Andrew Luck not ready to start regular season

[BringBackOrton]

 

It factors everything in. There isn't a QB on that list you sit back and say Luck is absolutely the better choice. There are QB's on that list who are unquestionably the pick over Luck. There are only a few that are a valid debate, and in those cases I still choose them over Luck.

 

These QB's have either flat out done/accomplished more, proven themselves more, or are currently ascending during a time Luck is descending and has availability issues. The 3 future studs of the NFL QB circle are going to be Carr, Mariota, and Winston IMO.

 

So given you laughed 3 times, why don't you fill us in on who on that list is so funny to choose over Luck as you make it sound like the whole list is bad.

 

I can tell you that anyone who puts him ahead of Bress, Brady, Ryan, or Rodgers needs their head examined and doesn't know what they are talking about.

Anyone who puts him ahead of guys who are proven winners like Ben and Wilson are crazy IMO.

Anyone who puts him ahead of guys like Stafford and Rivers havent been paying attention to how good those guys have been for much longer.

 

I can see if people want to debate guys like Cousins and Cam, but they have done quite a bit more than Luck these last 2 years, and I will take their potential and more recent resume over what Luck did 3 years ago in what was then a weak division. Plus Cam has made the big dance despite missing his best WR for the season.

 

Then you have the other young buck trio of Carr, Mariota, and Winston. If you don't know how good they are, you might not be paying attention. Carr was a legit MVP candidate before the injury. Mariota was the most productive QB in the entire NFL last year between weeks 3-12 before he broke his leg and making his own sleeper MVP rumbles. Winston is a rapidly ascending and substantially talented QB and leader on the field. You want to argue for Luck over them, be my guest...but all 3 of those guys are seriously ascending while Luck has been descending and I would rather bet on their futures than Lucks at this point IMO.

Stafford is up and down yearly.

 

Rivers, of whom I'm admittedly a fan of, just had statistically one of his worst years of his career.

 

You're holding a year of Luck being hurt against him. Luck was leagues above Cam last season. Luck was leagues above Cousins last season too. Luck was leagues above Winston and Mariota last season too. Carr is a debate, which I fairly admit.

 

He was hurt in 2015. He took his team to the AFCCG in 2014. He has never had a losing record when he plays more than half a season. He's never lost more than 7 games in a season ever.

 

I know you think he's "overrated" by some, so you take ridiculous stances, but Luck is better than Cam, Cousins, Winston and Mariota and every single one of those GM's would trade their guy for him barring injury status.

[4merper4mer]

 

 

I know you think he's "overrated" by some, so you take ridiculous stances,

 

 

If you think Kim Jung QB is anything less than perfect, you are taking a ridiculous stance. Do I have that right?

[BringBackOrton]

 

 

If you think Kim Jung QB is anything less than perfect, you are taking a ridiculous stance. Do I have that right?

No. Anymore questions?

[4merper4mer]

No. Anymore questions?

 

 

Not really. But I'm sure you can understand why I came to that conclusion as any critique of Luck whatsoever is met by you with the vitriol of a mother bear. My impression was further solidified when you called Alpha's observations and opinions "ridiculous stances" in much the same manner a North Korean citizen would be if he were to suggest that Kim Jung Un might not really be able to shoot an 18 during a round of golf.

[BringBackOrton]

 

 

Not really. But I'm sure you can understand why I came to that conclusion as any critique of Luck whatsoever is met by you with the vitriol of a mother bear. My impression was further solidified when you called Alpha's observations and opinions "ridiculous stances" in much the same manner a North Korean citizen would be if he were to suggest that Kim Jung Un might not really be able to shoot an 18 during a round of golf.

 

While I get we still have question marks at our QB position, I would take our situation right now every single time over the Colts.

 

What an apt comparison. Clearly calling this "opinion" ridiculous makes me a KGB officer in waiting.

 

[Alphadawg7]

Stafford is up and down yearly.

 

Rivers, of whom I'm admittedly a fan of, just had statistically one of his worst years of his career.

 

You're holding a year of Luck being hurt against him. Luck was leagues above Cam last season. Luck was leagues above Cousins last season too. Luck was leagues above Winston and Mariota last season too. Carr is a debate, which I fairly admit.

 

He was hurt in 2015. He took his team to the AFCCG in 2014. He has never had a losing record when he plays more than half a season. He's never lost more than 7 games in a season ever.

