I find it difficult to understand how you can claim I am tailoring stats to fit my agenda when, again, your only point of debate is that Luck and Stafford have similar volume statistics. That is not a good enough analysis to claim that Luck and Stafford aren't that far apart.
You can take issue with other statistical measurements, but when enough of them are pointing towards the same conclusion, I think it's worth listening to.
The details of how QBR is computed has not been made public, however, it is essentially measuring a bunch of individual qualities:
"Total QBR incorporates information from game charting, such as passes dropped or thrown away on purpose.
Total QBR splits responsibility on plays between the quarterback, his receivers, and his blockers. Drops, for example, are more on the receiver, as are yards after the catch, and some sacks are more on the offensive line than others.
Total QBR has a clutch factor which adds (or subtracts) value for quarterbacks who perform best (or worst) in high-leverage situations.
Total QBR combines passing and rushing value into one number and differentiates between scrambles and planned runs.
Beginning in 2016, Total QBR is now adjusted for strength of opponent. Total QBR on other stats pages (pre-2016) has not yet been updated with opponent adjustment. (Note: Other QB stats pages will be updated with adjusted QBR and a qualifying minimum of 200 passes sometime before the end of February.)"
Their QBR's are also not that close. Take away Andrew's 2015 season (an outlier) and Stafford's first two seasons and you have 68.25 (Luck) vs. 57.98 (Stafford).) If you average out their total then it is 66 vs 56.81.
I'll link two articles on why I think passer rating is a poor measurement
Here is an explanation of PFF's grading system: https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/. It's a pretty thorough process that accounts for situation and performance of every play. I think that's pretty thorough and puts things in proper perspective. Those grades place Andrew Luck on a different tier than Matt Stafford.
So it would stand to reason that Andrew Luck is more valuable on a per-play basis gives his team and much better chance to win.
Finally, I think it's a little bit of a strange thing to claim that Andrew Luck isn't as good as the hype, then list him as the 6th best quarterback in the league, with only one guy remotely close to his age ahead. I would say that the difference between the 6th best quarterback and the 10th best quarterback (I'm flipping Newton and Stafford on your list) is significant.
In terms of raw ranking, we aren't that far off, I just think the difference between those spots is pretty significant. I'm all ears if you have some other way of measuring these two that ranks them closer. I just Luck's circumstance and overall package makes him a better player.