Am I the only Colts fan who thinks Luck gets too much credit for the teams success?

[horseshoeblue22]

I think the Jets, Bills and Rams could become immediate superbowl contenders with Luck.  Luck would not make Green Bay any bigger SB favorites than they would be with Rogers..in fact I would say, in all honesty, they would take a small step back.  I don't think Baltimore would get any closer to being a SB favorite with Luck than they are with Flacco.  Dallas though...who knows...I'm not sure what their problem is.  Sometimes it appears to be Romo but at other times not.

 

Okay, Indy is a Superbowl contender with Luck. There's no way you can argue that the Bills or Rams have better or equal skill position players then the Colts do. Even Luck couldn't make guys like Brian Quick and Stedman Bailey into superstars, let's get real. Would he throw 40 TDs on the Jags, throwing to Ace Sanders and Marquise Lee?

 

I could go on for days. I guess the QB vs WRs debate is kind of like the chicken vs the egg "Which one came first?" debate, it could go on forever. But there's no way you can say that guys like Stedman Bailey or Ace Sanders are anywhere near the talent level of the guys Luck has been playing pitch and catch with in Indy. Wayne, Hilton, Moncrief, Fleener, Allen, and the supporting cast that Luck has had to work with are more then adequate. Over the last two years they have ranked right up there with the best of the best.

 

Would Luck throw 40 TDs on the Saints? What about the Steelers?

 

I'd rank our group better then the current Saints group, and better then the current Steelers group. We have one the best and deepest WR/TE groups in the league, and that's not even mentioning our 11th ranked defense. The Jets have taken significant steps forward the past two seasons to improve their pass-catching group, adding Decker, Marshall, Amaro and Devin Smith. But Luck wouldn't be throwing more then 40 TDs if he had Holmes and Jeremy Kerley to work with. No one is throwing 40 TDs to Jeremy Kerley.

 

If you take the quarterback completely out of the equation, where in the league do you rank our skill position group (RB/TE/WR) over the last two seasons?

 

That's not even factoring in the additions we made this season, with Gore, Johnson, Carter, Vincent Brown, and Phillip Dorsett.

 

Why would you think that Luck is going to be more successful on any other team, throwing to any other group of pass-catchers then he is on the Colts, throwing to the mass of talent we have built on the offensive side of the ball?

[colts_100nascar17fan]

Without Andrew luck this the Colts would not have made the playoffs in 2012,13,14. They would have had a hard time winning 4 games.

[Swan Ronson]

You're fascinated by this 40 touchdown number and offensive weapons. The point is that he wouldn't have to throw huge numbers of touchdowns with the defenses some of those teams have.

[Jason_]

Without Andrew luck this the Colts would not have made the playoffs in 2012,13,14. They would have had a hard time winning 4 games.

That depends entirely on who the qb would be if it weren't Luck

[horseshoeblue22]

You're fascinated by this 40 touchdown number and offensive weapons. The point is that he wouldn't have to throw huge numbers of touchdowns with the defenses some of those teams have.

 

When in the NFL do you stop scoring points because "you don't need them"? Indy put up 49 on the Redskins this year, they didn't need that many points...but they kept the foot on the pedal. AGAIN, we finished 11th in total defense. Better then the Pats, the Packers, the Steelers, the Cowboys. Better then the Dolphins, Texans and the Rams. Better then the Cardinals, the Eagles or the Saints.

 

Why would Luck make the Rams any better then he makes the Colts? The Colts had a better offensive line, a better skill-group, and a better defense then the Rams did last year. The only teams I mentioned that had a BETTER ranked defense then the Colts are the Bills, Jets and Ravens.

 

The offenses of the Bills, Jets and Ravens are sub-par compared to the offense Luck has been running in Indy.

 

Without Luck, Indy probably still goes 8-8 or 9-7 with Hasselbeck starting 16 games.

 

Think about it...we play in the AFC South. Hasselbeck is probably the second-best quarterback in our division other then Luck. Only other guy who is close is Brian Hoyer. Bortles might be there one day, but his rookie year was subpar.

 

Take the quarterback out of the equation, would you trade our roster for the roster of Jacksonville, Tennessee or Houston?

 

Our roster is A LOT better then anyone gives it credit for, including several posters on this board.

