Boy Andrew Luck sure is overrated

[themunn]

Luck was mightily impressive yesterday in almost pulling off yet another miracle comeback.

That said, his boneheaded pick 6 that every man and his dog saw coming a mile off to help put them in that position sure had something to do with it...

Not every QB has the luxury of winning a game by putting up only 13 points and one touchdown drive. It's true that Luck's pick six didn't help matters yesterday but our defense also gave up 500+ yards passing and 6 touchdown passes aside from that. It was obvious early on that we were going to have to put up a ton of points to have a shot to win the game. When you have to score more points, you have to take more chances. When you have to take more chances, the odds are you're going to make more mistakes. As I demonstrated earlier, Luck had thrown the ball almost 1200 times in his first two seasons compared to Wilson who only had to throw 800 times and when you compare the interceptions of each to the number of passes thrown, the ratio is almost the same.

If you want to cherry-pick specific moments then I guess you can convince yourself that Luck, or any quarterback, isn't very good but how objective is that? That would be like me saying, "Look at this boneheaded pick Russell Wilson threw with the game on the line!" and then concluding that he isn't any good. I would have to ignore his body of work and doing that would make me sound as ignorant as some of the Luck bashers here.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... inal-drive

I'm not cherry picking moments, I literally picked a moment from the last game that helped lose the game for Indianapolis in the first half. I didn't go have to go back 20 games to cherry pick a moment for Luck because he presents them in such easily pickable fashion... much like a lot of his throws. If I wanted to cherry pick a moment I could easily pick 4 of them from his last game against the Pats, or 3 against the Chiefs,I could pick the 4th quarter INT against the Eagles where the Colts were just outside the redzone, and with safe decisions could have run the clock and kicked a FG to take a 10pt lead with 5 minutes left. Instead the Eagles score a TD then kick a game winning FG. All of those things happened in 2014.

 

[LotsOfLuck]

Yes you are cherry picking individual bad moments because overall he came into a team that went 2-14 the season before he arrived and has led that team to a 27-13 record which is a pretty damn good winning percentage for most NFL teams over 40 games let alone one that started as the worst team in the league prior to that stretch.

Is he perfect? No. Nobody ever claimed he was.

Does he sometimes make mistakes that contribute to losses? Sure. All QBs do. Even your golden boy.

Overall, though, he is a gigantic positive for a team that is asking him to make up for many deficiencies in other areas. You are trying to focus on the bad in what is overwhelmingly a very good track record. That's almost the definition of cherry picking.

 

[SomersetHawk]

he came into a team that went 2-14 the season before he arrived.

Yep, you gloriously blew a whole season and a year out of your fans' lives (for some, their last no doubt) to get the #1 overall pick, and it wasn't remotely subtle.

Luck inherited a perfectly fine team, it just so happens you chose the retiring Kerry Collins to do your dirty work, before replacing him with the magnificent Curtis Painter to see it out.

 

[themunn]

Alex Smith took a 2-14 team to 11-5 despite playing in a division with 2 other playoff teams - including one record setting offense.
A QB does not a team make, as Colts fans are quick to point out about Wilson, but slow to note of their own QB.

Didn't your defense shut the Bengals out just 1 week ago?

 

[LotsOfLuck]

he came into a team that went 2-14 the season before he arrived.

Yep, you gloriously blew a whole season and a year out of your fans' lives (for some, their last no doubt) to get the #1 overall pick, and it wasn't remotely subtle.

Luck inherited a perfectly fine team, it just so happens you chose the retiring Kerry Collins to do your dirty work, before replacing him with the magnificent Curtis Painter to see it out.

This is one of the most ignorant comments of this entire thread which is saying something. The GM and coach were fired after that season. Only a complete moron would think that these people required to tank a season would do so when they wouldn't be around to benefit from the supposed tanking.

The fact is that the team was built around Manning and his considerable abilities. You take him out of the equation, and the structure of the team no longer made any sense.

A few more facts that blow holes in your "tanking" claim was that Curtis Painter was drafted by the Colts in 2009. They didn't just go out and make him the starter when they realized they had a chance at the #1 pick. Polian believed, however misguided the notion, that he was a capable NFL backup QB. If you recall, he was actually put into the game when we infamously decided to rest our starters while sitting at 14-0 in 2009. He immediately blew that game but Polian kept him as backup QB. An error in judgment? Yes. Setting the Colts up to tank 2 years in advance? No.

Also, when the season started nobody knew how long Manning was going to be out. The thought at the very beginning of the year was that they wanted to try to stay within striking distance of the playoffs and then maybe get Manning back, slip into the playoffs, and make a run at the Super Bowl. They were trying to put themselves in position to do that. After watching Curtis Painter in a couple pre-season games they didn't think he could do that and went out and got Kerry Collins. Did it help? No. He actually ended up being worse. But it was a real attempt they made to improve the QB spot and win games and when you are accusing them of tanking, it is their intent that matters. Finally, they were rolling along at 0-11 and with Painter at QB there was little chance of winning a game. Then they switched to Dan Orlovsky, again in an attempt to improve the QB position and try to win games, and ended up winning 2 games and tieing the Rams for the worst record in the league. Had they won the last game in Jacksonville, which they tried to do, the Rams would've had the #1 pick.

