luck v manning (Merge)

[rockywoj]

Comparing Andrew Luck halfway into his 3rd season with a young Peyton Manning at the 2.5 years mark into his career, but knowing what Manning has gone on to achieve (congrats to Manning on setting the all-time QB TD record today!), which QB would you choose to lead the the Colts going forward?

[House]

How could this thread go wrong?

[rockywoj]

I love Manning ... He's certainly challenged my all-time favorite players list (Unitas, Bert Jones, & Dan Marino), but I think I'd have to roll the dice and go with Luck.

Luck continues to have some accuracy issues, but what 3rd year QB doesn't? Luck brings a dimension to the table that Manning never could ... His mobility and physical strength allows Luck to make plays Manning never could. If he stays healthy, continues to have a good supporting cast, and continues to evolve, I am hopeful Luck just might be able to bring more success to the Colts than Manning did.

[rockywoj]

How could this thread go wrong?

As long as people stay on topic and reply with objective, intelligent comparative replies, it cannot go wrong.

[Larry Horseman]

As long as Luck doesn't have a terrible injury, they'll both be in the GOAT conversation. Luck is perfect for today's NFL and PM was for his. We're lucky, Indy!

[jjcolts]

Looking in the past is never good. 

Glad we had Manning - I will always remember him as a Colt.

Glad we have Luck now.

 

We are pretty darn lucky franchise to go from Manning to Andrew. 

[BuckingColt]

Luck gives us an added dimension that we didn't have with Manning. When Manning is in rhythm and things are going according to plan he's unstoppable. However, when things start to break down he folds too easy. Luck, despite being less refined, gives us a chance in any situation. He can use his athleticism to run for a first down, or avoid a sure sack. That's what you need in the playoffs. That's what Luck gives us that Peyton never did.   

[rockywoj]

As long as Luck doesn't have a terrible injury, they'll both be in the GOAT conversation. Luck is perfect for today's NFL and PM was for his. We're lucky, Indy!

And that's a good point that I was also thinking about. The game occasionally evolves and a new skill set can be better suited. Manning continues to excel, but somehow I feel that Luck's mobility and strength may be better suited for the new NFL.

One might think Luck will be better served to make things happen and be more difficult to occasionally shut down in this "new" era of the game. That's why I am saying that, in the hypothetical comparative, I would rather have Luck going forward in today's NFL.

[rockywoj]

Luck gives us an added dimension that we didn't have with Manning. When Manning is in rhythm and things are going according to plan he's unstoppable. However, when things start to break down he folds too easy. Luck, despite being less refined, gives us a chance in any situation. He can use his athleticism to run for a first down, or avoid a sure sack. That's what you need in the playoffs. That's what Luck gives us that Peyton never did.

Agreed. :-)

[BuckingColt]

Agreed. :-)

 

I didn't even read your post. I should have just quoted it and said "ditto". lol

[rockywoj]

...

We are pretty darn lucky franchise to go from Manning to Andrew.

Unitas ... Bert Jones ... Peyton Manning ... Andrew Luck (assuming his star continues to rise).

Sure there were some misses squeezed in between some of those QBs, but is there any team in the last 55 years to have so many great QBs over multiple eras as the Colts have had? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[BProland85]

Comparing Andrew Luck halfway into his 3rd season with a young Peyton Manning at the 2.5 years mark into his career, but knowing what Manning has gone on to achieve (congrats to Manning on setting the all-time QB TD record today!), which QB would you choose to lead the the Colts going forward?

Skip Bayless, is that you? If so leave this forum! But seriously, there is no question I would go with Luck moving forward. He is far younger and is only getting better every game. I see at least 2 superbowl wins for Luck.

[House]

As long as people stay on topic and reply with objective, intelligent comparative replies, it cannot go wrong.

That sounds very much like this forum.....

[rockywoj]

There is no question I would go with Luck moving forward. He is only getting better every game. I see at least 2 superbowl wins for Luck.

Fixed your post. No veiled off topic comment and removed the "far younger" comment that missed the hypothetical point. :-)

[rockywoj]

That sounds very much like this forum.....