[horseshoeblue22]

The Packers - maybe

 

Aaron Rodgers only threw 38 touchdowns last year, with all his weapons (which are generally considered to be one of the best WR groups in the league). So Andrew would have "probably" done better then Rodgers, in the same situation? To say that, you are suggesting one of two things:

 

A) Luck "may be" a better quarterback (in year 3) then Rodgers is now. (Which isn't true)

 

B) Our receiving group "may be" just as good or better then the group that Aaron Rodgers has been working with. (Which is exactly my point)

[BOTT]

Is that why they have done as good as they have? 49 news players out of 53 in three seasons. Oh and by the way two of those players are kickers. You can have your opinion but a team does not go three seasons in a row 11-5 with 3 playoffs and two division titles and not be very good. You are overlooking the facts. Your negativity is clouding reality.

They drafted a franchise QB and play in a crappy division. And stop with painting everyone as negative if they give an opinion that is different than yours. I'm not impressed with the overall roster of the colts.....you want me to lie about it?

[BOTT]

Agreed. I have been one of Luck's worst critics since he's come into the league. For as many times as he's carried the team to victory, there have been times where he has been the reason they've lost. Look no further than the 2013 WC Playoff game against the Chiefs to see both extremes all in one game.

The Chiefs game is a false argument that gets repeated on this forum constantly. Luck was definetly NOT the reason the colts fell behind in that game.

[crazycolt1]

They drafted a franchise QB and play in a crappy division. And stop with painting everyone as negative if they give an opinion that is different than yours. I'm not impressed with the overall roster of the colts.....you want me to lie about it?

No, don't lie about it. If you truly feel this is not a good team that's on you. The facts speak for themselves. The Colts have had some tough losses but they also have had some great wins. If you cant see the way things are then your not looking for it. I would be willing to bet there are around 25 other teams in the NFL that would gladly trade rosters. Luck did not do it alone no matter what your opinion is.

[BOTT]

No, don't lie about it. If you truly feel this is not a good team that's on you. The facts speak for themselves. The Colts have had some tough losses but they also have had some great wins. If you cant see the way things are then your not looking for it. I would be willing to bet there are around 25 other teams in the NFL that would gladly trade rosters. Luck did not do it alone no matter what your opinion is.

Oh, now I'm a liar because I disagree with you. Same ol crazycolt.

I never said the Colts weren't good....I said the roster was overrated on this forum.

Please answer this honestly: take Luck off the team and name the teams that would trade rosters with the Colts.

[crazycolt1]

Oh, now I'm a liar because I disagree with you. Same ol crazycolt.

I never said the Colts weren't good....I said the roster was overrated on this forum.

Please answer this honestly: take Luck off the team and name the teams that would trade rosters with the Colts.

Where did I call you a liar? The Colts roster is not over rated anywhere. The record and facts carry themselves. If your opinion is that then so be it. There is no need to explain anything to you because you wouldn't change your opinion either way. Now I can remember why I had you on ignore for a long time. Later.

[horseshoeblue22]

 

.you want me to lie about it?

 

No, don't lie about it.

 

Oh, now I'm a liar..

 

BOTT,..I think you have trouble with reading comprehension...or at very least, love to attack people on this forum for absolutely no reason.

[Colts_Fan12]

You're fascinated by this 40 touchdown number and offensive weapons. The point is that he wouldn't have to throw huge numbers of touchdowns with the defenses some of those teams have.

exactly!!

[BPindy]

Peterson is completely over-hyped because of his draft position. He's been bad for two years.

I will cut him a little slack because he's been battling diabetes, but doesn't mean he's a top 5 corner in any way shape or form. Or even playing well in any way shape or form.

[Restored]

The Chiefs game is a false argument that gets repeated on this forum constantly. Luck was definetly NOT the reason the colts fell behind in that game.

Two of the picks were nearly fatal in the 2nd half and he struggled much of the 1st half after that first TD drive. But like I said, he was also the reason they came back and won.

[JPFolks]

Actually in 2006 a lot of the success especially during the playoff run was handed to the D, and bob sanders in particular

 

I think THIS point (which I was about to make myself but COlts088 beat me to it) is very important.  What the Colts lacked last year (and maybe all 3 of Luck's years) to making it further in the playoffs was better defense.  Defense, the ONE year we had it, was half of why we won that Super Bowl... the other half was not Manning, it was the FEAR of Manning and our two unknown running backs who SHOULD have been co-MVP's of that Super Bowl.  Mannings stats were garbage compared to most QB's who win MVP, though sadly it seems they are the only one considered more often than not.  

 

Baltimore won 2 Super Bowls with mediocre Offense in a QB league.  So there is 2 ways to win it all, GREAT QB play with ENOUGH defense, or GREAT DEFENSE with ENOUGH QB.  