So no, the Colts were not tanking. There is nothing to support that claim.

 

[SomersetHawk]

he came into a team that went 2-14 the season before he arrived.

Yep, you gloriously blew a whole season and a year out of your fans' lives (for some, their last no doubt) to get the #1 overall pick, and it wasn't remotely subtle.

Luck inherited a perfectly fine team, it just so happens you chose the retiring Kerry Collins to do your dirty work, before replacing him with the magnificent Curtis Painter to see it out.

This is one of the most ignorant comments of this entire thread which is saying something. The GM and coach were fired after that season. Only a complete moron would think that these people required to tank a season would do so when they wouldn't be around to benefit from the supposed tanking.

The fact is that the team was built around Manning and his considerable abilities. You take him out of the equation, and the structure of the team no longer made any sense.

A few more facts that blow holes in your "tanking" claim was that Curtis Painter was drafted by the Colts in 2009. They didn't just go out and make him the starter when they realized they had a chance at the #1 pick. Polian believed, however misguided the notion, that he was a capable NFL backup QB. If you recall, he was actually put into the game when we infamously decided to rest our starters while sitting at 14-0 in 2009. He immediately blew that game but Polian kept him as backup QB. An error in judgment? Yes. Setting the Colts up to tank 2 years in advance? No.

Also, when the season started nobody knew how long Manning was going to be out. The thought at the very beginning of the year was that they wanted to try to stay within striking distance of the playoffs and then maybe get Manning back, slip into the playoffs, and make a run at the Super Bowl. They were trying to put themselves in position to do that. After watching Curtis Painter in a couple pre-season games they didn't think he could do that and went out and got Kerry Collins. Did it help? No. He actually ended up being worse. But it was a real attempt they made to improve the QB spot and win games and when you are accusing them of tanking, it is their intent that matters. Finally, they were rolling along at 0-11 and with Painter at QB there was little chance of winning a game. Then they switched to Dan Orlovsky, again in an attempt to improve the QB position and try to win games, and ended up winning 2 games and tieing the Rams for the worst record in the league. Had they won the last game in Jacksonville, which they tried to do, the Rams would've had the #1 pick.

So no, the Colts were not tanking. There is nothing to support that claim.

Hook, line and sinker. I'm glad you took all that time to reply to my post.

Sincerely,

a douchebag

 

[LotsOfLuck]

Yea you got me to spend a whole 10-15 minutes writing about football. You really fooled me!

 

[253hawk]

Hahahaha...

 

[homerun1970]

Caption that picture had best be placed in the shack.

 

[HansGruber]

The Luck vs Wilson argument is like the Manning vs Brady argument. Fun for analysts and fans of other teams, but no fun for Colts fans. It's got to suck to be a Colts fan, always telling yourself you have the greatest QB in the NFL and watching in misery as they become turnover machines in the playoffs and you never get anything meaningful from their greatness. Even in the wildly inferior AFC, the Colts just can't get it done. Unfortunately for Luck and Irsay, Rex Grossman has retired and the NFC actually has some good teams, so it doesn't look like they'll be winning anything meaningful anytime soon either.

Andrew Luck in the postseason = 7 TDs (rush+pass), 8 INTs, 1 FUM, 55% Cmp%, 7.59 Y/A, 70.0 QB Rating and a record of 1-2

Russell Wilson in the postseason = 7 TDs, 1 INT, 1 FUM, 63.08% Cmp%, 8.43 Y/A, 102 QB Rating and a record of 4-1

 

[LotsOfLuck]

I guess if there were other fans that would know how bad it sucks to only have one Super Bowl title (as a city, the Colts organization has another one in Baltimore) then I'm on the right board. Kind of strange for a Seahawks fan to mock another fan because they have only won it once.

 

[Uncle Si]

not that I care, but didnt the Colts win like 10 games the year before the 2 win season, then 11 the year after? wouldnt suggest the tanking was on purpose, but it seems the "team" was pretty well set, just needed someone not named Painter or Collins.

 

[lobohawk]

I like Luck, think he's a great QB, and would be ecstatic to have him as my team's QB. That said, he still gets a pass more often than not when it comes to the media. Mistakes are overlooked and the default setting is that he's already bound for the HOF when he's just started his career. I hear him placed in the top 4 or 5 QBs out there and he's not that yet. Elite status requires exceptional play over time. I blame the media more than anything, as Luck seems like a good guy.

Here's a recent article that counters the normal media lovefest. Bit nitpicky, but it does show there's a flipside.
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/10/27/andrew-lu ... -be-great/

 

[camdawg]

not that I care, but didnt the Colts win like 10 games the year before the 2 win season, then 11 the year after? wouldnt suggest the tanking was on purpose, but it seems the "team" was pretty well set, just needed someone not named Painter or Collins.

+1

Giving Andrew Luck credit for a "miracle turnaround" in Indianapolis is like giving Tim Duncan credit for the same in San Antonio. Kinda amazing what happened when the Spurs got a healthy David Robinson back...they were a playoff team again.