 

I know you think he's "overrated" by some, so you take ridiculous stances, but Luck is better than Cam, Cousins, Winston and Mariota and every single one of those GM's would trade their guy for him barring injury status.

 

Ok, so this is exactly what I am talking about...you literally don't even know what you are saying and just saying nonsense. First off, Cousins finished THIRD in the NFL last year among all QBs and guess who was NOT above Cousins...Luck, who only missed ONE game last year.

 

Second, Mariota has almost identical numbers to Luck, except he has 25% less turnovers than Luck and slightly less yards per game because Tenn also has a great run game. Mariota also has less talented WR's last year than Luck had who has a top 10 guy in TY Hilton.

 

Winston, also has similar numbers across the board to Luck, except he is one of the few QBs to turn the ball over more than Luck, but it was also his SECOND year compared to Lucks FIFTH year.

 

So for you to say he was light years above any of them is BEYOND absurd. I actually don't have an issue if you think Luck is better than either of those 3, its to the absurd nonsense levels you take things about it that is ridiculous. To say any of them was light years behind Luck is so stupid I question my own sanity for even bothering to respond to it.

 

I do find it interesting that you keep running back to THREE years ago to defend Luck on what he did in 2014. Hey do ask RG3 about what he did way back when how much that means today. And you can blame injuries all you want, but Luck missed ONE game last year...ONE, its not like it cost him his whole season.

 

Funny thing is, I think Luck is a good QB, however, I don't find him that attractive right now compared to the other young talents of the NFL between a combo of 4 key reasons: Turnovers, Injuries, personal steep drop off against better teams, and Contract.

[GoBills808]

 

Ok, so this is exactly what I am talking about...you literally don't even know what you are saying and just saying nonsense. First off, Cousins finished THIRD in the NFL last year among all QBs and guess who was NOT above Cousins...Luck, who only missed ONE game last year.

 

Second, Mariota has almost identical numbers to Luck, except he has 25% less turnovers than Luck and slightly less yards per game because Tenn also has a great run game. Mariota also has less talented WR's last year than Luck had who has a top 10 guy in TY Hilton.

 

Winston, also has similar numbers across the board to Luck, except he is one of the few QBs to turn the ball over more than Luck, but it was also his SECOND year compared to Lucks FIFTH year.

 

So for you to say he was light years above any of them is BEYOND absurd. I actually don't have an issue if you think Luck is better than either of those 3, its to the absurd nonsense levels you take things about it that is ridiculous. To say any of them was light years behind Luck is so stupid I question my own sanity for even bothering to respond to it.

 

I do find it interesting that you keep running back to THREE years ago to defend Luck on what he did in 2014. Hey do ask RG3 about what he did way back when how much that means today. And you can blame injuries all you want, but Luck missed ONE game last year...ONE, its not like it cost him his whole season.

 

Funny thing is, I think Luck is a good QB, however, I don't find him that attractive right now compared to the other young talents of the NFL between a combo of 4 key reasons: Turnovers, Injuries, personal steep drop off against better teams, and Contract.

I can agree with some of this. I don't think TY Hilton is a top 10 receiver, however.

[Alphadawg7]

 

 

What an apt comparison. Clearly calling this "opinion" ridiculous makes me a KGB officer in waiting.

 

 

GEEZUS YOU ARE DENSE. Why don't you share the context of that statement? Oh because then you don't get to manipulate it to be something that its not...so let me help you out.

 

I said I would rather be in a situation where we are right now: Fresh regime rebuilding and loaded with draft assets to go after the QB that this regime wants in the next draft while also not stuck in any hefty QB contract currently...COMPARED to the Colts who are LOCKED into a MASSIVE contract that is cap choking and tied to a QB who has REAL durability questions and after 5 years has yet to prove he can carry a bad team anywhere or protect the ball properly.

 

But, if you provide all that context then you of course lose your ability to pretend I am saying some kind of support statement of Taylor over Luck which is categorically not true. Player to Player, I take Luck 1000000 times over Taylor. But, as I have said in this thread 100 times, I think Lucks contract is terrible based on his mistakes, injury history, and size and I don't want to be in that situation with any player.

I can agree with some of this. I don't think TY Hilton is a top 10 receiver, however.

 

i actually personally agree with you on that, he finished 10th in the NFL last year though, so I had to reference him to his performance. He's a big or bust kind of player IMO and while I think is definitely at top 20 guy, maybe top 15, I could list 10 WRs I would prefer over him that just are more complete IMO.

