Does Luck make his team worse?

So I was reading the player rankings on ESPN. Luck, of course, it ranked high at #19. I ventured to the comments section and saw the standard Wilson v. Luck debates happening (Wilson was ranked #26). And of course, the classic arguments were being presented for Luck when stats start becoming focal.

"Because Luck has a worse supporting cast all around"
"If luck doesnt make plays, they lose"
"Luck has no running game, no defense, no line"

Assuming we forgo the actual stats for each position group (and the fact that the Colts werent nearly as bad as people say at any position besides running back), we can allow these arguments to present themselves. But heres what I have been wondering...

...Do you think the rest of the team is getting tired of being told they are bad and Andrew Luck is the only good player on the team? After hearing for awhile all the pundits constantly belittling your accomplishments as your team reaches the Playoffs, and being told its only the savior that brought you there, you would think it would start to get to you.

I could see a huge splash of under-confidence happening and jealousy beginning to emerge from them. Theres just no way everyone on that team is happy about how they are portrayed.

You might be on to something unless his teammates buy into the hype as well...

This is like the inverse of the Rams.

The rest of the team has to be good as there is no one managing QB. And, honestly, the rest of the team has become better.

I agree with your concept here though. It's a team game, that kind of constant commentary would start to get old.

I am going to ask the DC what he thinks about it. He might not answer, but is a fair question.

I don't think the players care, because you could say the same thing about every team going down the crapper if their starting QB isn't there.

So no, he doesn't make his team worse. Curtis Painter, he makes his team worse.

Wins are not the best way to evaluate QBs, but I love the following stat-

QB record in games decided by more than 1 TD:

Andrew Luck: 8-8
Russell WIlson: 16-0

...

According to Bill Barnwell, Tom Brady has the highest win percentage in close games in NFL history (minimum 50 games), with a .711 win percentage. Russell Wilson is currently at 13-8 (.619), which is also very good.

Luck is an impossible 14-2 (.875) in close games through two seasons.

The subject title is really misleading compared to what the actual post is. That being said, I think there's a strong degree of truth in the post itself; but no, Andrew Luck does not make the Colts a worse team than they'd be without him...

The overall mentality about a team is interesting with this question.

Before Luck, Colts had P Manning. How many other Colts players' names are familiar to the random person?

I know Mathis only because he beat Quinn by a half sack for the first award. It's not normal I know this.

For Hawks, any 7 year old who plays Madden knows at least 3 of your players, if not more.

Some of it has to do with ESPN's narrative as well. They were saying Luck was the second coming and the fact that he has been out played by the other young quarterbacks makes ESPN look foolish, so they spin it as well his team sucks that's why it looks that way, which, I don't think is true but there you go.

I think the Colts are just happy to be winning way more games than they should be. Luck's current hot streak in close games aside, the Colts have been a .500 team with Luck. Luck is always going to win more close games than he loses, so I think even with regression in close games the Colts are still a 9-7 team, which essentially matches their DVOA.

Luck has a bit of Tim Tebow to him, in that he so often finds a magical way to pull out a win even when he's having a terrible game. Obviously, Luck will improve as a QB and he's far better of a thrower than Tebow was, but through two seasons his QB rating is only 6.2 points higher than Tebow's. He's been an ultra clutch player, but not a great QB.

So does Luck have "It"?

RolandDeschain":3otd8r35 said:

The subject title is really misleading compared to what the actual post is. That being said, I think there's a strong degree of truth in the post itself; but no, Andrew Luck does not make the Colts a worse team than they'd be without him...

Click to expand...

I kinda forgot to finish the post, which would have wrapped up my thesis argument from my topic title.

My thought through my arguement was, the teams cohesiveness and overall skill isnt being fully achieved because of the under-confidence the rest of his team holds. Being that, I would assume that his presence actually lowers the overall quality of his teammates (but he of course being good, compensates for some of that).

I just think his team in general gets hosed while simultaneously bailing him out of situations he dug himself.

