Andrew Luck not ready to start regular season

[RyanC883]

wow, so many pages on another team's QB's. We really do have the most knowledgeable fans/best football fans. I'm loving reading all this!

[BringBackOrton]

 

 

Mariota had "less comebacks" and "less game wining drives"? But he did have more wins. I guess it matters how he won now? And Alpha is the one cherry picking?

 

For Pete's sake it's like a religion with Luck. Touted as the greatest prospect in a generation and not a complete bust = you better not ever never ever say he might not be the greatest.

They both went 8-7 you dolt.

 

At least Alpha tries to be accurate. You're horrible at this.

 

Although, maybe I take it back.

[Alphadawg7]

They both went 8-7 you dolt.

 

At least Alpha tries to be accurate. You're horrible at this.

Although, maybe I take it back.

 

I was bowing to his religion comment...Mariota and Lucks numbers are that much different despite the fact that Luck plays in a high volume system and Mariota has a talented run game.

wow, so many pages on another team's QB's. We really do have the most knowledgeable fans/best football fans. I'm loving reading all this!

 

Ha surprisingly, this has been one of the more enjoyable threads I have been in lately...

[4merper4mer]

They both went 8-7 you dolt.

 

At least Alpha tries to be accurate. You're horrible at this.

 

 

I didn't realize Mariota missed a game but the point still stands, as you should have been able to figure out. Tell me how a comeback win is better than a regular win. Is it the crappy playing in the 1st quarter that makes it better or the 4th quarter heroics?

 

You know what game Jim Kelly shouldn't get any credit for? That 51-3 thing against the Raiders. It barely counts.

 

Frank Reich clearly should have been our starter all those years. I mean it was the greatest comeback victory ever.

 

If we had a time machine and went back to the day Luck was drafted, what would the predictions for his first 5 years and what the Colts would look like 5 years in be? There is no way anyone would have viewed 2017's reality as some sort of resounding success of the greatest QB prospect in a generation. And yet here we are and so many do.

Edited September 1, 2017 by 4merper4mer

[GunnerBill]

They are all case by case...so what I say about one QB doesn't mean the next QB has the same considerations.

Boom.... and the same applies to the negatives too. Which is why for one QB having poor receivers is an excuse and for others it's a reason.

 

For Pete's sake it's like a religion with Luck. Touted as the greatest prospect in a generation and not a complete bust = you better not ever never ever say he might not be the greatest.

Who has said he is the greatest? I must have missed that.

[BringBackOrton]

 

 

I didn't realize Mariota missed a game but the point still stands, as you should have been able to figure out. Tell me how a comeback win is better than a regular win. Is it the crappy playing in the 1st quarter that makes it better or the 4th quarter heroics?

 

You know what game Jim Kelly shouldn't get any credit for? That 51-3 thing against the Raiders. It barely counts.

 

Frank Reich clearly should have been our starter all those years. I mean it was the greatest comeback victory ever.

 

If we had a time machine and went back to the day Luck was drafted, what would the predictions for his first 5 years and what the Colts would look like 5 years in be? There is no way anyone would have viewed 2017's reality as some sort of resounding success of the greatest QB prospect in a generation. And yet here we are and so many do.

A comeback win is more difficult. And not all comeback wins are a result of "playing crappy in the 1st quarter," but you know that.

 

Skipping argument to absurdity.

 

Skipping argument to absurdity.

 

What is 2017's reality?

 

Can I ask you a question? What if you were paying attention on year 5 of Peyton Manning's career? I'll paint you a picture.

 

Year 5 of Peyton's career. 44-36 as a starter. 3 winning seasons. 138 TD's to 100 INT's. 3 playoff appearances. 0-3 in the postseason.

 

Here's 5 years of Andrew Luck. 43-27 as a starter. 4 winning seasons. 132 TD's to 68 INT's. 3 playoff appearances. 3-3 in the postseason.

 

Basically, slow your roll dude. He's quite clearly outdistancing the career of one of the best QB's of all time. You would've been murdering Peyton and calling him "not a complete bust." And you'd look just as silly as you do now.