Soooo, anything on topic to contribute?

[Tsarquise]

Manning.

[pgt_rob]

Manning is the better QB at this point so it would be cool to still have him. Although Luck is going to be just as great. He's on the right track now. I would say us Colts fans are pretty lucky to have had Manning and now Luck.

[GoColts8818]

I feel like we have had this debate before with some guy named RG3 mixed in...

[GoColts8818]

Manning is the better QB at this point so it would be cool to still have him. Although Luck is going to be just as great. He's on the right track now. I would say us Colts fans are pretty lucky to have had Manning and now Luck.

Without question we are lucky and that gap between Manning and Luck isn't that great right now.  Manning is still better but Luck is knocking on the door. 

[House]

Soooo, anything on topic to contribute?

I'm good thanks

[rockywoj]

I feel like we have had this debate before with some guy named RG3 mixed in...

RG3 has nothing to do with the hypothetical question posed. Quite simply, this a comparative look at where Manning was at in his development midway through his 3rd season, as compared to where Luck currently is. Then given their respective stages of development and skill sets that both Luck and Manning have, which one would a person rather have for the Colts NOW, even though one knows the level of success that Manning would go on to have.

That's it, no who's better (aka Manning vs Brady / Luck vs RG3). Just purely a great Colts QB hypothetical.

[GoColts8818]

RG3 has nothing to do with te hypothetical question posed. Quite simply, this a comparative look at where Manning was at in his development midway through his 3rd season, as compared to where Luck currently is. Then given their respective stages of deleopments and skill sets that both Luck and Manning have, which one would a person rather have for the Colts NOW, even though one knows the level of success that Manning would go on to have.

That's it, no who's better (aka Manning vs Brady / Luck vs RG3). Just purely a great Colts QB hypothetical.

Again, I feel like this has been debated on this forum before with RG3 mixed in...

 

Your more or less asking the exact same question that was debated to death during 2011 and into 2012, just now we have seen how their careers have played out some. 

 

You know what, it worked out well for the Colts, Broncos, Luck, and Manning.  The only ones this whole thing hasn't worked out for are RG3, the Redskins, and the Rams. 

 

Since we can't change history I am fine with having Andrew and I will be even more fine with it in five years when Luck is in the prime of his career and Manning is probably retired or the very verge of retiring. 

[Fx Stryker]

Well these always turn out to be great threads!

[Dustin]

It's Manning and it's not particularly close.

[rockywoj]

Well these always turn out to be great threads!

Well apparently not as long as there are people incapable of staying on topic with the historic comparative as posed. Kind of sad. A reminder why I rarely start threads here, I suppose.

If I were a mod, I'd simply remove the irrelevant, off topic posts meant to derail a light hearted hypothetical discussion. In the absence of that, though, then I suppose as long as there are equal or more forum members that can't resist derailing things, then the mods ought to simply lock or delete the thread and in the future I will know that this is no place to have fun discussions of cross generation hypotheticals. I'll save such fun discussion for my grown up buddies in person over a beer or two.

Shut'er down mods.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

I love Manning ... He's certainly challenged my all-time favorite players list (Unitas, Bert Jones, & Dan Marino), but I think I'd have to roll the dice and go with Luck.

Luck continues to have some accuracy issues, but what 3rd year QB doesn't? Luck brings a dimension to the table that Manning never could ... His mobility and physical strength allows Luck to make plays Manning never could. If he stays healthy, continues to have a good supporting cast, and continues to evolve, I am hopeful Luck just might be able to bring more success to the Colts than Manning did.

