Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

amfootball

What do you expect from Luck in 2013?

127 posts in this topic

Yes.  And I can se that it's making some of you angry for some unknown reason.

Because that is even more ridiculous than claiming Luck was far and away the best rookie QB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another example of objectivity in ranking the rookie QB's.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000121117/article/rookie-qb-rankings-season-in-review-rg3-on-top

 

The bottom line is that there were three rookie QB's who stood out last season.  Not one could be said to be "by far" better than the other.  In fact, it's simply an opinion as the which was was the best period.  Even if you think one stood out, it has to be a close call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It absolutely is being a homer to say he was by far the best rookie QB.  I think Griffin was the most impressive (when healthy) and even I know it is utterly ridiculous to claim that he was leagues ahead of his fellow rookie competition.  All of those guys looked very good and each proved to have a distinct and successful style.  This isn't a Peyton Manning vs. Michael Vick thing as some seem to want it to be (or Matt Leinart vs. Steve Young from the opposite perspective).

 

The "he was asked to do a lot more than those other guys" line is one that may very well be true but is almost entirely conjecture.  I don't think anyone here knows enough to say anything definitive about what burdens these guys were asked to carry.

 

 

Interception rates, my friend.  The numbers suggest that Griffin and Wilson would both have thrown less interceptions on the same number of passes as Luck (granted, Wilson would have at least been close).

I agree with everything that you've said, with the exception of the bolded parts. You cannot simply say that by increasing RGIII's and Wilson's passing attempts and factoring the percentage of interceptions, they would still have less interceptions than Luck. It wouldn't work that way in the real world.

 

When facing the Colts, the defenses prepare to face Luck and a passing attack. When facing RGIII and Wilson, they prepare to face the read-option, a great run game, and a good passing attack. However, if you ask them to throw the ball 39 times a game, the defensive schemes that they will face will be drastically different, leading to a greater rate of INTs. It was no secret that the Colts had a weak O-line and no run game. It made it much easier to game plan against Luck, than a well balanced attack in Seattle and Washington. If you get rid of that balance, I'd expect a similar rate of turnovers in all three QBs.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that there were three rookie QB's who stood out last season.  Not one could be said to be "by far" better than the other.  In fact, it's simply an opinion as the which was was the best period.  Even if you think one stood out, it has to be a close call.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that there were three rookie QB's who stood out last season.  Not one could be said to be "by far" better than the other.  In fact, it's simply an opinion as the which was was the best period.  Even if you think one stood out, it has to be a close call.

Look, you have an objection with his use of the term "by far." He feels that way. So you are now trying to change his opinion, which I don't think will happen.

 

You can either continue to post random articles, or you can recognise that people's opinions rarely change on a forum and you can decide to let it go. Then we can continue to discuss the topic of "what we expect from Luck," and not go deeper into another Luck -vs- RGII-vs-Wilson thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interception rates are mis-leading when you run an offense that basically uses a forward pass as a trick play.

 

If you want to shoot down stats on the basis of scheme then there's probably not much I'm going to be able to say to dissuade you from your stance.  At this point all I can do is point out that I'm one of the undoubtedly very few people on here who has watched every single snap the top two picks have played (and a lesser chunk of Wilson's tape as well).  Based on everything I've seen I'm extremely confident in saying that even without all the play fakes, Griffin would still not throw as many interceptions on the same volume of passes.

 

Why? Griffin was much more careful in throwing the ball all season long than Luck was (to a fault on numerous occasions) and was much more accurate throwing to all areas of the field with or without good protection, partly as a result of aforementioned caution and partly because he's just really quite accurate.  If he played as aggressively as Luck did he'd no doubt have a higher interception rate but he'd also have a lot more touchdowns (it was very frustrating to see him second guess himself and miss the opportunity to hit wide open guys down the field).  The lack of turnovers generally came at a price.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, you have an objection with his use of the term "by far." He feels that way. So you are now trying to change his opinion, which I don't think will happen.

