injury history, and his on field struggles.

[JohnC]

 

I said repeatedly he is a good QB...the point I made is that he has one of the worst contracts in football right now.

 

1. He has yet to play up to it.

2. His injury issues are compounding it.

3. That contract is a cap choking contract, and all Luck has proved up to this point is that he can carry a bad roster against bad teams, but not against good teams or the playoffs.

 

I have aslo repeatedly stated that he can still improve. But the bottom line is undeniable, he has been too mistake prone. And many of his "comebacks" he gets heralded for were both against bad teams and also comebacks from holes HE put them in with bad mistakes.

 

And as far as fumbles vs fumbles lost...who cares what the balance is between them, a fumble is a fumble.. A fumble, even when retaining the ball, is a terrible play resulting most often in negative yards, drive ending plays, turnovers, or significantly increasing the distance for a first down. 105 INTs and Fumbles in just 70 games is not very good, especially when you consider that was the regular season and the only time he actually had any success. His TD to Turnover ratio is atrocious in the postseason.

 

Luck has 80 Interceptions in 76 career games between Regular Season and Playoffs. Thats more than 1 per game. He also has 38 fumbles in 76 career games. Thats an average of a combined INT/Fumble rate of 1.55 per game played. Thats is not very good at all.

 

He has been more Jay Cutler than Aaron Rodgers. He has been more Jeff George than Steve Young. He has been a lot less than his LEGEND makes people believe he has been. Is he a bad QB, by no means...I am simply stating his success is over exaggerated and I would not want to be in the Colts shoes right now with that contract, his injury history, and his on field struggles.

He is a tremendously talented qb who has had to play behind some awful lines. That makes little sense. When you have an exceptionally talented qb such as he is you diminish what he can do because of the extreme battering that he has to absorb. The GM that was recently fired was not merely mediocre, he was stupendously stupid! He should have made it a priority to protect his gilded asset; he didn't.

 

In my opinion Luck isn't as good as Rogers or Brady but he could have been more of an elite qb with the right support. It's like having a sterling talent such as Watkins and having him take passes from mediocre qbs. Wasted talent because of dumb handling.

[Alphadawg7]

He is a tremendously talented qb who has had to play behind some awful lines. That makes little sense. When you have an exceptionally talented qb such as he is you diminish what he can do because of the extreme battering that he has to absorb. The GM that was recently fired was not merely mediocre, he was stupendously stupid! He should have made it a priority to protect his gilded asset; he didn't.

 

In my opinion Luck isn't as good as Rogers or Brady but he could have been more of an elite qb with the right support. It's like having a sterling talent such as Watkins and having him take passes from mediocre qbs. Wasted talent because of dumb handling.

 

Yet you and many call them excuses when anyone suggests any of the same things affect Tyrod Taylor. Bad line, poor weapons, bad defense, bad coaches/GM, etc. Yet Taylor has an exceptionally better track record of protecting the ball and is similar or better in many key QB statistics outside of yardage totals.

 

For the record, I am not comparing TT to Luck who is clearly a better passer than TT, just find it interesting how its always an "excuse" in Buffalo no matter who the QB is, but they are valid reasons when defending another teams QB every single time. Luck gets a pass on all his mistakes every time while people here label the same or similar factors here as just excuses.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[mannc]

He is a tremendously talented qb who has had to play behind some awful lines. That makes little sense. When you have an exceptionally talented qb such as he is you diminish what he can do because of the extreme battering that he has to absorb. The GM that was recently fired was not merely mediocre, he was stupendously stupid! He should have made it a priority to protect his gilded asset; he didn't.

 

In my opinion Luck isn't as good as Rogers or Brady but he could have been more of an elite qb with the right support. It's like having a sterling talent such as Watkins and having him take passes from mediocre qbs. Wasted talent because of dumb handling.

You really don't address Alphadawg's point. If Luck is so great, and his surrounding cast so awful, how did the Colts go 5-3 (with a 40-year old backup QB) when Luck was injured in 2015?

[Royale with Cheese]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/06/andrew-luck-contract-extension

 

Here's an opinion piece on Luck.