 

This is why I was so excited by Pep Hamilton's Power Run offense WITH a world class QB, sort of like Baltimore the years they won the Super Bowls IF they had also had Peyton Manning.  Imagine how dominant that would have been.  With Pagano's expertise in the Defensive Backfield (by FAR where his strengths lie) I was very excited by how all of that could come together.  Sadly, with all those great ideas AND with Luck and some far better than average receivers/TE's, they forgot to add a complete defense and the RB/OLine to run the Power Run effectively.  Perhaps it was Irsay getting them off track like using our first round pick on a very attractive(potential wise) young WR instead of one of the STUD DLineman still on the board at our highest need position.  Perhaps our later round and FA signings will be enough, but I got that sinking feeling that the coaches brilliant plans may have been derailed a bit by someone there (Irsay or Grigson) who just can't pass on a Miami WR to replace our last Miami WR we tossed to the curb.   Even if he lives up to his potential, will he simply push Luck to 55 TD's only to see us lose to a great defense and powerful run game in the playoffs again (like Manning lost with the historically most powerful Offense ever to play against Seattle)?  

 

We have some GREAT players on this team.  But without Luck, the Defense with a weak offense would get pummeled.  The Texans with Luck would have won the Super Bowl last year.  The Colts with the Texans lack of QB would have had a bad losing record battling Jacksonville and TN for a high draft pick.  But even WITH Luck, if we fall into the "old" trap of great receivers, a decent Oline and decent RB's but a porous D, it may be the same old story. 

 

I think they have all the right ideas at the Coaching level... only key personnel decisions have kept us from going further each year.  Manning would have taken that 2-14 team to the playoffs just as he nearly always did. Luck TOOK that same team, without some of the familiar aging vets TO the playoffs, just the same.  The QB is key as is Defense.  One must be better than average and the other must be world class.  We came close with a slightly less than average D and a slightly less than world class QB who still turns it over too much.  A tweak of each and we're there.  Let's hope they hit home runs with this year's draft picks and ancient FA's and we may lift the first Lombardi of Lucks career.  And if it happens, Luck with be the key, not Hilton or anyone else, good or better than good, on the team.  

 

But I am fine with Horseshoe's opinion.  Isn't that what message boards are for?  And dude, don't sweat people who WHINE about long posts.  No one forced them to read it and look at the enjoyable thread, aside from jerks attacking you for having a different opinion.  I think you're wrong, but I don't think you deserve the treatment you've gotten on this.  Few of us are right in most matters of Pro Football, which is why we're fans and not Coaching Staff members.  

[horseshoeblue22]

 

 

The Texans with Luck would have won the Super Bowl last year. 

 

And this is exactly the kind of thing I am trying to disprove. Why in the world do you think Luck would have won a Superbowl in Houston, when he couldn't win it in Indy?

 

Indy finished 11th in total defense, Houston finished 16th.

 

We finished 12 in pass defense, Houston finished 21st.

 

We tied for 9th in the league in sacks, Houston ranked at 19th.

 

Yeah Houston ranked better in run defense, (10th to our 18th) but we still have a much better defense then Houston does.

 

Houston has JJ Watt and Arian Foster, Indy has Vontae Davis and TY Hilton. You take away Watt and Foster, the Texans have VERY few guys that would even be considered above average at their positions. Luck got sacked 29 times last year, Houston quarterbacks got sacked 26. Not a notable difference, considering Luck was asked to pass a lot more then the Texans' quarterbacks were. Our offensive line is not significantly worse. Our special teams groups, aside from kick returner maybe, are better then Houston's.

 

Our roster, taking away the QB position, was much better then the roster of the Houston Texans last year.

 

The same can be said about the Jaguars, Titans, Browns, Bears, Vikings, Jets, Bills, Dolphins, Raiders, Chiefs, Chargers, Saints, Falcons, Buccaneers, Rams, Cardinals, 49ers, Redskins, and Giants. The stats will back up this claim.

[BlueShoe]

Would we have won 33 regular season games plus 3 playoff games without Luck? Hell no!

 

We were 2-14 in 2011, and we were a very bad 2-14 team. We also cut bait with a lot of players and carried 40 million or so in dead cap space in 2012 (Luck's rookie year). 

 

There is absolutely no way in hell we would be the team we are today without Andrew Luck.

 

Does that mean he did it all by himself? Not at all. This is a team game.