Edited September 2, 2017 by jmc12290

[4merper4mer]

A comeback win is more difficult. And not all comeback wins are a result of "playing crappy in the 1st quarter," but you know that.

 

Skipping argument to absurdity.

 

 

 

You're skipping things that are absurd? A comeback win is more difficult?

 

Not all comebacks wins involve crappy 1Q play. That is true. It is also true that not all comeback wins involve 4Q heroics either.

 

A comeback win may or may not be more difficult depending on what happens and how but that is meaningless. Your argument didn't imply it was more difficult, it implied it was more important. That is truly absurd. If the Bills get the lead in every game this year and go 15-1 will you gripe about not having any comeback wins? It's just so dumb.

 

 

 

 

What is 2017's reality?

 

 

 

 

 

In a league where "all you need is a QB' and he is the greatest QB prospect in generations, he has been a playoff turnover machine in the every other year he has managed to squeak by in one of the worst division in the history of football.

 

 

 

 

Can I ask you a question? What if you were paying attention on year 5 of Peyton Manning's career? I'll paint you a picture.

 

 

Year 5 of Peyton's career. 44-36 as a starter. 3 winning seasons. 138 TD's to 100 INT's. 3 playoff appearances. 0-3 in the postseason.

Here's 5 years of Andrew Luck. 43-27 as a starter. 4 winning seasons. 132 TD's to 68 INT's. 3 playoff appearances. 3-3 in the postseason.

 

Basically, slow your roll dude. He's quite clearly outdistancing the career of one of the best QB's of all time. You would've been murdering Peyton and calling him "not a complete bust." And you'd look just as silly as you do now.

 

 

 

 

 

Can I ask you a question? It's about stocks. There is a phrase I can't remember even though I hear it a lot. I remember most of it. It goes like this:

 

Past __________ doesn't guarantee future _____________.

 

Can you fill in the blanks?

 

He isn't outdistancing anything until he outdistances it. Is he horrible? Of course not. Could he improve? Of course. Does he need to improve in order to outdistance the career of Manning? I'd say yes. You think he is just fine now from the looks of it. Is that because the press told you to think it?

[BringBackOrton]

 

 

I know I'm just getting fooled by your crayonz schtick, but I'll give it a shot

 

You're skipping things that are absurd? A comeback win is more difficult?

Not all comebacks wins involve crappy 1Q play. That is true. It is also true that not all comeback wins involve 4Q heroics either.

A comeback win may or may not be more difficult depending on what happens and how but that is meaningless. Your argument didn't imply it was more difficult, it implied it was more important. That is truly absurd. If the Bills get the lead in every game this year and go 15-1 will you gripe about not having any comeback wins? It's just so dumb.

You're welcome to analyse the comeback wins of all the aforementioned QB's and sort them between which ones involved heroics and which were self-imposed. That'd be interesting.

I'm quite happy to assume that "bad 4th Q comebacks" all come out in the wash in this discussion. We aren't comparing Brady and Rodgers here, but the second tier of guys, guys who, for the most part, I feel have "sucky" first quarters at an equal rate. I think that's reasonable.

And difficulty and importance go hand in hand when talking about QB ability. A W is a W, no doubt. But a QB who wins a 42-35 point shootout to get a win is different from a QB who manages the game and wins 13-10. And the bottomline is a QB who can do "more difficult" things, is better than a QB who can't.

To answer your question, no.

In a league where "all you need is a QB' and he is the greatest QB prospect in generations, he has been a playoff turnover machine in the every other year he has managed to squeak by in one of the worst division in the history of football.

Peyton Manning made the playoffs at an equal rate in the same time frame, and had a 2:1 INT to TD ratio in the postseason in that span. With no wins.

Does that mean Luck doesn't turn the ball over too much? Of course not. I think he too frequently throws bad passes with the idea he can make that throw. That's a trait that doesn't mean he won't be successful, Plenty of "gunslingers" have been good and bad across the NFL landscape. You have your Fitzpatricks and your Favres.