[JohnC]

 

Yet you and many call them excuses when anyone suggests any of the same things affect Tyrod Taylor. Bad line, poor weapons, bad defense, bad coaches/GM, etc. Yet Taylor has an exceptionally better track record of protecting the ball and is similar or better in many key QB statistics outside of yardage totals.

 

For the record, I am not comparing TT to Luck who is clearly a better passer than TT, just find it interesting how its always an "excuse" in Buffalo no matter who the QB is, but they are valid reasons when defending another teams QB every single time. Luck gets a pass on all his mistakes every time while people here label the same or similar factors here as just excuses.

Who is making excuses? Luck has been battered because of the line he has played behind? Do you disagree that that has impacted his game?

 

Whatever track record TT has there is no comparison between TT and Luck? I'm not saying that you are claiming that TT is better but the difference between the two is qualitatively different. I'll go so far as to say that because of his glaring limitations, regardless what stats you cite, he is not considered a franchise qb by any GM in the game including the GM he is currently playing for. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't be an adequate bridge qb, but nothing more.

 

As much as you want to extol the virtues of TT I have little doubt that before the season expires Peterman will be given the starting job because the staff already knows what TT has to offer. It's simply not good enough.

[4merper4mer]

Who is making excuses? Luck has been battered because of the line he has played behind? Do you disagree that that has impacted his game?

 

 

 

 

When someone fails to live up to expectations and others get blamed for this it is called....an excuse. It doesn't mean the excuse isn't valid but it is most certainly an excuse.

Luck is 9-0 against the Titans

Luck is 6-2 against the Jags

Luck is 5-3 against the Texans

 

 

Which, in keeping with your recent posts, is completely irrelevant to the question which was asked.

[Alphadawg7]

Who is making excuses? Luck has been battered because of the line he has played behind? Do you disagree that that has impacted his game?

 

Whatever track record TT has there is no comparison between TT and Luck? I'm not saying that you are claiming that TT is better but the difference between the two is qualitatively different. I'll go so far as to say that because of his glaring limitations, regardless what stats you cite, he is not considered a franchise qb by any GM in the game including the GM he is currently playing for. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't be an adequate bridge qb, but nothing more.

 

As much as you want to extol the virtues of TT I have little doubt that before the season expires Peterman will be given the starting job because the staff already knows what TT has to offer. It's simply not good enough.

 

My point was, what you call a valid reason for Luck, you call an excuse for TT. It can be a negative to one QB, and not a negative to another. If its a valid reason for Luck, then its a valid reason for TT, end of story.

 

I actually expect Peterman to start at some point this year, so lets not confuse where I stand on TT. My entire stance was that he was NOT our biggest problem, nor had he earned the confidence to be the starter moving forward. I remained optimistic that with less than 2 years of starts under his belt, that he still had the potential to improve on what was not that bad of a 2 year stretch that is often over exaggerated by the negative TT people.

 

At the end of the day, I have said at every step of the way, that TT MUST show up and improve in order to continue to be the Bills starter both next year and throughout this season. I actually very much like some of the potential I have seen in Peterman, but I also know he isnt ready.

 

I think Peterman will get the nod sometime around week 10, possibly later, to start this year barring these factors:

1. An injury to TT makes this happen sooner.

2. The Bills are in the playoff hunt and TT is playing solid or better.

3. The Bills are not in the playoff hunt, but TT is playing great and earned the right to finish the season as the starter.

4. The Bills have 1 or No wins going into the bye week, and the offense is the main issue so they turn to the rookier earlier than hoped and it gives Peterman the extra week on the Bye to get a lot of first team reps.

 

Personally, this OL is atrocious and I fear the lack of rapport with the wideouts, the bad protection, etc is going to lead to stiff decline in the offense from last year and that TT has very little chance of finishing the year as the starter anymore. But, from a development stand point on Peterman, I think its more than likely Peterman is held off the field until at least week 10 to give the kid the best chance to succeed and show the team what he has got to end the season.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[4merper4mer]

I just don't see what you're trying to prove. That Luck isn't a good QB? Because he is. His talent for the position is undeniable. I don't know what we're arguing about anymore.

 

He's consistently top 10 in the league for me, and closer to 5 than 10 more often than not. I consider him a lead pipe lock franchise guy, and I would trade pretty much anything to get one of those. That's it.