[Jason_]

Aaron Rodgers only threw 38 touchdowns last year, with all his weapons (which are generally considered to be one of the best WR groups in the league). So Andrew would have "probably" done better then Rodgers, in the same situation? To say that, you are suggesting one of two things:

 

A) Luck "may be" a better quarterback (in year 3) then Rodgers is now. (Which isn't true)

 

B) Our receiving group "may be" just as good or better then the group that Aaron Rodgers has been working with. (Which is exactly my point)

 

I get your primary point but...you're trying too hard.  No, Luck is not better than Aaron Rodgers.  However, in the past 4 years, Rodgers has thrown 38, 45 and 39 TDs.  I do think they've had a good receiving corp, but even more important they have a very experienced HC/OC in Mike McCarthy.  I'm still meh on Pep...not ready to want to see him replaced but not sold on him either.  McCarthy is definitely a huge step up so I have no reason to think that Luck couldn't throw around that same number of TDs that Rodgers did....but that still doesn't make Luck a better QB than Rodgers.

 

I also can't co-sign on your claim that the Colt defense is better than the Texans and especially the Rams.  The Colt defense did play like a top 10 defense last year...at times.  However there were other times they looked downright terrible.  I don't think our defense is as bad as many people try to make it out to be but I can't say that they're empirically better than the Texans and especially not the Rams.   I think you need to stop looking at raw stats and determining which player or position group is better based purely off of those stats. 

[Jaric]

I guess it depends on how much credit you give him. If you're arguing he's the only good player on the team that's absurd. If you're arguing he's the biggest single reason that's probably pretty accurate.

Oh, and it's time to drop the false modesty. Luck is the best QB in the league right now.

[Superman]

Aaron Rodgers only threw 38 touchdowns last year, with all his weapons (which are generally considered to be one of the best WR groups in the league). So Andrew would have "probably" done better then Rodgers, in the same situation? To say that, you are suggesting one of two things:

 

A) Luck "may be" a better quarterback (in year 3) then Rodgers is now. (Which isn't true)

 

B) Our receiving group "may be" just as good or better then the group that Aaron Rodgers has been working with. (Which is exactly my point)

 

This premise only works if you accept that one QB is better than another because he has more TD passes.

 

In reality, QBing is about more than TD passes. But if we start there and add some context -- like the fact that Luck attempted 96 more passes than Rodgers -- then you realize that Rodgers was more efficient, and his TD% would extrapolate out to 45 TD passes if he had thrown as much as Luck did. He completed a higher percentage of his attempts, had more yards/attempt and more adjusted yards/attempt. 

 

So I don't agree with either of your options here. Unless by "receiving group" you mean more than just the WRs, in which case I'd agree that for the first half of the season Luck's total package of weapons was deeper and more well-rounded than Rodgers'. But that Cobb/Nelson duo is better than the Colts top two has been at any point in Luck's career.

[Superman]

And this is exactly the kind of thing I am trying to disprove. Why in the world do you think Luck would have won a Superbowl in Houston, when he couldn't win it in Indy?

 

Indy finished 11th in total defense, Houston finished 16th.

 

We finished 12 in pass defense, Houston finished 21st.

 

We tied for 9th in the league in sacks, Houston ranked at 19th.

 

Yeah Houston ranked better in run defense, (10th to our 18th) but we still have a much better defense then Houston does.

 

Houston has JJ Watt and Arian Foster, Indy has Vontae Davis and TY Hilton. You take away Watt and Foster, the Texans have VERY few guys that would even be considered above average at their positions. Luck got sacked 29 times last year, Houston quarterbacks got sacked 26. Not a notable difference, considering Luck was asked to pass a lot more then the Texans' quarterbacks were. Our offensive line is not significantly worse. Our special teams groups, aside from kick returner maybe, are better then Houston's.

 

Our roster, taking away the QB position, was much better then the roster of the Houston Texans last year.

 

The same can be said about the Jaguars, Titans, Browns, Bears, Vikings, Jets, Bills, Dolphins, Raiders, Chiefs, Chargers, Saints, Falcons, Buccaneers, Rams, Cardinals, 49ers, Redskins, and Giants. The stats will back up this claim.

 

Again, some missing context. Our offense ran way more plays than any of those teams you listed. Primarily because our offense was one of the league's best on third down and we dominated time of possession against 75% of our schedule. So our defense gave up fewer yards and by extension, fewer points, than Houston, in large part due to not having to be on the field as much. 

 

And while Houston's overall defense might not measure as well as ours (even adjusted for TOP), they have something that can easily make their defense great with just a couple of tweaks, and that's a destroyer on the DL. The impact that a disruptive DL has is impossible to replicate. 

