Boy Andrew Luck sure is overrated

[ctrcat]

Not sure how he can be so good and so overrated at the same time, but he is.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Not sure how he can be so good and so overrated at the same time, but he is.

The media because they just refuse to acknowledge when he does badly. Which happens every game instead it's all "isn't that perfect?" with every move he makes.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Andrew Luck is so good that when a pass of his hits both hands of a defender, it's dropped 95% of the time.

(Sadly, I'm not even kidding.)

 

[Popeyejones]

Is the argument that Luck benefits more from dropped interceptions than anyone else? He does over time??!?!?!? That seems really hard to defend. He might have more of these because he throws more than most other QBs, but beyond that I think any explanation for that argument would have to be really questionable.

Every QB has should-have-been INTs dropped, it's just random chance. Thinking back to week 1 I remember Wilson having an INT dropped, and Zach Miller making an amazing play to knock out a second INT. All QBs have INTs dropped, just as all QBs have INTs that get tipped and aren't really their fault (as Luck did last night) or get attributed with fumbles that aren't really their fault (same story last night, a backup UFA center snaps the ball when he's not supposed to and Luck gets a fumble).

As for Luck overall, I was very critical of him in his rookie year, and about halfway through his second year. I thought he was being anointed on reputation, and his play wasn't living up to it. Over time though, he has convinced me.

Like everyone else he misses some passes, but he's a demon in getting through his progressions, and at three years in he's better at manipulating and maneuvering the pocket to get through his progressions than any other young QB I've seen (he's even better than Rodgers or Brees were way back when). He's got great touch on his throws too, and when he misses he's usually missing low or outside (which you want to do, as it limits picks -- see Stanton regularly missing high, eek!).

Likewise, his run game is really atrocious, just awful, the run blocking in particular. When your run game is so bad that you're up by five with the ball and four minutes left and you still have to pass it over and over again you're just putting a TON of pressure on your QB. The pass blocking is bad too. He gets sacked, but he avoids as many sacks as Wilson does, he just does it in a MUCH less flashy way, and a way that maintains the integrity of the play design and route combos. Their defense sucks too. Teams like the 9ers and Hawks can sit on leads with their defenses and run games, and he's just not afforded that luxury. Basically, the 9ers and Hawks CAN (and often do) win if their QB makes a few amazing early throws and then just avoids mistakes. Luck doesn't have that luxury.

The Colts definitely benefit from playing in a weak division, but even in a strong division I think they're in the wild card hunt every year (let's say WC 50% of the time), and that's almost exclusively because of Luck. I'm not entirely convinced that save for the QB position this Colts team is any better than the one that went 2-14 in 20111.

All that said, for the young QBs I still like Wilson a hair more than him, but Luck has really closed the gap for me in the last year and a half. I understand why he gets all the love he does. Like many folks here I still like Wilson more, but trying to minimize his ability to prop up Wilson comes off as bizarrely petty and insecure, IMO.

 

[RolandDeschain]

UGH! You're doing it, Popeye!

Their running game isn't even close to sucking. Trent Richardson sucks because he seems to have no vision. Bradshaw has a 4.7 YPC average on the year. The Colts are averaging 97 yards per game and 24.83 runs per game on the ground between all their backs combined. Seattle is averaging 90 yards per game and 21.0 runs per game. Indy's running game has 582 yards on 153 rushes for 3.80 YPC and Seattle's has 360 yards on 84 rushes for 4.28 YPC. We have friggin' Beast Mode and they're continually feeding Trent Richardson the ball more than the better-but-not-great Ahmad Bradshaw.

In regards to what I said, I used a percentage on purpose, because it's not relevant to Luck passing a lot. It'd be incredibly time-consuming to watch every offensive snap for every team in the NFL from 2012 through now to actually count it up, but I'd be willing to bet that Luck on a percentage basis is top three in the league for "most should-have-been-intercepted-but-weren't" passes. Anybody know someone that would do the work on this for cheap? Lol.

ESPN spent two years hyping Andrew Luck as a future Hall-of-Famer before he even entered the NFL, and admit it or not, but that creates a perception in people's minds that is hard to get rid of or even recognize as being there.

 

[HansGruber]

Leads the league in yards and TD throws. Only 4 interceptions this year. All this with a sieve of a defense and no running game.