 

 

The party line called and asked you to return the hook line and sinker.

[Royale with Cheese]

Which, in keeping with your recent posts, is completely irrelevant to the question which was asked.

 

Irrelevant huh? Well I put down the career W/L with Luck and the AFC South because you stated that "Luck lost the games against the Texans and Jags right?".....well Luck didn't play in those games because he was injured. Hasselback started both games against the Texans and Jags that year....

 

So I guess to answer your question....no Luck didn't lose those games.

[What a Tuel]

You really don't address Alphadawg's point. If Luck is so great, and his surrounding cast so awful, how did the Colts go 5-3 (with a 40-year old backup QB) when Luck was injured in 2015?

 

They went 6-3 in that time against Titans 3-13 (Win), Dolphins 6-10 (Win), Texans 9-7 (Loss), Jaguars 5-11 (Loss), Steelers 10-6 (Loss), Bucs 6-10 (Win), Falcons 8-8 (Win), Texans 9-7 (Win), Jaguars 5-11 (Win).

 

Luck went 2-5 in that time against Bills 8-8 (Loss), Jets 10-6 (Loss), Titans 3-13 (Win), Patriots 12-4 (Loss), Saints 7-9 (Loss), Panthers 15-1 (Loss), Broncos 12-4 (Win).

 

I don't know what that means, but there it is. Pick at it.

[Utah John]

I think what all this means is that players have to be in the right situation to show what they can do. OJ looked terrible the first couple of years, before Saban came in and built the O line and an offense that featured OJ. A lot of high draft pick QBs have their careers ruined because they're picked by bad teams who can't assemble the other pieces to go with them, so they struggle, lose confidence, see their coaches get fired and start over with new, etc. Dak Prescott is a good player but he's playing behind the best O line in the NFL, and had a stud rookie RB. So, yeah, he looks really good.

 

Would Andrew Luck look good playing for the Cowboys? Yeah, definitely. He'd be an all-pro.

 

Even being in the right place doesn't guarantee success. A lot of talented players don't have their heads screwed on right, and end up sabotaging themselves. You need talent, a good situation, a good attitude, a good coach -- without all these factors, no one becomes a star.

[4merper4mer]

 

Irrelevant huh? Well I put down the career W/L with Luck and the AFC South because you stated that "Luck lost the games against the Texans and Jags right?".....well Luck didn't play in those games because he was injured. Hasselback started both games against the Texans and Jags that year....

 

So I guess to answer your question....no Luck didn't lose those games.

I was mixing it up with when he lost to the Jags and Texans this past year. Sorry. You remember, the games where he missed bunny passes on 4th and short in crunch time.

 

Spin it however you want. He is seen as a demigod in the sports press and a lot of people just go along with that like the people in "The Emperor's New Clothes" or North Korean citizens do with Kim Jung Un. People think Un shot an 18 in a round of golf and think Luck has produced marvelous results. Neither are true. It doesn't mean he is a bad QB. It just means he has been granted a lot of excuses. Maybe some of them are valid. Pardon me for allowing the possibility that possibly....potentially....God forbid...he is not the greatest QB ever and a guaranteed ticket to glory.

[Royale with Cheese]

I was mixing it up with when he lost to the Jags and Texans this past year. Sorry. You remember, the games where he missed bunny passes on 4th and short in crunch time.

 

Spin it however you want. He is seen as a demigod in the sports press and a lot of people just go along with that like the people in "The Emperor's New Clothes" or North Korean citizens do with Kim Jung Un. People think Un shot an 18 in a round of golf and think Luck has produced marvelous results. Neither are true. It doesn't mean he is a bad QB. It just means he has been granted a lot of excuses. Maybe some of them are valid. Pardon me for allowing the possibility that possibly....potentially....God forbid...he is not the greatest QB ever and a guaranteed ticket to glory.

 

You really need to change your username to Hyperbole.

[GunnerBill]

 

Yet you and many call them excuses when anyone suggests any of the same things affect Tyrod Taylor. Bad line, poor weapons, bad defense, bad coaches/GM, etc. Yet Taylor has an exceptionally better track record of protecting the ball and is similar or better in many key QB statistics outside of yardage totals.