 

You can either continue to post random articles, or you can recognise that people's opinions rarely change on a forum and you can decide to let it go. Then we can continue to discuss the topic of "what we expect from Luck," and not go deeper into another Luck -vs- RGII-vs-Wilson thread.

I understand homers are alway going to be homers.

 

Now as to what I expect from Luck next season?  I would hope he learns how to protect the ball a little better and cut the number of turnovers.  Also I would hope he reduces the number of poor to mediocre games.  At times last season he did struggle and look confused. Especially on the road.

 

Now, will he?  I think there's a good chance he will be better and more consistent next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to shoot down stats on the basis of scheme then there's probably not much I'm going to be able to say to dissuade you from your stance.  At this point all I can do is point out that I'm one of the undoubtedly very few people on here who has watched every single snap the top two picks have played (and a lesser chunk of Wilson's tape as well).  Based on everything I've seen I'm extremely confident in saying that even without all the play fakes, Griffin would still not throw as many interceptions on the same volume of passes.

 

Why? Griffin was much more careful in throwing the ball all season long than Luck was (to a fault on numerous occasions) and was much more accurate throwing to all areas of the field with or without good protection, partly as a result of aforementioned caution and partly because he's just really quite accurate.  If he played as aggressively as Luck did he'd no doubt have a higher interception rate but he'd also have a lot more touchdowns (it was very frustrating to see him second guess himself and miss the opportunity to hit wide open guys down the field).  The lack of turnovers generally came at a price.

Arians vs Shanahan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand homers are alway going to be homers.

 

Now as to what I expect from Luck next season?  I would hope he learns how to protect the ball a little better and cut the number of turnovers.  Also I would hope he reduces the number of poor to mediocre games.  At times last season he did struggle and look confused. Especially on the road.

 

Now, will he?  I think there's a good chance he will be better and more consistent next season.

 

OP isn't even a Colts fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP isn't even a Colts fan.

yes, I am not a Colts fan but I know brilliance when I see it. Andrew Luck is the real deal from his pocket presence, size, arm, intangibles. I may be one of the few that doesn't think it is close between him and RG and Russell. Neither of those two came into the reclamation project that was the Colts, neither of them had to fill the shoes of Peyton Manning, neither of them was asked to carry the offense, and neither of them lost their head coach to start the season. But we will know more next year as season two can always be difficult for rookie QBs. Look at Cam Newton this year. That being said, I expect Luck to make huge strides forward while the other two struggle. In fairness to RG he many be healthy enough to even do half of what he did last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect numbers close to this:

 

35TD 10 INT 4,300 yards 63% completion percentage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect numbers close to this:

 

35TD 10 INT 4,300 yards 63% completion percentage

So basically he will be Peyton Manning in during his prime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect numbers close to this:

 

35TD 10 INT 4,300 yards 63% completion percentage

Those are Hall of fame all time great type numbers.  He didn't show that type of potential in his rookie year.

 

I certainly wouldn't expect that.  Maybe the yards, but 35 TD's?  Really? 30 would be gargantuan.   10 INT's really?  If he's throwing the ball enough to pile up 4,300 yds and 35 TD's he's also going to throw a boat load of INT's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, I am not a Colts fan but I know brilliance when I see it. Andrew Luck is the real deal from his pocket presence, size, arm, intangibles. I may be one of the few that doesn't think it is close between him and RG and Russell. Neither of those two came into the reclamation project that was the Colts, neither of them had to fill the shoes of Peyton Manning, neither of them was asked to carry the offense, and neither of them lost their head coach to start the season. But we will know more next year as season two can always be difficult for rookie QBs. Look at Cam Newton this year. That being said, I expect Luck to make huge strides forward while the other two struggle. In fairness to RG he many be healthy enough to even do half of what he did last year.