But I don't disagree his TO's are his biggest problem.

Can I ask you a question? It's about stocks. There is a phrase I can't remember even though I hear it a lot. I remember most of it. It goes like this:

Past __________ doesn't guarantee future _____________.

Can you fill in the blanks?

He isn't outdistancing anything until he outdistances it. Is he horrible? Of course not. Could he improve? Of course. Does he need to improve in order to outdistance the career of Manning? I'd say yes. You think he is just fine now from the looks of it. Is that because the press told you to think it?

The converse of that phrase is true. Past failures don't guarantee future failures.

He does need to improve to have a HoF career like Peyton I agree. Peyton had to improve as well. But at this point in their respective careers, he's already better. The numbers bear that out.

As I said before, you would've been doing this same song and dance with Peyton back in 2002. He turned out just fine. I'd say I'm comfortable thinking Luck is right on track. That doesn't mean I think he's the "greatest" or "perfect" or a "lock for the HoF." I don't expect 5th year QB's to be better than the peak of top 3 QB's careers in NFL history. I find that a ridiculous standard.

Edited September 2, 2017 by jmc12290

[4merper4mer]

A W is a W, no doubt. But a QB who wins a 42-35 point shootout to get a win is different from a QB who manages the game and wins 13-10. And the bottomline is a QB who can do "more difficult" things, is better than a QB who can't.

I

Does that mean Luck doesn't turn the ball over too much? Of course not. I think he too frequently throws bad passes with the idea he can make that throw.

The converse of that phrase is true. Past failures don't guarantee future failures.

He does need to improve to have a HoF career like Peyton I agree. Peyton had to improve as well. But at this point in their respective careers, he's already better. The numbers bear that out.

 

The word "but" comes up a lot in conversations involving Luck. Some excuses, like the ones I've bolded, don't use the word, and employ different phrasing. The "but" is in there, just with another structure.

 

The part I'm most curious about is where you say Luck has "already" better than Manning. That seems to implying the trend has to continue. It doesn't. Manning's competition level was certainly higher in the early part of his career so comparing numbers alone is silly. That isn't just for Luck v. Manning but for any two individuals. The AFC South is trending up, even though it is still below average. That isn't good news for Luck given that he scraped by in the worst division in decades.

 

I don't think this whole conversation is about Luck in all honesty. Part of it is, but part of it about how the QB position has become so overwhelming to the sport. I'm not a fan of that and it certainly isn't Luck's fault. He is a symptom, not the disease. Everyone thinks "oh just get a top QB and you're all set"....that leads to having to pay a large portion of your salary cap to your "best QB prospect in decades" which leads to a weaker supporting cast. It is true that the Colts roster isn't what it could be if Luck hadn't sucked their cap dry. But if the Colts hadn't paid him that, another team would have. And you can't blame him for taking it. He hasn't made up for the roster gaps that his bloated salary created. He hasn't achieved Brady's star status so he can't tell the ref what to call like Brady does. If he made less would he win more? Would he develop more? It's impossible to tell for sure, but it couldn't hurt.

[BringBackOrton]

 

The word "but" comes up a lot in conversations involving Luck. Some excuses, like the ones I've bolded, don't use the word, and employ different phrasing. The "but" is in there, just with another structure.

 

The part I'm most curious about is where you say Luck has "already" better than Manning. That seems to implying the trend has to continue. It doesn't. Manning's competition level was certainly higher in the early part of his career so comparing numbers alone is silly. That isn't just for Luck v. Manning but for any two individuals. The AFC South is trending up, even though it is still below average. That isn't good news for Luck given that he scraped by in the worst division in decades.