Such a bum. :sarcasm_on:

(And no this isn't meant to hate on Russell Wilson, just the people that constantly try to tear Andrew Luck down for.. god knows whatever reason)

Ahmad Bradhsaw is "no running game"? Did you know that Ahmad Bradshaw is currently one of the top scoring RBs in fantasy leagues? The guy is averaging 4.7 yards per carry, and over 8 yards per catch, and is used a dual-threat pass/rush threat as evidenced by his 5 receiving TDs. He's been lights out.

And Indy has no defense? They're the 11th ranked defense overall, and have been playing lights-out football the last few weeks. Did you watch the Houston game? How do you even say that after the Houston game? Or any of their recent games? Way to prove you don't even watch the games before commenting on them.

And frankly, I wish your statement WAS true. I'd love nothing more than to face an unbalanced, pass-first Indy team with no defense in the Superbowl. That's EXACTLY the kind of team that Seattle dominates and the exact type of team that never wins championships. Unfortunately, you couldn't be more wrong.

No defense or run game. LOL. OK, dude.

 

[RolandDeschain]

No defense or run game. LOL. OK, dude.

Media heads say it daily. IT HAS TO BE TRUE. I'm confident that you're wrong on this one, Hans!!

 

[HansGruber]

No defense or run game. LOL. OK, dude.

Media heads say it daily. IT HAS TO BE TRUE. I'm confident that you're wrong on this one, Hans!!

Seriously. I read that and was actually laughing out loud.

I'm not saying Andrew Luck is garbage or anything. He's been pretty good this season. I'm just laughing at the absurdity of saying Indy has no run game or defense. They're one of the best defenses in the AFC right now, and Ahmad Bradshaw is just lighting it up.

 

[Popeyejones]

They're one of the best AFC defenses right now, and you could argue that for their run game as well. They just don't run a traditional rush offense. A lot of the yards come from screens and wheel routes

Oh, I get it. If we just attribute passing plays to the run game we can get to our desired conclusion! :lol:

Should we start throwing out the Hawks' RB and WR screens too (and boy they rely heavily on those behind the LOS passes, probably more so than most teams). Might not end up being too pretty.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Oh, I get it. If we just attribute passing plays to the run game we can get to our desired conclusion! :lol:

Should we start throwing out the Hawks' RB and WR screens too (and boy they rely heavily on those behind the LOS passes, probably more so than most teams). Might not end up being too pretty.

Bradshaw has 4.7 YPC through six games, and he sees plenty of snaps. Justify how that's bad. Also, Indy's O-line is great. Not good; great.

 

[HansGruber]

They're one of the best AFC defenses right now, and you could argue that for their run game as well. They just don't run a traditional rush offense. A lot of the yards come from screens and wheel routes

Oh, I get it. If we just attribute passing plays to the run game we can get to our desired conclusion! :lol:

Should we start throwing out the Hawks' RB and WR screens too (and boy they rely heavily on those behind the LOS passes, probably more so than most teams). Might not end up being too pretty.

The way Indy has made up for poor interior OL play is to run a lot of screens to Bradshaw rather than running between the tackles. That's how they choose to run the ball. I'm very aware that the play action to Ahmad is a "pass" play. I find it actually humorous (and slightly pathetic) that anyone would attempt to use that technicality to conclude that "Indy has no run game."

And no, you couldn't be more wrong when saying that matches how Seattle runs it. Seattle runs primarily between the tackles on traditional hand offs. That is not at all how Indy runs the ball. And Seattle doesn't use the screen anywhere near what Indy is doing, not even close. We use it a few times per game. Indy uses it more than that on every drive. They've scored a good number of TDs and gained a lot of first downs with it. It's become a critical part of their offense, just like Freener.

You're choosing to purposely obfuscate the point to try to nullify it. Which doesn't work. Bradshaw catches most of those screens in the backfield BEHIND the LOS and runs like any other RB. The method of delivery doesn't change the effectiveness of that run strategy. Bradshaw is still racking up insane points in fantasy, and Indy is still putting up plenty of points and yards with him. He's very much a key piece of their offense. Would you deny that?

The point being made was that Andrew Luck isn't getting help from his RBs. Which couldn't be more false.

Just shows one more clear example of why relying purely on stats gives one a completely inaccurate view of the game.

 

[Popeyejones]

UGH! You're doing it, Popeye!