[GoBills808]

 

i actually personally agree with you on that, he finished 10th in the NFL last year though, so I had to reference him to his performance. He's a big or bust kind of player IMO and while I think is definitely at top 20 guy, maybe top 15, I could list 10 WRs I would prefer over him that just are more complete IMO.

I like lists...let's see, off the top of my head who I'd take over Hilton:

 

Beckham JR

Antonio Brown

Mike Evans

Julio Jones

AJ Green

Dez

Amari Cooper

D. Thomas

Allen Robinson

Hopkins

Stephon Diggs...

 

maybe:

 

Landry

Fitzgerald

Marshall

 

...yeah, I put him in that 15-20 category. I think he benefits from Luck more than the other way around personally.

[BringBackOrton]

 

Ok, so this is exactly what I am talking about...you literally don't even know what you are saying and just saying nonsense. First off, Cousins finished THIRD in the NFL last year among all QBs and guess who was NOT above Cousins...Luck, who only missed ONE game last year.

 

Second, Mariota has almost identical numbers to Luck, except he has 25% less turnovers than Luck and slightly less yards per game because Tenn also has a great run game. Mariota also has less talented WR's last year than Luck had who has a top 10 guy in TY Hilton.

 

Winston, also has similar numbers across the board to Luck, except he is one of the few QBs to turn the ball over more than Luck, but it was also his SECOND year compared to Lucks FIFTH year.

 

So for you to say he was light years above any of them is BEYOND absurd. I actually don't have an issue if you think Luck is better than either of those 3, its to the absurd nonsense levels you take things about it that is ridiculous. To say any of them was light years behind Luck is so stupid I question my own sanity for even bothering to respond to it.

 

I do find it interesting that you keep running back to THREE years ago to defend Luck on what he did in 2014. Hey do ask RG3 about what he did way back when how much that means today. And you can blame injuries all you want, but Luck missed ONE game last year...ONE, its not like it cost him his whole season.

 

Funny thing is, I think Luck is a good QB, however, I don't find him that attractive right now compared to the other young talents of the NFL between a combo of 4 key reasons: Turnovers, Injuries, personal steep drop off against better teams, and Contract.

What did Cousins finish third in?

 

Mariota had a worse passer rating, a worse QBR, less comebacks, less gamewinning drives, less yards and 5 less TD's. So that's that.

 

Winston had a worse passer rating, a worse QBR, less comebacks, less gamewinning drives, less yards, and 4 less TD's. So there's that.

 

He's clearly better than them both. I like them both, Winston more than Mariota. But he's clearly better.

 

I "run back" to 3 years ago because it's relevant. You handwave Cam being absolutely awful last year and "run back" to two years ago to take him over Luck.

 

I was talking about the injuries in 2015. Not 2016.

 

 

 

GEEZUS YOU ARE DENSE. Why don't you share the context of that statement? Oh because then you don't get to manipulate it to be something that its not...so let me help you out.

 

I said I would rather be in a situation where we are right now: Fresh regime rebuilding and loaded with draft assets to go after the QB that this regime wants in the next draft while also not stuck in any hefty QB contract currently...COMPARED to the Colts who are LOCKED into a MASSIVE contract that is cap choking and tied to a QB who has REAL durability questions and after 5 years has yet to prove he can carry a bad team anywhere or protect the ball properly.

 

But, if you provide all that context then you of course lose your ability to pretend I am saying some kind of support statement of Taylor over Luck which is categorically not true. Player to Player, I take Luck 1000000 times over Taylor. But, as I have said in this thread 100 times, I think Lucks contract is terrible based on his mistakes, injury history, and size and I don't want to be in that situation with any player.

 

i actually personally agree with you on that, he finished 10th in the NFL last year though, so I had to reference him to his performance. He's a big or bust kind of player IMO and while I think is definitely at top 20 guy, maybe top 15, I could list 10 WRs I would prefer over him that just are more complete IMO.

We know the context. It's still insane. A good QB with potential >> a middling talent team with no QB. Draft assets to take a QB with a 25% chance at best to even be as good as Luck currently. Bizzaro.

 

How can we say Luck can't "carry" a team? What does that mean? How do you define "carry?"

Edited September 1, 2017 by jmc12290

[3rdand12]

Irsay is remaining to appear drugged, and not that sharp either.

[GunnerBill]

The problem with Alpha's argument on Luck is there is no consistency to it. The list of QBs he has produced as being better there is no consistency to.