Well, by every expert analysis, the call between the three stand out rookies last season was a varied and close call.  Except by you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand homers are alway going to be homers.

Anyone with differing opinions is a homer.

Noted.

This knowledge is going to make debates so much easier......

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically he will be Peyton Manning in during his prime. 

I don't think it's so farfetched. With more experience he will improve.Along with familiarity with his college coach,the inevitable better O-line we will have, our rookie position players gaining experience, and the fact that BA isn't the Offensive Coordinator so he'll have less picks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with differing opinions is a homer.

Noted.

This knowledge is going to make debates so much easier......

No.  Any Colts fan who says Andrew Luck was a "far better" QB than the other two celebrated rookies is a homer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, what kind of numbers do I expect from Luck next season?  About the same number of yards, with about the same number of TD's with a few less INT's and a completion % pushing 60%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, what kind of numbers do I expect from Luck next season?  About the same number of yards, with about the same number of TD's with a few less INT's and a completion % pushing 60%.

 

He'll have more than 23 TDs and 60%. Those numbers were direct products of Arians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's so farfetched. With more experience he will improve.Along with familiarity with his college coach,the inevitable better O-line we will have, our rookie position players gaining experience, and the fact that BA isn't the Offensive Coordinator so he'll have less picks. 

If you expect 35 TD's with 10 INT's and a completion % approaching the mid 60's you are going to be disappointed.  Be realistic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Any Colts fan who says Andrew Luck was a "far better" QB than the other two celebrated rookies is a homer.

Uh no. It's just someone with a different perspective.

Not everything in the world is black and white.

Just because you say that belief is wrong doesn't make it wrong. Just because someone says it's right doesn't make it right.

Everyone has different thoughts, and ways of looking at things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll have more than 23 TDs and 60%. Those numbers were direct products of Arians.

Maybe, maybe not, but he's not going to throw 35 TD's with less than a dozen int's and a completion percentage approaching the mid 60's.  Be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh no. It's just someone with a different perspective.

Not everything in the world is black and white.

Just because you say that belief is wrong doesn't make it wrong. Just because someone says it's right doesn't make it right.

Everyone has different thoughts, and ways of looking at things.

Everyone can have different thoughts, but "far better" is not an accurate.  If you said "slightly better", or "possibly better" you could have a stronger argument.  He was in fact not far better.  Far better is inarguable and it would have been evident by the way this issue has been discussed and written about.

 

 The fact is, if one claimed RGIII is a slightly or possibly better QB, he could support that view. If one claimed Russell Wilson is a slightly or possibly better QB, he could support that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh no. It's just someone with a different perspective.

Just because you say that belief is wrong doesn't make it wrong. Just because someone says it's right doesn't make it right.

 

Common sense tells you that's incorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you expect 35 TD's with 10 INT's and a completion % approaching the mid 60's you are going to be disappointed.  Be realistic.  

Okay he had 23 TD's and 18 INT's. You can take at least 3 picks away from just experience. Then about 3-5 away from having a coordinator who doesn't go for the big play as much and also from Luck making better decisions under a better O-line, which I'm sure will be the case. 

 

Then with less INT's means more possessions which means more TD's. Maybe not 35 but definitely 30. And 35 is in play as well. Our rookies developing (Hilton, Fleener, Allen, Brazill) will all factor into it as well. The completion percentage will go up as well. In his first year of college it was like a measly 55 percent and then the next 3 years it was consistently at 70+. The NFL isn't college but 60 percent is more than reasonable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "he was asked to do a lot more than those other guys" line is one that may very well be true but is almost entirely conjecture.  I don't think anyone here knows enough to say anything definitive about what burdens these guys were asked to carry.

 

I think it's as simple as watching the way the teams played, particularly how much they relied on their quarterbacks and passing attack, to determine what burden the passers were asked to carry. The Patriots asked a lot less out of Matt Cassel than they did out of Tom Brady. You don't have to be in the meeting rooms to see that.