 

It is very hard to compare the 2 for a variety of reasons -- (1) Luck is starting his career in a pretty new era of football, (2) They are 2 totally different types of players as you note, and perhaps most important (3) Our new GM and coaches with Luck have totally different philosophies than what we saw with Peyton.  Luck may bring more success to the Colts than Manning did, but I think if that happens it will be because Irsay realized when we lost Peyton that we didn't have a really good 'team' and by seeing that probably realized how much Peyton had on his shoulders in Indy.  I think that was Peyton's big downfall being here is he never had a dominant defense and after Edge left he never really had a solid run blocking line or the ability to win games other than to get in a shootout and hope he threw more TDs than the other team scored.  Luck, hopefully, isn't going to have to do everything himself and I think that is part of the new GM and new coaches philosophy -- to surround Luck with a solid team and let him make plays but not force him to shoulder the entire load.  IMO, Peyton is hands down the greatest QB to ever play -- Luck may surpass some of his numbers, etc. some day and he'll be in the GOAT conversations, but I don't think any QB could ever be put in Peyton's situation and do as well as he did.  I mentioned in a post earlier today that Mathis and Freeney (both potential future HOFers) should thank Manning for much of their success.  Freeney was a great pass rusher, but I don't think he was a great all-around FB player when he was here (the fact he couldn't transition to 3-4 speaks volumes to that, IMO).  If we were not playing with a lead, Freeney was a major liability on D and teams could often run right at him and have great success.  Fortunately, for Colts' fans, Manning was so good at putting points on the board that other teams couldn't just run it down our throat all game, and when they had to back up and pass we were able to dial up the pass rush and allow Freeney and Mathis to have tremendous amounts of success.  The problem was, if we had to play in a harsh environment in the post season and Peyton couldn't get his passing game going, we simply didn't have a strong enough team to win other ways.  Luck, hopefully, will never have that much pressure on him.  If we can support him with a top 5 defense and keep him surrounded with strong offensive weapons and a solid run game, he has all the skill in the world to win us some super bowls.  What I love about the way this team is being built is that we're showing we can win a variety of ways, not just by getting in a high-powered shoot out and letting Manning work his magic and score more points -- this team, I think, has the ability to go into a blizzard and beat many teams by running and playing sound defense if that is what the situation dictates.

 

Luck gives us an added dimension that we didn't have with Manning. When Manning is in rhythm and things are going according to plan he's unstoppable. However, when things start to break down he folds too easy. Luck, despite being less refined, gives us a chance in any situation. He can use his athleticism to run for a first down, or avoid a sure sack. That's what you need in the playoffs. That's what Luck gives us that Peyton never did.   

 

Again, it's nice Luck has more pure athletic ability, which should help in the playoffs but he still has a ways to go before he is a master of selecting the right play and picking a defense apart like Peyton.  He's definitely improving and closing that gap, but he's got a ways to go.  IMO, the fact that we have a more solid all-around 'team' is what is going to help Luck.  Luck will be a star, and we'll have to count on him a lot, but if we continue to provide him with a team that can play defense and win in more way than 1, that is how Luck has a chance at surpassing Manning in terms of super bowl rings.

 

 

As far as 'who do I want if I'm starting a franchise?' -- Obviously, due to Luck's age, I'd probably pick Luck.  However, if I could rewind the clock on Manning, I would take Manning - he is, IMO, the best QB to ever play the game.  Luck might improve and he (barring injury) should be in the GOAT convo at some point near the end of his career, but he's got a long way to go before I'd be willing to call him the best ever.

[rockywoj]

It's Manning and it's not particularly close.

What about Manning is it, at that point of his career, that you feel would better serve today's Colts in today's NFL?

[Tsarquise]