Their running game isn't even close to sucking. Trent Richardson sucks because he seems to have no vision. Bradshaw has a 4.7 YPC average on the year. The Colts are averaging 97 yards per game and 24.83 runs per game on the ground between all their backs combined. Seattle is averaging 90 yards per game and 21.0 runs per game. Indy's running game has 582 yards on 153 rushes for 3.80 YPC and Seattle's has 360 yards on 84 rushes for 4.28 YPC. We have friggin' Beast Mode and they're continually feeding Trent Richardson the ball more than the better-but-not-great Ahmad Bradshaw.

You're having fun with numbers, Roland. That you think they should lean on Bradshaw more doesn't change the overall ineffectiveness of their run game.

Likewise, the exclusion of Harvin's rushing stats is also being used opportunistically. If this were a thread about Harvin and I excluded his rushing stats you'd say I was looking at what he brings to the team too narrowly, and you'd be right. Pretending that they haven't incorporated Harvin into the run game is just as faulty.

When you take your finger off the scale, excluding QBs (which makes sense for the convo we're having), the Hawks are averaging OVER a yard per carry in the run game greater than the Colts.

You can't talk away the difference between 3.8 YPC and 4.9 YPC and its effect on the run game. It's just silly.

In regards to what I said, I used a percentage on purpose, because it's not relevant to Luck passing a lot. It'd be incredibly time-consuming to watch every offensive snap for every team in the NFL from 2012 through now to actually count it up, but I'd be willing to bet that Luck on a percentage basis is top three in the league for "most should-have-been-intercepted-but-weren't" passes. Anybody know someone that would do the work on this for cheap? Lol.

I know you believe this and I know neither of us know the answer, but you've got skin in the game that I don't.

If we're talking over three seasosn there's MUCH less random variance to attribute this to than if we're talking the small sample size of a game or two. You're making an argument across multiple seasons though, so there has to be some hypothesis baked into why this is rather than just random variance. I quite simply can't come up with what that hypothesis is. As a result, the null hypothesis (i.e. there's nothing going on; which is ALWAYS the hypothesis you should expect, even if you've got a good counter hypothesis, which we don't) is the best bet.

ESPN spent two years hyping Andrew Luck as a future Hall-of-Famer before he even entered the NFL, and admit it or not, but that creates a perception in people's minds that is hard to get rid of or even recognize as being there.

[/quote]

Yeah, and in the post of mine you're quoting I said I spent the first year and a half of Luck's career thinking his play didn't match his mystique and that he was getting praised on his reputation, but since halfway through last year he has convinced me with his play. Am I one of this rubes who has finally been victimized by the ESPN hype machine, or is this complaint completely unrelated to the convo you and I are having? That Luck has been overhyped doesn't mean 1) that's he not a really, really good QB, or that 2) he's not a BETTER QB than Wilson (even though I personally prefer Wilson, if my less than I did a year ago).

 

[Popeyejones]

They're one of the best AFC defenses right now, and you could argue that for their run game as well. They just don't run a traditional rush offense. A lot of the yards come from screens and wheel routes

Oh, I get it. If we just attribute passing plays to the run game we can get to our desired conclusion! :lol:

Should we start throwing out the Hawks' RB and WR screens too (and boy they rely heavily on those behind the LOS passes, probably more so than most teams). Might not end up being too pretty.

The way Indy has made up for poor interior OL play is to run a lot of screens to Bradshaw rather than running between the tackles. That's how they choose to run the ball. I'm very aware that the play action to Ahmad is a "pass" play. I find it actually humorous (and slightly pathetic) that anyone would attempt to use that technicality to conclude that "Indy has no run game."

And no, you couldn't be more wrong when saying that matches how Seattle runs it. Seattle runs primarily between the tackles on traditional hand offs. That is not at all how Indy runs the ball. And Seattle doesn't use the screen anywhere near what Indy is doing, not even close. We use it a few times per game. Indy uses it more than that on every drive. They've scored a good number of TDs and gained a lot of first downs with it. It's become a critical part of their offense, just like Freener.

You're choosing to purposely obfuscate the point to try to nullify it. Which doesn't work. Bradshaw catches most of those screens in the backfield BEHIND the LOS and runs like any other RB. The method of delivery doesn't change the effectiveness of that run strategy. Bradshaw is still racking up insane points in fantasy, and Indy is still putting up plenty of points and yards with him. He's very much a key piece of their offense. Would you deny that?