 

It's a different story with Luck and Griffin, but considering the fact that the Colts threw the ball 60% more often than the Redskins did, it's not conjecture to say that Luck was asked to do more. The Colts clearly relied more on Luck's arm than the Redskins relied on Griffin's arm. Luck accounted for a greater percentage of the team's total offense than Griffin did, even when you consider rushing yards and touchdowns. That in itself doesn't make Luck better or make his season more impressive, and I'm not trying to sell Griffin short. Like you said, this isn't Peyton Manning vs. Michael Vick, not even close. Just saying, it's not some wild-eyed, Colts homer point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone can have different thoughts, but "far better" is not an accurate. If you said "slightly better", or "possibly better" you could have a stronger argument. He was in fact not far better. Far better is inarguable and it would have been evident by the way this issue has been discussed and written about.

The fact is, if one claimed RGIII is a slightly or possibly better QB, he could support that view. If one claimed Russell Wilson is a slightly or possibly better QB, he could support that view.

So someone who sees an intangible, a satistic, anything about Andrew, that you don't is wrong just because you don't see it the same way?

Gotcha.

Continue on with your black and white world :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense tells you that's incorrect

Seeing two sides to an argument is incorrect? That's about all I needed to know about your perspective.

Agree to disagree haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing two sides to an argument is incorrect? That's about all I needed to know about your perspective.

Agree to disagree haha.

No, when one side comes up with something which no one else has said and in fact goes against everything said by every single expert in the field.  He is wrong.

If anyone says any one of the three celebrated rookie QB's was "far better" than the other he is wrong.

 

It's like the old story about the marching band in a parade.  Look Ma everyone is out of step except our Grandson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Any Colts fan who says Andrew Luck was a "far better" QB than the other two celebrated rookies is a homer.  

I disdain the Colts and say Luck is far better. This isn't just about stats but about team make up, expectations and the eye test. My gosh Luck was everything as billed and then some. He was on a team that was 2-14, blown up in the off-season and had a cast of rookies for him to play with save for Wayne who had one of his best seasons which was no coindence. The Redskins and Seahawks presented a stable enviornment, a pre-determined game plan, a soft landing if you will. Luck got a team in disarray, a fan base still smarting from the loss of Manning, an owner that seemed clueless at one point and a HC who had never been a HC before who was then replaced by another coach that had never been a HC before. Luck took all that, threw twice as many passes as RG and Russell and had more wins and came within a hair of taking the south from the Texans who started 10-1.

 

And remember this my friends, the first thing a truly great QB does is cover up coaching. Bill Belichick was 12 games below .500 with the Browns and one playoff appearacne with a 1-1 record before Brady altered his career and he became the "genius." Dungy was  a guy that could never get it done in Tampa Bay who became the first black HC to win a SB thanks to you know who. Luck will do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disdain the Colts and say Luck is far better. 

Again, you would be wrong.  Better?  Maybe.  Not as good?  Possibly.  But "far better"? That can't be supported in an objective man to man to man comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you would be wrong.  Better?  Maybe.  Not as good?  Possibly.  But "far better"? That can't be supported in an objective man to man to man comparison.

 

Well you heard him everyone. Anybody with a different opinion is wrong. Let's wrap it up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you would be wrong.  Better?  Maybe.  Not as good?  Possibly.  But "far better"? That can't be supported in an objective man to man to man comparison.

Can you refute any of my points to support your guy or guys? The points I made are pretty strong in Luck's favor as the far better QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you refute any of my points to support your guy or guys? The points I made are pretty strong in Luck's favor as the far better QB.

Sure I can.  

 

Wilson had a much better TD to int ratio and completion % and a far better overall QB rating.  He also carried his team to a playoff win and nearly pulled out a trip to the NFC championship game  with phenomenal play in the 4th QTR of the game with Atlanta. 