 

One minute he is saying Rivers and Stafford are better because they have proven it on an NFL field over a period of time. Then he is saying Mariota and Winston are better despite the fact they haven't proved it because he'd rather be with their potential.

 

He says he would take proven winners like Russell and Ben but then puts Stafford and Cousins with their zero playoff wins combined above Luck who is 3-3, has played in an AFC Championship, led his team back for one of the biggest come behind wins in playoff history and has done something even Tom Brady never has - won a playoff game in Denver.

 

It comes down to a "I don't rate Andrew Luck" gut reaction. And that is fine. I won't yet put Kirk Cousins in the franchise category despite his numbers saying he is more than a game manager because when I watch him play my instinctive gut feeling is "this guy is just a good game manager."

 

But the playoff argument is flawed, the weak division argument is flawed (Houston but for one disastrous year when Schaub's arm fell off and Kubiak was ill have been a consistent playoff contender during Luck's career and a top defensive unit) and the list is flawed.

 

That isn't to say I am particularly down on any of those QBs he listed. I have been a big defender of Stafford and Rivers on this board and would gladly take either here even with their "bloated" contracts. I am also a huge fan of Winston and Mariota who will break the curse of QBs taken 1 and 2 always producing a dud... but I can't have those 2 over Luck at this stage. He has simply proven more on an NFL field on Sundays.

 

Other than Mariota and Winston who might get there but aren't yet the only other two there that I do think it is crazy to put above Luck are Cousins and Cam. Neither is in his league. And to even mention Carson Wentz..... Wentz is closer to Jared Goff than Andrew Luck right now.

 

Luck is a top 10 QB. He is about to turn 28 and enter his prime. Whether you look at his numbers or watch his tape you conclude he has been a very good Quarterback in this league so far. Great? No. Potential to get to that point? Yes I still think he has.

[BringBackOrton]

The problem with Alpha's argument on Luck is there is no consistency to it. The list of QBs he has produced as being better there is no consistency to.

 

One minute he is saying Rivers and Stafford are better because they have proven it on an NFL field over a period of time. Then he is saying Mariota and Winston are better despite the fact they haven't proved it because he'd rather be with their potential.

 

He says he would take proven winners like Russell and Ben but then puts Stafford and Cousins with their zero playoff wins combined above Luck who is 3-3, has played in an AFC Championship, led his team back for one of the biggest come behind wins in playoff history and has done something even Tom Brady never has - won a playoff game in Denver.

 

It comes down to a "I don't rate Andrew Luck" gut reaction. And that is fine. I won't yet put Kirk Cousins in the franchise category despite his numbers saying he is more than a game manager because when I watch him play my instinctive gut feeling is "this guy is just a good game manager."

 

But the playoff argument is flawed, the weak division argument is flawed (Houston but for one disastrous year when Schaub's arm fell off and Kubiak was ill have been a consistent playoff contender during Luck's career and a top defensive unit) and the list is flawed.

 

That isn't to say I am particularly down on any of those QBs he listed. I have been a big defender of Stafford and Rivers on this board and would gladly take either here even with their "bloated" contracts. I am also a huge fan of Winston and Mariota who will break the curse of QBs taken 1 and 2 always producing a dud... but I can't have those 2 over Luck at this stage. He has simply proven more on an NFL field on Sundays.

 

Other than Mariota and Winston who might get there but aren't yet the only other two there that I do think it is crazy to put above Luck are Cousins and Cam. Neither is in his league. And to even mention Carson Wentz..... Wentz is closer to Jared Goff than Andrew Luck right now.

 

Luck is a top 10 QB. He is about to turn 28 and enter his prime. Whether you look at his numbers or watch his tape you conclude he has been a very good Quarterback in this league so far. Great? No. Potential to get to that point? Yes I still think he has.

Yep.

 

If you argue that you don't like Luck because he has a bloated contract and hasn't proven he can carry a team, and then say you'd take Phillip Rivers over Luck because he's "done it longer," you're just making things up as you go along.

 

And I'm a person who feels Rivers is criminally underrated. But that dude hasn't made the postseason since 2013. And he kinda choked with one of the most talented teams in NFL history versus the Jets.

Edited September 1, 2017 by jmc12290

[Alphadawg7]

The problem with Alpha's argument on Luck is there is no consistency to it. The list of QBs he has produced as being better there is no consistency to.