The point being made was that Andrew Luck isn't getting help from his RBs. Which couldn't be more false.

Just shows one more clear example of why relying purely on stats gives one a completely inaccurate view of the game.

Look, you're right now trying to convince me that screen plays are part of the run game. I'm simply not going to be convinced.

For the purposes of this thread only you're now also trying to argue that screens to the RBs and WRs aren't a big part of the Hawks' offense, which is, you know, pretty silly as it has been a big part of their offense since PC's arrival.

To make your case you've also (once again!) simply invented something I never said so that you can more convincingly win the argument with yourself. When did I say Luck gets no help from his RBs? I haven't. I said their run game sucks, and you've admitted as much by acknowledging their poor interior OL play. That they've "made up for it in otherways" as you say, proves my point. You can try to rope-a-dope around it by calling pass plays run plays and by making up things for me that I never said, but it is what it is.

 

[SonicHawk]

Let's do a test.

You're starting a team. You have a decent RB, a few good WRs, an average O-line and an average defense (you're going to have to score some points to win, but not like 40).

Who do you draft out of current NFL QBs. Only this year.

Manning over Luck?
Wilson over Luck?
Rivers over Luck?
Brees over Luck?
Rodgers over Luck?
Ryan over Luck?

I put Luck on the level of Tony Romo. He's a good QB, Luck is a bit more mobile, but they are both going to throw INTs and TDs. They both need a RB to have a good to great year to win anything more than 10 games and they aren't winning many playoff games.

Tony Romo has a better passer rating in the playoffs than Luck. Luck has 8 INT and 6 passing TDs in the playoffs.

Nothing about Luck is elite. He's a good NFL QB.

 

[Popeyejones]

DBL

 

[Popeyejones]

Let's do a test.

You're starting a team. You have a decent RB, a few good WRs, an average O-line and an average defense (you're going to have to score some points to win, but not like 40).

Who do you draft out of current NFL QBs. Only this year.

Manning over Luck?
Wilson over Luck?
Rivers over Luck?
Brees over Luck?
Rodgers over Luck?
Ryan over Luck?

I put Luck on the level of Tony Romo. He's a good QB, Luck is a bit more mobile, but they are both going to throw INTs and TDs. They both need a RB to have a good to great year to win anything more than 10 games and they aren't winning many playoff games.

Tony Romo has a better passer rating in the playoffs than Luck. Luck has 8 INT and 6 passing TDs in the playoffs.

Nothing about Luck is elite. He's a good NFL QB.

If I'm starting a team Manning and Brees are both 35 years old +, so I'm not starting with them. I think Matt Ryan, although good, is too much of a product of his really, really good receivers. I also think we already know what he is, whereas Luck and Wilson both still have more room to develop. So Ryan is out the conversation too for me.

With the team you've described I take Rodgers without hesitation. If I can't have Rodgers it gets close. He has no holes in his game, and makes mediocre and one-dimensional WRs look like pro-bowlers.

Let's say I can't have Rodgers, though. With an average team, really thinking about and how important the decision is, I think I'm risk averse and take Luck. Not because I'm absolutely convinced Luck is better (as I've already said, I still prefer Wilson a little bit), but because I'd be risk averse and I already know that Luck 1) can perform in a variety of offensive schemes and 2) can be effective with a mediocre team.

That very well might come back to bite me, but the bites not going to be too hard b/c Luck isn't a slouch. It's a hard decision, though. If instead I've got a good team already in place, it's a very easy decision for me to take Wilson. I don't need to be as risk averse and that's a much easier decision, and a gamble I definitely think is worth taking.

 

[jkitsune]

Luck's playing really well this year. Was devastating against the Texans. He's a great player. Colts are super lucky (HA!) to have him. If the Seahawks had him, we'd be super lucky (HAHA!) to have him. Other than possibly Wilson, I'm not convinced there's a single player a team would rather have to build their team around. You can argue there are veteran QBs who are better 'today,' but in terms of the long-term health of a franchise? Luck and Wilson are #s1 and 1a (in no particular order).