It is very hard to compare the 2 for a variety of reasons -- (1) Luck is starting his career in a pretty new era of football, (2) They are 2 totally different types of players as you note, and perhaps most important (3) Our new GM and coaches with Luck have totally different philosophies than what we saw with Peyton. Luck may bring more success to the Colts than Manning did, but I think if that happens it will be because Irsay realized when we lost Peyton that we didn't have a really good 'team' and by seeing that probably realized how much Peyton had on his shoulders in Indy. I think that was Peyton's big downfall being here is he never had a dominant defense and after Edge left he never really had a solid run blocking line or the ability to win games other than to get in a shootout and hope he threw more TDs than the other team scored. Luck, hopefully, isn't going to have to do everything himself and I think that is part of the new GM and new coaches philosophy -- to surround Luck with a solid team and let him make plays but not force him to shoulder the entire load. IMO, Peyton is hands down the greatest QB to ever play -- Luck may surpass some of his numbers, etc. some day and he'll be in the GOAT conversations, but I don't think any QB could ever be put in Peyton's situation and do as well as he did. I mentioned in a post earlier today that Mathis and Freeney (both potential future HOFers) should thank Manning for much of their success. Freeney was a great pass rusher, but I don't think he was a great all-around FB player when he was here (the fact he couldn't transition to 3-4 speaks volumes to that, IMO). If we were not playing with a lead, Freeney was a major liability on D and teams could often run right at him and have great success. Fortunately, for Colts' fans, Manning was so good at putting points on the board that other teams couldn't just run it down our throat all game, and when they had to back up and pass we were able to dial up the pass rush and allow Freeney and Mathis to have tremendous amounts of success. The problem was, if we had to play in a harsh environment in the post season and Peyton couldn't get his passing game going, we simply didn't have a strong enough team to win other ways. Luck, hopefully, will never have that much pressure on him. If we can support him with a top 5 defense and keep him surrounded with strong offensive weapons and a solid run game, he has all the skill in the world to win us some super bowls. What I love about the way this team is being built is that we're showing we can win a variety of ways, not just by getting in a high-powered shoot out and letting Manning work his magic and score more points -- this team, I think, has the ability to go into a blizzard and beat many teams by running and playing sound defense if that is what the situation dictates.

Again, it's nice Luck has more pure athletic ability, which should help in the playoffs but he still has a ways to go before he is a master of selecting the right play and picking a defense apart like Peyton. He's definitely improving and closing that gap, but he's got a ways to go. IMO, the fact that we have a more solid all-around 'team' is what is going to help Luck. Luck will be a star, and we'll have to count on him a lot, but if we continue to provide him with a team that can play defense and win in more way than 1, that is how Luck has a chance at surpassing Manning in terms of super bowl rings.

As far as 'who do I want if I'm starting a franchise?' -- Obviously, due to Luck's age, I'd probably pick Luck. However, if I could rewind the clock on Manning, I would take Manning - he is, IMO, the best QB to ever play the game. Luck might improve and he (barring injury) should be in the GOAT convo at some point near the end of his career, but he's got a long way to go before I'd be willing to call him the best ever.

You can compare.... Its easy because they are both QB's.

[rockywoj]

It is very hard to compare the 2 for a variety of reasons -- (1) Luck is starting his career in a pretty new era of football, (2) They are 2 totally different types of players as you note, and perhaps most important (3) Our new GM and coaches with Luck have totally different philosophies than what we saw with Peyton. Luck may bring more success to the Colts than Manning did, but I think if that happens it will be because Irsay realized when we lost Peyton that we didn't have a really good 'team' and by seeing that probably realized how much Peyton had on his shoulders in Indy. I think that was Peyton's big downfall being here is he never had a dominant defense and after Edge left he never really had a solid run blocking line or the ability to win games other than to get in a shootout and hope he threw more TDs than the other team scored. Luck, hopefully, isn't going to have to do everything himself and I think that is part of the new GM and new coaches philosophy -- to surround Luck with a solid team and let him make plays but not force him to shoulder the entire load. IMO, Peyton is hands down the greatest QB to ever play -- Luck may surpass some of his numbers, etc. some day and he'll be in the GOAT conversations, but I don't think any QB could ever be put in Peyton's situation and do as well as he did. I mentioned in a post earlier today that Mathis and Freeney (both potential future HOFers) should thank Manning for much of their success. Freeney was a great pass rusher, but I don't think he was a great all-around FB player when he was here (the fact he couldn't transition to 3-4 speaks volumes to that, IMO). If we were not playing with a lead, Freeney was a major liability on D and teams could often run right at him and have great success. Fortunately, for Colts' fans, Manning was so good at putting points on the board that other teams couldn't just run it down our throat all game, and when they had to back up and pass we were able to dial up the pass rush and allow Freeney and Mathis to have tremendous amounts of success. The problem was, if we had to play in a harsh environment in the post season and Peyton couldn't get his passing game going, we simply didn't have a strong enough team to win other ways. Luck, hopefully, will never have that much pressure on him. If we can support him with a top 5 defense and keep him surrounded with strong offensive weapons and a solid run game, he has all the skill in the world to win us some super bowls. What I love about the way this team is being built is that we're showing we can win a variety of ways, not just by getting in a high-powered shoot out and letting Manning work his magic and score more points -- this team, I think, has the ability to go into a blizzard and beat many teams by running and playing sound defense if that is what the situation dictates.