 

For the record, I am not comparing TT to Luck who is clearly a better passer than TT, just find it interesting how its always an "excuse" in Buffalo no matter who the QB is, but they are valid reasons when defending another teams QB every single time. Luck gets a pass on all his mistakes every time while people here label the same or similar factors here as just excuses.

I am sorry they are simply NOTHING alike. If you in a month of Sundays think there is a single person employed by an NFL team who would take Tyrod as their QB over Luck even when the contracts are taken into account you are stark raving mad.

[4merper4mer]

I am sorry they are simply NOTHING alike. If you in a month of Sundays think there is a single person employed by an NFL team who would take Tyrod as their QB over Luck even when the contracts are taken into account you are stark raving mad.

 

[JohnC]

 

My point was, what you call a valid reason for Luck, you call an excuse for TT. It can be a negative to one QB, and not a negative to another. If its a valid reason for Luck, then its a valid reason for TT, end of story.

 

I actually expect Peterman to start at some point this year, so lets not confuse where I stand on TT. My entire stance was that he was NOT our biggest problem, nor had he earned the confidence to be the starter moving forward. I remained optimistic that with less than 2 years of starts under his belt, that he still had the potential to improve on what was not that bad of a 2 year stretch that is often over exaggerated by the negative TT people.

 

At the end of the day, I have said at every step of the way, that TT MUST show up and improve in order to continue to be the Bills starter both next year and throughout this season. I actually very much like some of the potential I have seen in Peterman, but I also know he isnt ready.

 

I think Peterman will get the nod sometime around week 10, possibly later, to start this year barring these factors:

1. An injury to TT makes this happen sooner.

2. The Bills are in the playoff hunt and TT is playing solid or better.

3. The Bills are not in the playoff hunt, but TT is playing great and earned the right to finish the season as the starter.

4. The Bills have 1 or No wins going into the bye week, and the offense is the main issue so they turn to the rookier earlier than hoped and it gives Peterman the extra week on the Bye to get a lot of first team reps.

 

Personally, this OL is atrocious and I fear the lack of rapport with the wideouts, the bad protection, etc is going to lead to stiff decline in the offense from last year and that TT has very little chance of finishing the year as the starter anymore. But, from a development stand point on Peterman, I think its more than likely Peterman is held off the field until at least week 10 to give the kid the best chance to succeed and show the team what he has got to end the season.

I'm not going expend energy dissecting the strength and weaknesses of the current starting qb for Buffalo. In short by making the point that you believe Peterman will replace TT as a starter before the season is over is a testament to what you actually believe his prospects are as a starting qb in this league. TT is a fine fellow, But he has unfixable limitations that not only all organizations are aware of but also are well known to the staff in which he currently plays for.

 

Mentioning Luck in the same sentence as TT and trying to make some ludicrous comparisons between the two is a very far fetched position to hang on to. You can cite all the stats you want to when comparing the two qbs. There is no GM or HC in this league, including the staff for the team he now plays for, who would not only prefer Luck but also would give up most of their draft currency to acquire Luck, injured or not. TT has absolutely little value on the open market as evident by his availability this past offseason.

[GoBills808]

The whole 'Andrew Luck isn't that great' argument is old hat put forth by the stat geeks and the casual football observer crowd. It's easily disproven, more often than not, Sundays between September and January.

 

Unsurprisingly it's the same crowd that think Taylor makes a reasonable comparison.

 

You really need to change your username to Hyperbole.

The guy is a troll. I haven't seen anything substantive from him beyond casual bon mots and hyperbole. Not much there to work with.

[Alphadawg7]

I am sorry they are simply NOTHING alike. If you in a month of Sundays think there is a single person employed by an NFL team who would take Tyrod as their QB over Luck even when the contracts are taken into account you are stark raving mad.

 

Why am I not surprised you didn't read what I wrote. I literally word for word specifically stated I am not comparing them. Word for Word, in the very post you responded to, and even referenced Luck the superior passer.

 

But of course, I knew someone absolutely obsessed Tyrod basher would try and pretend there was a comparison.