Indy was horrible for one year. When they were good for a dozen years before that, and have been good for 2+ years after that, the one bad season can be seen as the injury fluke that it was.

There's a lot of Seahawks season ticket holders who didn't enjoy watching four bad years of football in a row, even with Beastquake and 2011 2nd half providing some rays of hope.

 

[253hawk]

Other than that 62-7 thrashing by the Saints in the Suck For Luck season, they lost 7 of their 14 games by a single possession, so they weren't quite as dreadful as they're made out to be (Houston and Tennessee were 1st and 2nd at 10-6 and 9-7 respectively and both lost to Indy; we don't even need to mention the Jags.) All they needed was the slightest blip of talent on offense to at least end some of those drives in FG's.

For all the crap we had to hear about the 'NFC Worst' the AFC South has always been the real dumpster, hidden by the golden boy gleam of Manning and now Luck.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Luck's first two seasons: 27 INTs in 1197 attempts. One INT every 44.33 attempts.
Wilson's first two seasons: 19 INTs in 800 attempts. One INT every 42.11 attempts.

Thank God for the AFC South. I'd hate to see what would happen if Luck had to win games against teams like Seahawks, Broncos, 49ers, and Packers.

Funny how you forgot to mention this

Playoff Career

WIlson 1INT 130 attempts, 100+ QB rating - HIs 1 INT happened in ATL at the very end of the game because the Falcons screwed the kickoff after their game winning FG..Cant even count it so he has 0INT in reality
Luck 8INT 140 attempts, 59.8 and 76.4 QB ratings

 

[HansGruber]

I guess if there were other fans that would know how bad it sucks to only have one Super Bowl title (as a city, the Colts organization has another one in Baltimore) then I'm on the right board. Kind of strange for a Seahawks fan to mock another fan because they have only won it once.

Nice scarecrow. Nobody ever said that, except for you. So are you talking to yourself?

You've been trying to compare Wilson and Luck. I posted their actual postseason stats, indicators of their actual performance in a head to head comparison and your only reply is to try to change the topic.

Indy fans are as sad and delusional in their excuse making as that drunk driving drug addict raving lunatic Irsay. I guess that's the only way to deal with the never ending torrent of failures.

Get used to it, bub. Just like Manning, Andy Luck doesn't play well under pressure. OK St and Oregon can attest to that. As can the Ravens and Patriots, and any other objective outsider who's been paying attention.

 

[Scottemojo]

You want to talk about getting a pass from the media? Luck tripped baccking up to throw yesterday, and from his ass threw the ball away. The game announcer starts praising his awareness for getting rid of the ball, but then has to backtrack as an official throws a flag for intentional grounding and signals a safety.

Luck is good. He is nowhere near as good as the media paints him, not yet.

 

[Hasselbeck]

The Luck vs Wilson argument is like the Manning vs Brady argument. Fun for analysts and fans of other teams, but no fun for Colts fans. It's got to suck to be a Colts fan, always telling yourself you have the greatest QB in the NFL and watching in misery as they become turnover machines in the playoffs and you never get anything meaningful from their greatness. Even in the wildly inferior AFC, the Colts just can't get it done. Unfortunately for Luck and Irsay, Rex Grossman has retired and the NFC actually has some good teams, so it doesn't look like they'll be winning anything meaningful anytime soon either.

Andrew Luck in the postseason = 7 TDs (rush+pass), 8 INTs, 1 FUM, 55% Cmp%, 7.59 Y/A, 70.0 QB Rating and a record of 1-2

Russell Wilson in the postseason = 7 TDs, 1 INT, 1 FUM, 63.08% Cmp%, 8.43 Y/A, 102 QB Rating and a record of 4-1

This is the kind of stuff that kills me.

Please.. try to compare the Colts defenses in 2012 and 2013.. to the Seahawks defenses

Please.. try to compare the Colts running attack in 2012 and 2013 to what Marshawn Lynch alone gave Seattle in the postseason.

Instead of going DERP DERP LUCK THROWS MOAR PICKS.. consider the two teams. And yeah, that Colts defense is sure amazing! Judging by the 522 yards passing they gave up to Ben Roethlisberger yesterday.

Again.. when you throw the ball 500 more times.. there is a fairly good chance that said QB may have more interceptions than the other guy.

I love Russ.. but if you switched Luck and him right now.. Luck would be winning just as many games as Wilson has.. and Wilson would be turning over the ball more than he is now. The situations are entirely different. Entirely.

 

[Hasselbeck]

You want to talk about getting a pass from the media? Luck tripped baccking up to throw yesterday, and from his ass threw the ball away. The game announcer starts praising his awareness for getting rid of the ball, but then has to backtrack as an official throws a flag for intentional grounding and signals a safety..

Well.. chalk that up to Nantz/Simms for the praise.

But if we're pointing out bad moments in a game.. one could easily point to Russell Wilson throwing a Tim Wakefield like knuckleball when he had a guy so wide open that he could have literally walked into the end zone.

They're both great QB's that will make mistakes. Why can people on this board not admit that?