 

I don't think this whole conversation is about Luck in all honesty. Part of it is, but part of it about how the QB position has become so overwhelming to the sport. I'm not a fan of that and it certainly isn't Luck's fault. He is a symptom, not the disease. Everyone thinks "oh just get a top QB and you're all set"....that leads to having to pay a large portion of your salary cap to your "best QB prospect in decades" which leads to a weaker supporting cast. It is true that the Colts roster isn't what it could be if Luck hadn't sucked their cap dry. But if the Colts hadn't paid him that, another team would have. And you can't blame him for taking it. He hasn't made up for the roster gaps that his bloated salary created. He hasn't achieved Brady's star status so he can't tell the ref what to call like Brady does. If he made less would he win more? Would he develop more? It's impossible to tell for sure, but it couldn't hurt.

The word "but" comes up in any conversation that isn't "X is awesome," "No! X is terrible!"

 

Peyton Manning is one of the best QB's to ever play the game. But he lost an awful lot in the playoffs.

 

It's an admission of the other viewpoint being based on a certain point of merit. Not an indictment on my argument or whatever the hell you're implying.

 

The part I'm most curious about is where you say Luck has "already" better than Manning. That seems to implying the trend has to continue. It doesn't.

 

Anyway, I'm assuming the trend is going to continue. Because, ya know, before the injury, the trend was a trend? You're right though, Luck could break a bone in his foot tomorrow and never play again. That's certainly possible.

 

I don't think this whole conversation is about Luck in all honesty. Part of it is, but part of it about how the QB position has become so overwhelming to the sport. I'm not a fan of that and it certainly isn't Luck's fault. He is a symptom, not the disease. Everyone thinks "oh just get a top QB and you're all set"....that leads to having to pay a large portion of your salary cap to your "best QB prospect in decades" which leads to a weaker supporting cast. It is true that the Colts roster isn't what it could be if Luck hadn't sucked their cap dry. But if the Colts hadn't paid him that, another team would have. And you can't blame him for taking it. He hasn't made up for the roster gaps that his bloated salary created. He hasn't achieved Brady's star status so he can't tell the ref what to call like Brady does. If he made less would he win more? Would he develop more? It's impossible to tell for sure, but it couldn't hurt.

 

Yes, you need a good QB and a team around them to win a Super Bowl. The dirty little secret is that not all good QB's win Super Bowls. That's really all this is about. You think that if Luck truly lived up to the "hype" he would've won a ring by now. So does Alpha. But the bottom line is that nothing EVER guarantees you winning a Super Bowl. A good QB increases your chances. Not having a good QB makes your chances very small. As Gunner said upthread, the Colts have 10 years of Luck to try to build around him, catch a few breaks and win one or two or three or zero. There's been dozens of good QB's who never win. HoF QB's who never win.

 

The hype surrounding Luck was not that he was going to bring 6 straight championships to the Colts. It was that he was a QB prospect who was as close to a sure thing of being a good QB out of the box as there ever has been. That didn't mean he was gonna be Brady 2.0 in his rookie year. That didn't mean he was gonna be beating 36 year old Peyton Manning head to head his first start. It meant that the Colts would be walking away from a great QB with as good as a replacement as you could get, and thus they would have a 20+ year window of being SB contenders almost every year.

 

If they kept Peyton, they might have won another ring during Luck's first 2 or 3 seasons. I certainly think they would have had a better chance. But again, that's not what Luck was supposed to be. Maybe the media got away with it, maybe some fans started thinking it, but I, an admitted Luck fan, never EVER expected him to win a Super Bowl in his first 3 years.

[Billsfansinceday1]

 

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.

Where did you get that info? Peyton was much better than that, although he did throw more ints than TDs in his first year: He never had a QB rating of 50 in his career.

 