 

THE ONLY comparison I made is that the same "reasons" be given to VALIDATE all the Luck short comings, turnovers, etc are also similar factors that have worked abasing Taylor where you and others like you call them excuses. IT CANT BE A VALID REASON FOR ONE AND JUST AN EXCUSE FOR ANOTHER. It doesn't work that way.

I'm not going expend energy dissecting the strength and weaknesses of the current starting qb for Buffalo. In short by making the point that you believe Peterman will replace TT as a starter before the season is over is a testament to what you actually believe his prospects are as a starting qb in this league. TT is a fine fellow, But he has unfixable limitations that not only all organizations are aware of but also are well known to the staff in which he currently plays for.

 

Mentioning Luck in the same sentence as TT and trying to make some ludicrous comparisons between the two is a very far fetched position to hang on to. You can cite all the stats you want to when comparing the two qbs. There is no GM or HC in this league, including the staff for the team he now plays for, who would not only prefer Luck but also would give up most of their draft currency to acquire Luck, injured or not. TT has absolutely little value on the open market as evident by his availability this past offseason.

 

Please show me where I compared them? Especially since I specifically stated I am not comparing them and called Luck the obvious superior passer...something you already referenced. Some of you just can't help yourself and no matter what just feel the need to twist something to say something I not only didn't do or say, but very clearly pointed out that I wasn't comparing them.

[mead107]

Don't give a cra?p. He is not a Bill

[Alphadawg7]

The whole 'Andrew Luck isn't that great' argument is old hat put forth by the stat geeks and the casual football observer crowd. It's easily disproven, more often than not, Sundays between September and January.

 

Unsurprisingly it's the same crowd that think Taylor makes a reasonable comparison.

The guy is a troll. I haven't seen anything substantive from him beyond casual bon mots and hyperbole. Not much there to work with.

 

NOBODY compared Taylor to Luck...This is a board full of people who can't comprehend basic english. When someone states its NOT a comparison, and Luck is the superior passer...thats EXACTLY what those words mean. GEEZUS CHRIST, this board is impossible to converse with. Everyone is OBSESSED with pretending someone said something they didn't to somehow further their argument.

 

THE ONLY DAMN THING I SAID was that its ironic that what is an excuse for TT is somehow valid defense of Luck. You are the hypocritical ones, and you refuse to acknowledge it. If having bad protection is an excuse when talking about TT, then guess what, its also just an excuse when talking about Luck too. If having a bad defense is just an excuse for TT, then its also just an excuse for Luck too. If having a bad GM is an excuse for TT, then its also just an excuse for Luck too. If dealing with injuries is just an excuse for TT, then its also just an excuse for Luck.

 

Sick of all this hypocritical defending of non bills players and the constant whining about the same things being just an excuse when it involves a Bills player. Doesn't matter if its TT, Dareus, Darby, Watkins, whoever...its always the same dumb story.

[JohnC]

 

Why am I not surprised you didn't read what I wrote. I literally word for word specifically stated I am not comparing them. Word for Word, in the very post you responded to, and even referenced Luck the superior passer.

 

But of course, I knew someone absolutely obsessed Tyrod basher would try and pretend there was a comparison.

 

THE ONLY comparison I made is that the same "reasons" be given to VALIDATE all the Luck short comings, turnovers, etc are also similar factors that have worked abasing Taylor where you and others like you call them excuses. IT CANT BE A VALID REASON FOR ONE AND JUST AN EXCUSE FOR ANOTHER. It doesn't work that way.

 

Please show me where I compared them? Especially since I specifically stated I am not comparing them and called Luck the obvious superior passer...something you already referenced. Some of you just can't help yourself and no matter what just feel the need to twist something to say something I not only didn't do or say, but very clearly pointed out that I wasn't comparing them.

I don't know what you are getting at. Luck and TT are in two different situations. Going in circles is going in circles. Respectfully, there is no need to respond.

[GunnerBill]

 

But of course, I knew someone absolutely obsessed Tyrod basher would try and pretend there was a comparison.

I am not an obssessed Tyrod basher. Wrong. I am prefectly fair on Tyrod.

 

You want to know why excuses can be valid for one and not the other? Because of the tape. When you watch the actual plays yoh can decipher what is a valid excuse and what isn't.