Again, it's nice Luck has more pure athletic ability, which should help in the playoffs but he still has a ways to go before he is a master of selecting the right play and picking a defense apart like Peyton. He's definitely improving and closing that gap, but he's got a ways to go. IMO, the fact that we have a more solid all-around 'team' is what is going to help Luck. Luck will be a star, and we'll have to count on him a lot, but if we continue to provide him with a team that can play defense and win in more way than 1, that is how Luck has a chance at surpassing Manning in terms of super bowl rings.

So you feel that midway through his 3rd season Manning was more of a master in the ways you mention, than Luck is 2.5 years in, and that despite Luck's clear "athletic" advantage, Manning masterfulness advantage that you feel he had at the same point into his career out weigh the previously mentioned Luck advantages?

[Tsarquise]

I don't think Luck is going to be better than Manning. It seems as though Manning eats, sleeps, breathes and craps football. Football is his life. He is a master.

I think Luck's mobility is a little over rated.

Manning makes up his lack of mobility with his quick release and his knowledge of where to go with the football.

With the knowledge of what Manning will do in the future, it is hard to pick Luck over Manning.

Besides being more mobile, I'm not sure what Luck does that trumps Manning.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

You can compare.... Its easy because they are both QB's.

I said it is very hard to compare, not you cannot compare.

 

So you feel that midway through his 3rd season Manning was more of a master in the ways you mention, than Luck is 2.5 years in, and that despite Luck's clear "athletic" advantage, Manning masterfulness advantage that you feel he had at the same point into his career out weigh the previously mentioned Luck advantages?

 

Not necessarily.  It is impossible to predict the future to see how Luck will develop.  Manning is the most 'masterful' QB all time, and I don't even think that it is close.  Luck is developing just fine, but to say he's gonna become better than Peyton became at this point is impossible.  Luck is surrounded by a much better team than Peyton was at this point in their careers.  Luck is improving a lot with his ability to read defenses and go through his progressions, he may be better than Peyton was in year 2-3 regarding that, but to say he'll ever get close to what Peyton developed into is impossible for now.

[BuckingColt]

Mobility is a major asset. It's embarrassing seeing Peyton simply fall down when pressure is in his face. Luck NEVER does this. Luck wouldn't back away from a fumble in the Super Bowl in order to avoid getting hurt(like PM did in '07). Luck plays with a reckless abandon that you need to win games that don't go according to plan. Manning is a better traditional QB, but if you throw his timing off he has trouble overcoming it. Luck can make poor decision and be off, but he isn't afraid of anything. He will do whatever it takes to get a first down or to keep a play alive even with two defenders are hanging on him. 

[rockywoj]

I don't think Luck is going to be better than Manning. It seems as though Manning eats, sleeps, breathes and craps football. Football is his life. He is a master.

I think Luck's mobility is a little over rated.

Manning makes up his lack of mobility with his quick release and his knowledge of where to go with the football.

With the knowledge of what Manning will do in the future, it is hard to pick Luck over Manning.

Besides being more mobile, I'm not sure what Luck does that trumps Manning.

Perhaps so, but I recall hearing that Luck has that same dedication and passion, hence why he was and is so highly rated.

I just remember that 2.5 years in, Manning mistakes could be very frustrating. We do know, though, that Manning continued to improve, to the point that I do consider him to be the best QB I have ever watched.

But 2.5 years in, I feel like Luck is at or even ahead of where Manning was only 2.5 years into his career. Ergo, at this point I see no reason why Luck won't also evolve like Manning did, but like previously mentioned by myself and others, Luck has other feature / athleticism that Manning never did. Ergo, that Luck has an even higher upside.