PASSING

Year Team G Att Comp Pct Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD TD% Int Int% Lng 20+ 40+ Sck SckY Rate 2015 Denver Broncos 10 331 198 59.8 33.1 2,249 6.8 224.9 9 2.7 17 5.1 75T 24 7 16 95 67.9 2014 Denver Broncos 16 597 395 66.2 37.3 4,727 7.9 295.4 39 6.5 15 2.5 86T 66 11 17 118 101.5 2013 Denver Broncos 16 659 450 68.3 41.2 5,477 8.3 342.3 55 8.3 10 1.5 78T 68 13 18 120 115.1 2012 Denver Broncos 16 583 400 68.6 36.4 4,659 8.0 291.2 37 6.3 11 1.9 71T 64 7 21 137 105.8 2011 Indianapolis Colts 0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 2010 Indianapolis Colts 16 679 450 66.3 42.4 4,700 6.9 293.8 33 4.9 17 2.5 73T 43 9 16 91 91.9 2009 Indianapolis Colts 16 571 393 68.8 35.7 4,500 7.9 281.2 33 5.8 16 2.8 80T 59 8 10 74 99.9 2008 Indianapolis Colts 16 555 371 66.8 34.7 4,002 7.2 250.1 27 4.9 12 2.2 75 40 7 14 86 95.0 2007 Indianapolis Colts 16 515 337 65.4 32.2 4,040 7.8 252.5 31 6.0 14 2.7 73T 53 9 21 124 98.0 2006 Indianapolis Colts 16 557 362 65.0 34.8 4,397 7.9 274.8 31 5.6 9 1.6 68T 53 7 14 86 101.0 2005 Indianapolis Colts 16 453 305 67.3 28.3 3,747 8.3 234.2 28 6.2 10 2.2 80T 45 6 17 81 104.1 2004 Indianapolis Colts 16 497 336 67.6 31.1 4,557 9.2 284.8 49 9.9 10 2.0 80T 68 13 13 101 121.1 2003 Indianapolis Colts 16 566 379 67.0 35.4 4,267 7.5 266.7 29 5.1 10 1.8 79T 45 9 18 107 99.0 2002 Indianapolis Colts 16 591 392 66.3 36.9 4,200 7.1 262.5 27 4.6 19 3.2 69 51 11 23 145 88.8 2001 Indianapolis Colts 16 547 343 62.7 34.2 4,131 7.6 258.2 26 4.8 23 4.2 86T 55 11 29 232 84.1 2000 Indianapolis Colts 16 571 357 62.5 35.7 4,413 7.7 275.8 33 5.8 15 2.6 78T 51 8 20 131 94.7 1999 Indianapolis Colts 16 533 331 62.1 33.3 4,135 7.8 258.4 26 4.9 15 2.8 80T 56 11 14 116 90.7 1998 Indianapolis Colts 16 575 326 56.7 35.9 3,739 6.5 233.7 26 4.5 28 4.9 78T 42 8 22 109 71.2 TOTAL 266 9,380 6,125 65.3 35.3 71,940 7.7 270.5 539 5.7 251 2.7 86 883 155 303 1,953 96.5

 