 

In some cases saying "oh his line is bad" will be valid because you will see broken plays. Tyrod had the longest average time back there to throw in the league last year. Yes - he was the most sacked.... but if you hold the ball the longest you will be. Luck on the other hand had continuous broken plays where pass rushers got to him inside 2 and half seconds. You watch the plays and you work out what is a valid excuse and what isn't. That's how it works.

 

And I also don't make dumb crticisms of Bills players. That is a weak argument to throw at me. There are plenty of Bills players I have defended. Including Tyrod Taylor I might add. But even trying to suggest he has the same "excuses" as Andrew Luck stretches credulity. Watch the film. Their excuses are nothing alike beyond their defenses lost them games.

 

EDIT: indeed this "obsessed Tyrod basher" was saying just yesterday that for my money he should absolutely be on the team for 2018 and if he beats out the shiney new 1st round rook in camp he should open that season as the starter and the Bills should make the rook earn it. Obviously a tell tale sign of a hater.

 

It is easier just to attack anyone who doesn't think Tyrod can be our answer at Quarterback as a hater or obsessed than engage with the criticisms. The idea that the same reasoning can't be legitimate in one set of circumstances and then an excuse in another different set of circumstances makes no sense to me.

Edited August 31, 2017 by GunnerBill

[HappyDays]

The whole 'Andrew Luck isn't that great' argument is old hat put forth by the stat geeks and the casual football observer crowd. It's easily disproven, more often than not, Sundays between September and January.

 

Unsurprisingly it's the same crowd that think Taylor makes a reasonable comparison.

 

The guy is a troll. I haven't seen anything substantive from him beyond casual bon mots and hyperbole. Not much there to work with.

I mean you said you'd trade 4 1st round picks for Luck now on his contract which is at least equally stupid to what you seem to think people are saying.

[Alphadawg7]

I don't know what you are getting at. Luck and TT are in two different situations. Going in circles is going in circles. Respectfully, there is no need to respond.

 

Don't worry, I am seriously over this conversation...when people start twisting things to pretend they say something different, I check out. Its beyond aggravating. I really don't care what anyone thinks, he is over rated IMO and I hate the contractual position the Colts are in with him given his 1.55 per game average of INT & Fumbles to go with his torrid injury situation. Like I said 3 years ago, wake me when he stops making so many mistakes and has a good post season. #StillWaiting

I mean you said you'd trade 4 1st round picks for Luck now on his contract which is at least equally stupid to what you seem to think people are saying.

 

That was my whole point too...that 4 firsts for him would be way over the top given his massive contract, poor post season resume, his turnover ratio, and his injury issues. But people want to spin it as if I said he sucks (which I clearly said he is a good QB, just think he is over rated as he is not on the Rodgers, Brady, Brees level IMO that every one annoits him) or compared him to TT. I only mentioned one mans reason is somehow another mans excuse and thats always the case with Bills players vs other teams players around here.

[GoBills808]

I mean you said you'd trade 4 1st round picks for Luck now on his contract which is at least equally stupid to what you seem to think people are saying.

I stand by that. It's not half as stupid as pretending Luck and Taylor suffer from the same deficiencies, which IS what Alphadawg7 (and presumably you too?) is saying.

[Augie]

Luck should stay in hiding until they put a team around him. What a mess.....

[Perk71]

Don't give a cra?p. He is not a Bill

I can't agree more. When I finally make it out there for a game I will bring you a nice bottle of red Mead.

Go Bills!

[4merper4mer]

The whole 'Andrew Luck isn't that great' argument is old hat put forth by the stat geeks and the casual football observer crowd. It's easily disproven, more often than not, Sundays between September and January.

 

 

 

 

Andrew Luck was deemed to be the second coming. There is no denying this. So far the results are:

 

He is a great dude, has a good arm and a good football sense when things are going his way.

He has played in inarguably the weakest division the NFL has seen in decades.

His team has squeaked by in this division a few times and lost other times.

The arrows are pointing down and the Colts can't afford free agents because they are saddled with his contract.

In crunch time, whether in the playoffs or individual games he has choked aplenty.