So today, if we could import Manning from 2.5 years into his career via a time machine, or stand pat with Luck moving foreward, I would be hard pressed to not stand pat with Luck, even knowing how Manning would continue to develop into the master that he is.

[Moose Of Woe]

Think about what Manning accomplished with no defense or special teams (aside from our kickers/punters) to speak of. After a rocky rookie season and a couple afterward he and the offense dragged a 1/3 team to the playoffs every single season.

 

Now picture him playing on our team as it is now. On a complete team. Seriously, think about it. Remember what happened when our defense actually showed up in January and we had 2/3 of a team? We won the Superbowl handedly in spite of our ever inept special teams. (Opening kickoff TD return in the SB. SERIOUSLY?!)

 

Look at what he's doing in Denver while he's well past his prime. Imagine if he still had a laser/rocket arm instead of a noodle.

 

 

The answer is Manning. The only QB in history that could give him a run for his money would be Marino. (Who had equally bad teams for all of his career instead of only most of it)

 

 

That being said, Luck will go on to do great things and I'm glad we have him. Couldn't have asked for much more in a successor.

[Tsarquise]

Perhaps so, but I recall hearing that Luck has that same dedication and passion, hence why he was and is so highly rated.

I just remember that 2.5 years in, Manning mistakes could be very frustrating. We do know, though, that Manning continued to improve, to the point that I do consider him to be the best QB I have ever watched.

But 2.5 years in, I feel like Luck is at or even ahead of where Manning was only 2.5 years into his career. Ergo, at this point I see no reason why Luck won't also evolve like Manning did, but like previously mentioned by myself and others, Luck has other feature / athleticism that Manning never did. Ergo, that Luck has an even higher upside.

His athleticism is higher than Manning's but I mean... He isn't THAT athletic.

I'm only 27. So I don't rememember how frustrating Manning was at 2.5 years in. Although we did have season tickets from 95 to 2001. So I saw Manning's early career I just don't remember.

Would you take Luck over Manning?

[rockywoj]

Think about what Manning accomplished with no defense or special teams (aside from our kickers/punters) to speak of.

Now picture him playing on our team as it is now.

The answer is Manning.

That being said, Luck will go on to do great things and I'm glad we have him. Couldn't have asked for much more in a successor.

Good points, however, although we're all thrilled with today's D performance, Luck was clobbered with a poor OL and ineffective running game and a still mostly porous defense his first two years. Quite frankly, I am not so sure Manning would have survived the I onslought that Luck has so far survived.

[BuckingColt]

His athleticism is higher than Manning's but I mean... He isn't THAT athletic.

I'm only 27. So I don't rememember how frustrating Manning was at 2.5 years in. Although we did have season tickets from 95 to 2001. So I saw Manning's early career I just don't remember.

Would you take Luck over Manning?

 

I'm 27 and I remember Manning's early years like yesterday. Yes, I would easily take Luck over Manning and I love Peyton, but now that he's with Denver it's easier for me to acknowledge his flaws. 

 

Also, I can't believe how much you underestimate Luck's athleticism. 

[rockywoj]

His athleticism is higher than Manning's but I mean... He isn't THAT athletic.

....

Would you take Luck over Manning?

Well that is the million dollar, tough question. Ergo, the thread premise. As much as I love Manning, and I DO think that he is the current GOAT based on what I have seen in my 48 years of watching the NFL, I am leaning toward Luck over time machining a 3rd year Manning instead.

As for "that athletic", if memory serves, Luck's combine athleticism measured quite (surprisingly) favorably to Cam Newton's.

[Shane Bond]

So you feel that midway through his 3rd season Manning was more of a master in the ways you mention, than Luck is 2.5 years in, and that despite Luck's clear "athletic" advantage, Manning masterfulness advantage that you feel he had at the same point into his career out weigh the previously mentioned Luck advantages?

Manning has the cerebral edge.

[Tsarquise]

Did Manning have any of the issues that Luck has now?