PASSING

Year Team G Att Comp Pct Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD TD% Int Int% Lng 20+ 40+ Sck SckY Rate 2015 Denver Broncos 10 331 198 59.8 33.1 2,249 6.8 224.9 9 2.7 17 5.1 75T 24 7 16 95 67.9 2014 Denver Broncos 16 597 395 66.2 37.3 4,727 7.9 295.4 39 6.5 15 2.5 86T 66 11 17 118 101.5 2013 Denver Broncos 16 659 450 68.3 41.2 5,477 8.3 342.3 55 8.3 10 1.5 78T 68 13 18 120 115.1 2012 Denver Broncos 16 583 400 68.6 36.4 4,659 8.0 291.2 37 6.3 11 1.9 71T 64 7 21 137 105.8 2011 Indianapolis Colts 0 -- -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 2010 Indianapolis Colts 16 679 450 66.3 42.4 4,700 6.9 293.8 33 4.9 17 2.5 73T 43 9 16 91 91.9 2009 Indianapolis Colts 16 571 393 68.8 35.7 4,500 7.9 281.2 33 5.8 16 2.8 80T 59 8 10 74 99.9 2008 Indianapolis Colts 16 555 371 66.8 34.7 4,002 7.2 250.1 27 4.9 12 2.2 75 40 7 14 86 95.0 2007 Indianapolis Colts 16 515 337 65.4 32.2 4,040 7.8 252.5 31 6.0 14 2.7 73T 53 9 21 124 98.0 2006 Indianapolis Colts 16 557 362 65.0 34.8 4,397 7.9 274.8 31 5.6 9 1.6 68T 53 7 14 86 101.0 2005 Indianapolis Colts 16 453 305 67.3 28.3 3,747 8.3 234.2 28 6.2 10 2.2 80T 45 6 17 81 104.1 2004 Indianapolis Colts 16 497 336 67.6 31.1 4,557 9.2 284.8 49 9.9 10 2.0 80T 68 13 13 101 121.1 2003 Indianapolis Colts 16 566 379 67.0 35.4 4,267 7.5 266.7 29 5.1 10 1.8 79T 45 9 18 107 99.0 2002 Indianapolis Colts 16 591 392 66.3 36.9 4,200 7.1 262.5 27 4.6 19 3.2 69 51 11 23 145 88.8 2001 Indianapolis Colts 16 547 343 62.7 34.2 4,131 7.6 258.2 26 4.8 23 4.2 86T 55 11 29 232 84.1 2000 Indianapolis Colts 16 571 357 62.5 35.7 4,413 7.7 275.8 33 5.8 15 2.6 78T 51 8 20 131 94.7 1999 Indianapolis Colts 16 533 331 62.1 33.3 4,135 7.8 258.4 26 4.9 15 2.8 80T 56 11 14 116 90.7 1998 Indianapolis Colts 16 575 326 56.7 35.9 3,739 6.5 233.7 26 4.5 28 4.9 78T 42 8 22 109 71.2 TOTAL 266 9,380 6,125 65.3 35.3 71,940 7.7 270.5 539 5.7 251 2.7 86 883 155 303 1,953 96.5

 

Sorry. The above stats did not copy very well.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Billsfansinceday1

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

Maybe the colts will get real irrational here with the fear of Luck never being okay this season. Maybe we can swing Tyrod over for a 2nd and a guy that can help us this year....

[BringBackOrton]

Where did you get that info? Peyton was much better than that, although he did throw more ints than TDs in his first year: He never had a QB rating of 50 in his career.

 

Sorry. The above stats did not copy very well.

In the playoffs he was not.

 

Peyton had passer ratings of 62.3, 82, and 31.3 with a 2:1 INT to TD ratio in his first three playoff appearances.

 

I believe that roughly averages out to a passer rating of 50.

[Billsfansinceday1]

In the playoffs he was not.

 

Peyton had passer ratings of 62.3, 82, and 31.3 with a 2:1 INT to TD ratio in his first three playoff appearances.

 

I believe that roughly averages out to a passer rating of 50.

Ok but you said in the playoff seasons not appearances. That would be different.

[BringBackOrton]

Ok but you said in the playoff seasons not appearances. That would be different.

I didn't say either. That's what the other poster was referring to.

[4merper4mer]

I didn't say either. That's what the other poster was referring to.

Is Manning the only QB considered elite that was horrible in his first few playoff starts and is that why we are comparing Luck to him instead of Brady, Rodgers, Ben, etc.?

 

My issue with the Luck fanboys is that he hasn't done anything yet that truly lifts a team. That is normally the measurement of a "great QB". Yet Luck is often showered with that moniker and has been since before his first play. The fanboys go along. Personally I prefer Flacco's results to Luck's cult.

 

As for the 3-3 playoff record you have to be kidding me. He has one good win in the playoffs. One. The other two involve a home win over the Bengals whose recent playoff record speaks for itself and a game he gave to the Chiefs only to have Reid hand it back.

[BringBackOrton]

Is Manning the only QB considered elite that was horrible in his first few playoff starts and is that why we are comparing Luck to him instead of Brady, Rodgers, Ben, etc.?

 

My issue with the Luck fanboys is that he hasn't done anything yet that truly lifts a team. That is normally the measurement of a "great QB". Yet Luck is often showered with that moniker and has been since before his first play. The fanboys go along. Personally I prefer Flacco's results to Luck's cult.