 

His "career" at this point is a complete myth in terms of results. If it were to end today, he would likely be remembered as football's version of Sandy Koufax and he has done nothing to earn that.

[dave mcbride]

Andrew Luck was deemed to be the second coming. There is no denying this. So far the results are:

 

He is a great dude, has a good arm and a good football sense when things are going his way.

He has played in inarguably the weakest division the NFL has seen in decades.

His team has squeaked by in this division a few times and lost other times.

The arrows are pointing down and the Colts can't afford free agents because they are saddled with his contract.

In crunch time, whether in the playoffs or individual games he has choked aplenty.

 

His "career" at this point is a complete myth in terms of results. If it were to end today, he would likely be remembered as football's version of Sandy Koufax and he has done nothing to earn that.

Um ... Sandy Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers of all time, and it's not even remotely arguable. HOF votes are based on career counting stats and five-year peak stats, and koufax's five year peak is about as great as you'll ever see. You're a good poster, but do you know enough about baseball to comment on it? Koufax had a total of 46.6 WAR between 1961 and 1966 (staggeringly great) plus two dominant postseason WS-winning performances and 5 straight ERA titles.

 

Christ, man: Koufax's ERA in 4 world series was 0.95 and he won 2 world series MVPs.

 

More to the point, Koufax did nothing until his seventh season in MLB.

Edited August 31, 2017 by dave mcbride

[4merper4mer]

Um ... Sandy Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers of all time, and it's not even remotely arguable. HOF votes are based on career counting stats and five-year peak stats, and koufax's five year peak is about as great as you'll ever see. You're a good poster, but do you know enough about baseball to comment on it? Koufax had a total of 46.6 WAR between 1961 and 1966 (staggeringly great) plus two dominant postseason WS-winning performances and 5 straight ERA titles.

Christ, man: Koufax's ERA in 4 world series was 0.95 and he won 2 world series MVPs.

More to the point, Koufax did nothing until his seventh season in MLB.

You are making my point for me. Luck does not deserve to be thought of like a Koufax, but if his career ended early, he would be. It would would be "Look at that greatness, oh what could have been". Koufax earned his legend, even in a relatively short career. Luck has a similar legend.

 

Personally if his career ended I'd think of him more like Dave Dravecky. Showed glimpses...some ups and downs and it is too bad we didn't get to see the whole product to know for sure. If Luck starts producing like Koufax did then awesome. But he hasn't and everyone everywhere acts like he has.

[BringBackOrton]

 

I said repeatedly he is a good QB...the point I made is that he has one of the worst contracts in football right now.

 

1. He has yet to play up to it.

2. His injury issues are compounding it.

3. That contract is a cap choking contract, and all Luck has proved up to this point is that he can carry a bad roster against bad teams, but not against good teams or the playoffs.

 

I have aslo repeatedly stated that he can still improve. But the bottom line is undeniable, he has been too mistake prone. And many of his "comebacks" he gets heralded for were both against bad teams and also comebacks from holes HE put them in with bad mistakes.

 

And as far as fumbles vs fumbles lost...who cares what the balance is between them, a fumble is a fumble.. A fumble, even when retaining the ball, is a terrible play resulting most often in negative yards, drive ending plays, turnovers, or significantly increasing the distance for a first down. 105 INTs and Fumbles in just 70 games is not very good, especially when you consider that was the regular season and the only time he actually had any success. His TD to Turnover ratio is atrocious in the postseason.

 

Luck has 80 Interceptions in 76 career games between Regular Season and Playoffs. Thats more than 1 per game. He also has 38 fumbles in 76 career games. Thats an average of a combined INT/Fumble rate of 1.55 per game played. Thats is not very good at all.

 

He has been more Jay Cutler than Aaron Rodgers. He has been more Jeff George than Steve Young. He has been a lot less than his LEGEND makes people believe he has been. Is he a bad QB, by no means...I am simply stating his success is over exaggerated and I would not want to be in the Colts shoes right now with that contract, his injury history, and his on field struggles.

Luck made the playoffs more in his first 5 years than Rodgers did.

[4merper4mer]

Luck made the playoffs more in his first 5 years than Rodgers did.

How do you think the Packers would have done in the AFC south?