 

One minute he is saying Rivers and Stafford are better because they have proven it on an NFL field over a period of time. Then he is saying Mariota and Winston are better despite the fact they haven't proved it because he'd rather be with their potential.

 

He says he would take proven winners like Russell and Ben but then puts Stafford and Cousins with their zero playoff wins combined above Luck who is 3-3, has played in an AFC Championship, led his team back for one of the biggest come behind wins in playoff history and has done something even Tom Brady never has - won a playoff game in Denver.

 

It comes down to a "I don't rate Andrew Luck" gut reaction. And that is fine. I won't yet put Kirk Cousins in the franchise category despite his numbers saying he is more than a game manager because when I watch him play my instinctive gut feeling is "this guy is just a good game manager."

 

But the playoff argument is flawed, the weak division argument is flawed (Houston but for one disastrous year when Schaub's arm fell off and Kubiak was ill have been a consistent playoff contender during Luck's career and a top defensive unit) and the list is flawed.

 

That isn't to say I am particularly down on any of those QBs he listed. I have been a big defender of Stafford and Rivers on this board and would gladly take either here even with their "bloated" contracts. I am also a huge fan of Winston and Mariota who will break the curse of QBs taken 1 and 2 always producing a dud... but I can't have those 2 over Luck at this stage. He has simply proven more on an NFL field on Sundays.

 

Other than Mariota and Winston who might get there but aren't yet the only other two there that I do think it is crazy to put above Luck are Cousins and Cam. Neither is in his league. And to even mention Carson Wentz..... Wentz is closer to Jared Goff than Andrew Luck right now.

 

Luck is a top 10 QB. He is about to turn 28 and enter his prime. Whether you look at his numbers or watch his tape you conclude he has been a very good Quarterback in this league so far. Great? No. Potential to get to that point? Yes I still think he has.

 

Actually if you read my post, its a list of QBs who I would take over Luck.

 

I said I will take the upside of Winston, Carr, and Mariota who have far less experience and playing at a level not far behind Luck already compared to Luck being at SIX years now in the league, way too injury and mistake prone, and a cap killing contract.

 

Someone already asked me if "Injuries" were factored in, and I very clearly stated EVERYTHING is factored in.

 

And stat to stat comparison falls shot on many levels because of the makeup of the teams, offensive schemes, etc. Luck is a VOLUME passer, end of story. That means in a 16 game season he is more likely to compile more stat TOTALS, but that doesn't always mean he was the more effective and efficient QB.

 

But again, most importantly, my list are QB's who I would take THIS YEAR (as I said again in there already) over Luck to depend on in both the regular and post seasons...another area where in 6 games, Lucks post season resume has been SUBSTANTIALLY worse than his regular season stats that benefited a lot from his ease of schedule.

 

So the list isn't inconsistent, you guys just keep making your own conclusions outside the parameters I clearly stated multiple times. And I also stated there are some on the list that are indisputable to be better on the list, and others that are a viable discussion, but in those cases I leaned the OTHER way rather than Luck. I did NOT say they are categorically better, but based on all the reasons I provided I sided with them.

Yep.

 

If you argue that you don't like Luck because he has a bloated contract and hasn't proven he can carry a team, and then say you'd take Phillip Rivers over Luck because he's "done it longer," you're just making things up as you go along.

 

And I'm a person who feels Rivers is criminally underrated. But that dude hasn't made the postseason since 2013. And he kinda choked with one of the most talented teams in NFL history versus the Jets.

 

Except he didn't choke, the kicker and Shottenheimer cost the Chargers that game in the end. I was there.

 

Again...you also don't read...I specifically stated ALL FACTORS come into play...not just contract size. Durability. Mistakes. Playoffs. Potential. Experience. number of things...you pick one thing, and focus on it and ignore that stated all factors are considered when I made that list.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[GunnerBill]

So you admit the list is just confirmation bias?

 

You don't rate Luck so when it is just your opinion you will put guys above him. That's fine. But to say he is mythically overrated is a step further because you are then not just disagreeing with those who rate him you are commenting on their opinion.

[BringBackOrton]

 

Actually if you read my post, its a list of QBs who I would take over Luck.

 

I said I will take the upside of Winston, Carr, and Mariota who have far less experience and playing at a level not far behind Luck already compared to Luck being at SIX years now in the league, way too injury and mistake prone, and a cap killing contract.

 

Someone already asked me if "Injuries" were factored in, and I very clearly stated EVERYTHING is factored in.