 

RGII had a dramatically higher TD to Int ratio with a much greater completion % and a dramatically higher QB rating.

 

I'm just going against the homer flow here which claims Luck was "far better" than the other two.  He wasn't.

 

One could make an argument for any of the three.  That means one did not stand out positively over the other.  Anyone with even half a clue knows that it's a close judgement call between the three.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, when one side comes up with something which no one else has said and in fact goes against everything said by every single expert in the field. He is wrong.

If anyone says any one of the three celebrated rookie QB's was "far better" than the other he is wrong.

It's like the old story about the marching band in a parade. Look Ma everyone is out of step except our Grandson.

You know, at one point in time, everyone thought the world was flat.

Good thing there are those who think outside the box, and don't agree with "facts" and everything "experts" say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Brady is deflating the NFL'S balls as we speak. 
    • I am going with Cincinnati, giving  them the edge,  being at home.  They held their own for the better part of 3 quarters against the Broncos, then the Broncos DEF was just too much at the end of the game.  
    • I've put two parts of your post into bold, and I'd like to address them.   I'll take the last one first....    about this team not being good enough to recover from Luck's mistakes.    Well, we recovered this week.     We still beat San Diego.      If you're saying we can't make mistakes and beat Denver,  then I agree,  but that's Denver.     At least we beat San Diego and overcame our mistakes.   As to Brady, Rodgers and Wilson.       I think you'll see their raw interception numbers are far less than Lucks.   Now,  they're attempting fewer passes, so their int % is better than Luck's but perhaps not as great as one might think.       Still,  Brady  Rodgers and Wilson are able to go up and down the field and throw far fewer interceptions than Luck.     And it gives me no pleasure to say that.    Notice my avatar.                        B                        R                     W               L 15                 7                         8                      8               12 (7 games) 14                 9                         5                      7               16  13                11                        6                      9                 9 12                 8                         8                     10              18   11                12                        6 10                  4                      11 09                13                       7 08                  0 (hurt)             13  07                  8 06                12 05                14 04                14 03                12 02                14 01                12
    • Umm, don't lump me in with everyone else. I'm plenty critical of Luck, when I think he deserves it.    1) Luck didn't try to get free, he tried to get down. He was sandwiched between two defenders who were holding him up and trying to take the ball away. I believe the play should have been whistled dead before the ball started to come out. The play was a max protect with no short outlets, no hot routes, and Luck was getting hit by free rushers within 2 seconds after he took the snap so he couldn't pull the ball down or throw it away. That fumble is NOT his fault. It was awful protection -- when the QB should be able to rely on good protection -- and it was a case of bad officiating.    2) The pick against Denver was a bad throw, and unnecessary. He had time, wasn't being pressured, and had two dumpoffs to either side of the field. He tried to force the ball into an inexperienced receiver with a savvy and aggressive corner closing in. Bad decision, bad throw, bad result.   3) The pick against SD was worse, because it was a one read in iso man coverage, and not only did Luck not see the CB's good position, he didn't put the ball in a place where the receiver could try to hold off the defender. 
  • Welcome New Members

    • Welcome here Nils!   I can tell you, most of football fans in Hungary are Patriots fans...unfortunately. 
    • Hi, Nils here....   I know a lot of Europeans support the Patriots, but all I can say is no way man, no way!   I'm not entirely sure when I started to follow and cheer for the Colts, but I has no shame in admitting that it was when Manning begun to really shine. It was probably back in 1999 because I seem to remember that play-off game against the Titans.   I also remember the I loved how the Colts would play a beautiful offensive game whereas other teams were boring with their defensive strengths. Aaaahh, those were the days!   I was introduced to American Football during my American Politics/presidential election study in Washington D.C. in the fall of 1996 (Clinton vs Dole). Didn't really get attached to any team back then, so you can say that Redskins just left me totally uninspired.   It is a great and welcoming forum here - and that is just how I remembered America too.    
  • Members

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.