 

[HansGruber]

Luck's playing really well this year. Was devastating against the Texans. He's a great player. Colts are super lucky (HA!) to have him. If the Seahawks had him, we'd be super lucky (HAHA!) to have him. Other than possibly Wilson, I'm not convinced there's a single player a team would rather have to build their team around. You can argue there are veteran QBs who are better 'today,' but in terms of the long-term health of a franchise? Luck and Wilson are #s1 and 1a (in no particular order).

I can definitely agree with that. Luck has really looked good this season. The last two, he definitely didn't look great in the postseason, but that's to be expected. He's young, and he's playing in a system that stresses a high-volume passing game that exposes all flaws in a QB.

Wilson has the advantage of playing in a system that ball control and security are esteemed above all else. He's been trained to take the highest-percentage play, even if it only gets a few yards. Like Warren Moon said yesterday, that's a great thing and shows a lot of skill by a quarterback - and also that he puts his team and winning above personal stats. But he's definitely enjoyed a system that has allowed him to learn safely, where Luck has been thrown in the fire and plays in a system where any mistake he makes gets magnified.

That's not a statement on either QB.

Frankly, Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson are the best of the young QBs, and it's not close. Cam Newton's back there a ways, and then you've got the next tier - Kaepernick and the rest. Seattle is lucky to have scored Wilson in the 3rd Round and oh boy has that ever worked out. Indy did the right thing by picking Luck, and you can't criticize them for doing so.

But when you start saying Luck doesn't have any weapons on defense or in the run game to prop him up, that's just silly. And untrue.

 

[ctrcat]

^ While you're not alone thinking Cam isn't close, it doesn't come from sound facts, logic, reasoning, or measurables.

This season:
Cam has a much better INT % (2.7 to .8
Cam and Luck have the same YPA (7.6)
Cam has a higher YPC (12.4 to 11.6)
Cam's sack rate is 7.9 to Luck's 3.3 so over twice as likely to be sacked on a drop back)

Cam has a higher career completion % (60 to 58.5)
Cam and Luck have the same career TD % (4.3)

Nearly 70% of Colts draft picks have been offense since Luck was drafted vs 40% for Newton.
Luck is 6-7 outside of the AFC South over the last two seasons.

Cam is not even a shell of what he used to be or will be when 100%, but has become a better passer, as at least two have noticed. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdown- ... 43535.html. http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/22 ... ing-labels

If Luck truly is Captain America that the media makes him out to be then Cam truly is Superman.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Luck's playing really well this year. Was devastating against the Texans. He's a great player. Colts are super lucky (HA!) to have him. If the Seahawks had him, we'd be super lucky (HAHA!) to have him. Other than possibly Wilson, I'm not convinced there's a single player a team would rather have to build their team around. You can argue there are veteran QBs who are better 'today,' but in terms of the long-term health of a franchise? Luck and Wilson are #s1 and 1a (in no particular order).

I can definitely agree with that. Luck has really looked good this season. The last two, he definitely didn't look great in the postseason, but that's to be expected. He's young, and he's playing in a system that stresses a high-volume passing game that exposes all flaws in a QB.

Wilson has the advantage of playing in a system that ball control and security are esteemed above all else. He's been trained to take the highest-percentage play, even if it only gets a few yards. Like Warren Moon said yesterday, that's a great thing and shows a lot of skill by a quarterback - and also that he puts his team and winning above personal stats. But he's definitely enjoyed a system that has allowed him to learn safely, where Luck has been thrown in the fire and plays in a system where any mistake he makes gets magnified.

That's not a statement on either QB.

Frankly, Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson are the best of the young QBs, and it's not close. Cam Newton's back there a ways, and then you've got the next tier - Kaepernick and the rest. Seattle is lucky to have scored Wilson in the 3rd Round and oh boy has that ever worked out. Indy did the right thing by picking Luck, and you can't criticize them for doing so.

But when you start saying Luck doesn't have any weapons on defense or in the run game to prop him up, that's just silly. And untrue.

Luck has looked better but 12 of his TDs have come when the offense is within 10 yards and they have passed twice as much as thrown when there. Seahawks are the total opposite and have ran twice as much than throw within 10 yards of the Endzone.

Also has 11 of his TDs against the terrible AFC South with 2 INTS. Only has 6TD/5INT in the other 3 games outside the AFC SOUTH

We might as well just crown the Colts the division winner now. They are just playing for position in the playoffs at this point...AFC South is the worse division BY FAR this year.