 

And stat to stat comparison falls shot on many levels because of the makeup of the teams, offensive schemes, etc. Luck is a VOLUME passer, end of story. That means in a 16 game season he is more likely to compile more stat TOTALS, but that doesn't always mean he was the more effective and efficient QB.

 

But again, most importantly, my list are QB's who I would take THIS YEAR (as I said again in there already) over Luck to depend on in both the regular and post seasons...another area where in 6 games, Lucks post season resume has been SUBSTANTIALLY worse than his regular season stats that benefited a lot from his ease of schedule.

 

So the list isn't inconsistent, you guys just keep making your own conclusions outside the parameters I clearly stated multiple times. And I also stated there are some on the list that are indisputable to be better on the list, and others that are a viable discussion, but in those cases I leaned the OTHER way rather than Luck. I did NOT say they are categorically better, but based on all the reasons I provided I sided with them.

 

Except he didn't choke, the kicker and Shottenheimer cost the Chargers that game in the end. I was there.

 

Again...you also don't read...I specifically stated ALL FACTORS come into play...not just contract size. Durability. Mistakes. Playoffs. Potential. Experience. number of things...you pick one thing, and focus on it and ignore that stated all factors are considered when I made that list.

You're cherry picking, that's why. You can't say you'd take Winston over Luck because of potential, Cam over Luck because he went to a Super Bowl once, and Rivers over Luck because experience. It makes no sense. Luck has more potential than Cam and Rivers. He has more experience than Winston. And he's gone further in the playoffs than Winston and Rivers.

 

What you're REALLY doing is taking one thing that in your mind those QB's have over Luck, and claiming that the other factors (which you had just argued in favor of for another QB) don't matter. Then you say they do matter in another circumstance, because they fit your argument that X QB is better than Luck.

 

It's an argument accurately summed up as "all over the place."

Edited September 1, 2017 by jmc12290

[Alphadawg7]

I like lists...let's see, off the top of my head who I'd take over Hilton:

 

Beckham JR

Antonio Brown

Mike Evans

Julio Jones

AJ Green

Dez

Amari Cooper

D. Thomas

Allen Robinson

Hopkins

Stephon Diggs...

 

maybe:

 

Landry

Fitzgerald

Marshall

 

...yeah, I put him in that 15-20 category. I think he benefits from Luck more than the other way around personally.

 

Thats a pretty good list. Call me a homer, but I would take Watkins over TY simply because I truly believe he is the more talented player and I am pretty comfortable the major injury stuff is behind him. TY isn't a model of durability either given how small he is. So while TY has compiled more stats due to being on the field more in a high volume situation, I think Watkins is still the more talented player.

 

Diggs is a guy I was glad to see you put on there...an ascending guy that might be one of the most over looked and underrated players at his position. Kyle Rudolph is also another example of that too in Minn. Without AP grabbing attention, its like people just kind of forget about that team, but Diggs I like a lot, very complete WR.

[Alphadawg7]

So you admit the list is just confirmation bias?

 

You don't rate Luck so when it is just your opinion you will put guys above him. That's fine. But to say he is mythically overrated is a step further because you are then not just disagreeing with those who rate him you are commenting on their opinion.

 

EVERY LIST is biased opinion...everyone of them, just like your rating of Luck is pure opinion.

 

I very clearly stated that there are guys indisputably better than Luck, and others where there is a legit conversation about it and I choose the other guy in those comparisons while factoring everything in to each one. But people keep wanting to dissect each one in order to create the illusion I am waffling over each when each one has a completely different set of comparable things to consider. They are all case by case...so what I say about one QB doesn't mean the next QB has the same considerations.

[4merper4mer]

You're cherry picking, that's why. You can't say you'd take Winston over Luck because of potential, Cam over Luck because he went to a Super Bowl once, and Rivers over Luck because experience. It makes no sense. Luck has more potential than Cam and Rivers. He has more experience than Winston. And he's gone further in the playoffs than Winston and Rivers.

 

What you're REALLY doing is taking one thing that in your mind those QB's have over Luck, and claiming that the other factors (which you had just argued in favor of for another QB) don't matter. Then you say they do matter in another circumstance, because they fit your argument that X QB is better than Luck.

 

It's an argument accurately summed up as "all over the place."

 

 

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.

Edited September 1, 2017 by 4merper4mer

[Alphadawg7]

 

 

Mariota had "less comebacks" and "less game wining drives"? But he did have more wins. I guess it matters how he won now? And He's 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.

 

[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.