Tech Worlds":3dxztb0x said:

So does Luck have "It"?

Click to expand...

Geico insurance?

He has Herpes?

Tech Worlds":q69spmph said:

So does Luck have "It"?

Click to expand...

I see what you did there.

First it was Suck for Luck and now it is Luck Sucks.

Cartire":1vfxq6m6 said:

I just think his team in general gets hosed while simultaneously bailing him out of situations he dug himself.

Click to expand...

I strongly agree with this. I've seen it a number of times. I'm kind of annoyed by the slobbering a lot of people (fans and media alike) give Luck, so I'm a little unfair in my opinion on him and I admit that, but the way he gets a pass for all his comebacks as if he DIDN'T throw a couple picks to largely cause them in the first place in a number of those cases just makes me so flippin' ANGRY, lol.

RedAlice":3eeawtgp said:

This is like the inverse of the Rams.

The rest of the team has to be good as there is no one managing QB. And, honestly, the rest of the team has become better.

I agree with your concept here though. It's a team game, that kind of constant commentary would start to get old.

I am going to ask the DC what he thinks about it. He might not answer, but is a fair question.

Click to expand...

Luck on the Rams would make your team superbowl contendors and possibly favorites over Seattle.

kpak76":fqn1iq8h said:

RedAlice":fqn1iq8h said:

This is like the inverse of the Rams.

The rest of the team has to be good as there is no one managing QB. And, honestly, the rest of the team has become better.

I agree with your concept here though. It's a team game, that kind of constant commentary would start to get old.

I am going to ask the DC what he thinks about it. He might not answer, but is a fair question.

Click to expand...

Luck on the Rams would make your team superbowl contendors and possibly favorites over Seattle.

Click to expand...

Ha

kpak76":3v0m13nt said:

RedAlice":3v0m13nt said:

This is like the inverse of the Rams.

The rest of the team has to be good as there is no one managing QB. And, honestly, the rest of the team has become better.

I agree with your concept here though. It's a team game, that kind of constant commentary would start to get old.

I am going to ask the DC what he thinks about it. He might not answer, but is a fair question.

Click to expand...

Luck on the Rams would make your team superbowl contendors and possibly favorites over Seattle.

Click to expand...

Errr, not.

No doubt Luck would make the Rams better than Bradford...........but remember Luck has feasted on an awful AFC South for two years (and soft schedules), no way he'd have as much success in the NFC West. He'd be running for his life...........a lot.

Sgt. Largent":fgyettxm said:

kpak76":fgyettxm said:

RedAlice":fgyettxm said:

This is like the inverse of the Rams.

The rest of the team has to be good as there is no one managing QB. And, honestly, the rest of the team has become better.

I agree with your concept here though. It's a team game, that kind of constant commentary would start to get old.

I am going to ask the DC what he thinks about it. He might not answer, but is a fair question.

Click to expand...

Luck on the Rams would make your team superbowl contendors and possibly favorites over Seattle.

Click to expand...

Errr, not.

No doubt Luck would make the Rams better than Bradford...........but remember Luck has feasted on an awful AFC South for two years (and soft schedules), no way he'd have as much success in the NFC West. He'd be running for his life...........a lot.

Click to expand...

It's not a tetstamate to Luck, but more a testamate to the Rams. I seriously think the Rams sitting now look like the Hawks before we drafted Wilson. Once we got our QB, everything fell in place. That is where the Rams are, at the cusp of greatness. But each year they trot out a back up and their season is lost. Bradford is the major piece that is holding that team back, every year they pin their hopes on him and every year he hasn't dissapointed to dissapoint them.

There is no question the Rams are a better team all around than the Colts minus the QB position.

Lets be honest though, while Seattle collectivly roll their eyes when Luck is mentioned to be a better QB than Wilson, Luck is no mediocre QB. A guy like him on that squad scares the bejesus out of me. What I am fearful of is if the Rams are able to draft one of the top guys next year. Having Hundly, Mariotta or that FSU kid would make that squad elite.