 

As for the 3-3 playoff record you have to be kidding me. He has one good win in the playoffs. One. The other two involve a home win over the Bengals whose recent playoff record speaks for itself and a game he gave to the Chiefs only to have Reid hand it back.

Is Manning the only QB considered elite that was horrible in his first few playoff starts and is that why we are comparing Luck to him instead of Brady, Rodgers, Ben, etc.?

 

Manning is an obvious comparison because they played for the same team and he was the heir apparent to Manning's legacy on the Colts. I also think it's unfair to compare Rodgers playoff starts as a 4th year vet compared to a rookies' playoff stats, because I believe that comparison to be unfair, unless you hold it against Rodgers that he did nothing his first 3 years in the league.

 

But let's do it!

 

Tom Brady: First 5 years of his, 3 playoff appearances, 9-0 in the playoffs, 11:3 TD:INT. Wins 3 SuperBowls.

 

Clearly Luck falls short of the GOAT. Not surprising.

 

Ben Roethlisberger: 4 playoff appearances, 8-2 in the playoffs, 15:12 TD:INT. Wins 2 SuperBowls.

 

Another HoFer that started out hotter than Luck.

 

Aaron Rodgers: 1 playoff appearance, 0-1 in the playoffs, 4:1 TD:INT. Zero rings.

 

So Aaron Rodgers is the first HoFer that pales in comparison to Luck in their first 5 years of their career. Let's continue.

 

Drew Brees: 1 playoff appearance, 0-1 in the playoffs, 2:1 TD:INT. Zero rings.

 

Another great falls to the "hype" of Luck.

 

Phil Rivers: 3 playoff appearances, 3-3 in the playoffs, 1:1 TD:INT. Zero rings.

 

Getting closer to the Hall of Very Good caliber player, but my god, that sounds a lot like our boy Luck!

 

I'd like to point out the funny part of you comparing Luck to HoFer's and thinking it proves anything. Neither Brees, nor Peyton, nor Rivers, nor Rodgers were HoFers after their fifth year in the league. And yes, Luck isn't comparable to the careers they have had over 10+ years yet. But neither were they at the same point in time.

 

You've got me though. Ben and Brady, two surefire 1st ballot HoFers had more success than Luck. Which proves absolutely nothing .

 

My issue with the Luck fanboys is that he hasn't done anything yet that truly lifts a team. That is normally the measurement of a "great QB". Yet Luck is often showered with that moniker and has been since before his first play. The fanboys go along. Personally I prefer Flacco's results to Luck's cult.

 

What does that mean? Define it. Pick a moment in the careers of each of the QB's I listed above and tell me when they "lifted" their team. Are you referring to rings? Do you prefer Flacco to Rivers because he had a great playoff run 4 years ago?

 

I'm not sure what "normally," means. I certainly didn't subscribe to the rules you're following.

 

As for the 3-3 playoff record you have to be kidding me. He has one good win in the playoffs. One. The other two involve a home win over the Bengals whose recent playoff record speaks for itself and a game he gave to the Chiefs only to have Reid hand it back.

 

Ha ha! Taking out a page of Alpha's book I see. You complain about "comeback wins," but now there are "good wins" and I assume "bad wins." Take away Dilfer's ring, he only had bad wins to get there! And Peyton's second ring, where was his "good win?"

 

Brady only threw 1 TD total in the 3 games where he won a ring in 2001. Zero good wins!

 

Brutal to watch really. I assume you'd complain if the Bills shut out 3 opponents on our way to a Super Bowl win because our QB didn't have any "good wins."

Edited September 2, 2017 by jmc12290

[Alphadawg7]

Is Manning the only QB considered elite that was horrible in his first few playoff starts and is that why we are comparing Luck to him instead of Brady, Rodgers, Ben, etc.?

 

My issue with the Luck fanboys is that he hasn't done anything yet that truly lifts a team. That is normally the measurement of a "great QB". Yet Luck is often showered with that moniker and has been since before his first play. The fanboys go along. Personally I prefer Flacco's results to Luck's cult.

 

As for the 3-3 playoff record you have to be kidding me. He has one good win in the playoffs. One. The other two involve a home win over the Bengals whose recent playoff record speaks for itself and a game he gave to the Chiefs only to have Reid hand it back.

 

The real comical part I have already pointed out to them, is that they are conveniently comparing 3 playoff games of Manning to Lucks 6 playoff games. If you actually do their first 6 games it doesn't paint the same picture.

 

But, one of the funniest parts of this whole thing is that Manning is a terrible example to compare to and his BIGGEST knock was POOR playoff showings for his career. NINE times the Colts were one and done in the playoffs...NINE, and that is an NFL record.

 

People point to the 2 SB's...well, the first he beat REX GROSSMAN...ok, not exactly all worldly there. The second, Manning was the worst starting QB in the NFL that year, and his SB was the worst SB performance in history by a winning QB. That Broncos team won because of the devastating Defense and the good run game, not because Manning had some great playoff run.

 

So again, Manning playoff resume is meh at best. He is an all time great, no doubt. First ballot HOF, no doubt. Top 10 QB's all time, no doubt. Those 2 SB's are his forever, no one can take that away. But when you consider his prolific regular seasons and then look at his track record in the post season, they don't quite add up. It took a supremely talented team to win INSPITE of him in Denver, where he was almost benched for guess who, Brock Osweiler, permanently that season for being so bad that year before his injury. He obviously was in his prime and more important to the Colts SB, but again, the competition once he got there was Rex Grossman.

 

Manning was the NFLs Alex Rodriguez...dominant regular season guy, not nearly the same level of play and consistency in the playoffs you would expect from such a dominant player in the regular season. His career playoff totals don't look bad considering how often he was there, but he squandered opportunities too many times.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[4merper4mer]

Rodgers is clearly not as good as Luck because he sat and waited behind Favre.

 

Lolololololollololololol

[BringBackOrton]

 

The real comical part I have already pointed out to them, is that they are conveniently comparing 3 playoff games of Manning to Lucks 6 playoff games. If you actually do their first 6 games it doesn't paint the same picture.

 

But, one of the funniest parts of this whole thing is that Manning is a terrible example to compare to and his BIGGEST knock was POOR playoff showings for his career. NINE times the Colts were one and done in the playoffs...NINE, and that is an NFL record.

 

People point to the 2 SB's...well, the first he beat REX GROSSMAN...ok, not exactly all worldly there. The second, Manning was the worst starting QB in the NFL that year, and his SB was the worst SB performance in history by a winning QB. That Broncos team won because of the devastating Defense and the good run game, not because Manning had some great playoff run.

 

So again, Manning playoff resume is meh at best. He is an all time great, no doubt. First ballot HOF, no doubt. Top 10 QB's all time, no doubt. Those 2 SB's are his forever, no one can take that away. But when you consider his prolific regular seasons and then look at his track record in the post season, they don't quite add up. It took a supremely talented team to win INSPITE of him in Denver, where he was almost benched for guess who, Brock Osweiler, permanently that season for being so bad that year before his injury. He obviously was in his prime and more important to the Colts SB, but again, the competition once he got there was Rex Grossman.

 

Manning was the NFLs Alex Rodriguez...dominant regular season guy, not nearly the same level of play and consistency in the playoffs you would expect from such a dominant player in the regular season. His career playoff totals don't look bad considering how often he was there, but he squandered opportunities too many times.

But that's the point Alpha. If Luck has the exact same career as Manning, choking in the playoffs etc etc, he'd still be an all-time great. I reject that Luck needed to have the first 5 years of a Brady or a Big Ben to be considered successful. Because Manning sure didn't.

 

As to your point of comparing playoff games, the reason Manning has 3 playoff games compared to Luck's 6 in their first 5 years is because Manning kept losing in the playoffs. Kind of absurd to compare a 6 year player's 4th playoff game to a 2 year player's 4th playoff game, no?

Rodgers is clearly not as good as Luck because he sat and waited behind Favre.

 

Lolololololollololololol

White flagging hard. I apologize for dunking on you over and over and over.