 

I agree with your overall point; the roster isn't as bad as people like to pretend it is, but you can't just look at raw defensive stats and say "see, our defense is just as good as theirs." 

[Superman]

Oh, and it's time to drop the false modesty. Luck is the best QB in the league right now.

 

No he isn't. 

[Jaric]

No he isn't.

Blasphemer!

[Jaric]

By the way, I realize there may not be a statistical argument for that, but I watch a lot of football and I have yet to see anyone else in the league I would want as my QB right now more than Andrew Luck.

[Jason_]

By the way, I realize there may not be a statistical argument for that, but I watch a lot of football and I have yet to see anyone else in the league I would want as my QB right now more than Andrew Luck.

 

IMO, that depends on what you want him for.  If I need a QB for one game...to win the SB then no, Luck is not my first choice.  There are at least half a dozen QBs I'd take over Luck for just one important game.  However, if I'm building a franchise and need someone long-term, then yes Luck is probably my top choice.

[Jaric]

IMO, that depends on what you want him for. If I need a QB for one game...to win the SB then no, Luck is not my first choice. There are at least half a dozen QBs I'd take over Luck for just one important game. However, if I'm building a franchise and need someone long-term, then yes Luck is probably my top choice.

Half a dozen? I can think of maybe one (Rodgers) and even then I'd still take Luck.

I'm curious, who are these half dozen QBs?

[Gavin]

Half a dozen? I can think of maybe one (Rodgers) and even then I'd still take Luck.

I'm curious, who are these half dozen QBs?

Rodgers, Brees, Peyton (Healthy), Brady, Wilson can be argued if we are talking 1 game (despite the INT in the SB that was on the WR), Roethlisberger can be debated......With all that said, If Im going down Im going down with Luck

[horseshoeblue22]

Again, some missing context. [snipped] a destroyer on the DL. The impact that a disruptive DL has is impossible to replicate.

I agree with your overall point; the roster isn't as bad as people like to pretend it is, but you can't just look at raw defensive stats and say "see, our defense is just as good as theirs."

We dont have an end like Watt, but they dont have a corner like Davis. Aside from Watt, their defense is pretty poor. The Rams have a solid d line, maybe even great, but their secondary is awful, and their LBers are pretty mediocre. I realize raw stats dont tell the whole story, but I have to back up my claims with SOMETHING, and stats support my point of view. Just saying, at least I am not saying I am right simply because I am right...my claims have some merit to them.

Luck is the best quarterback in the world at his age, but he is not the best quarterback in the world. He is not better then Manning, Brees, or Rodgers. You could argue he is not better then Brady or Roethlisberger. The offensive talent around him has been as good as anyone else. The defensive players on the Colts are criminally underrated, and often characterized as "holding Luck back."

Theres no reason to believe Luck would have won a Superbowl or would have had a more successful season if he was playing on the Texans or Rams. There is no stats, no logic that backs up that claim.

[Jaric]

Rodgers, Brees, Peyton (Healthy), Brady, Wilson can be argued if we are talking 1 game (despite the INT in the SB that was on the WR), Roethlisberger can be debated......With all that said, If Im going down Im going down with Luck

I could maybe buy Manning/Brady/Brees like 5 years ago.

I love Russell Wilson, but Luck is a better QB.

Rodgers... IMO the difference is negligible and we likely haven't even seen the best of Luck yet.

I'll happily hitch my wagon to the neck beard without hesitation.

[Jaric]

Also, Luck is 100% a better QB than Peyton. I was genuinely concerned watching the Broncos last year that he'd take a solid hit and die on the field.

Plus, I throw a tighter spiral than Manning at this stage of his career.

[Jason_]

Half a dozen? I can think of maybe one (Rodgers) and even then I'd still take Luck.

I'm curious, who are these half dozen QBs?

 

In no particular order, Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers at the very least and an argument could be made for Big Ben, Eli, Matt Ryan, and Phillip Rivers. 

[Flash7]

In no particular order, Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers at the very least and an argument could be made for Big Ben, Eli, Matt Ryan, and Phillip Rivers. 

I would probably also add Tony Romo in the conversation in the "very least an argument can be made for" section, but not for just 1 game, as an overall QB.

[Jason_]

Also, Luck is 100% a better QB than Peyton. I was genuinely concerned watching the Broncos last year that he'd take a solid hit and die on the field.

 

No he 100% is not.  That's absurd.  And just because you're concerned about him getting injured doesn't mean he's any more prone to a career-ending injury than any other QB in the league.

 

Plus, I throw a tighter spiral than Manning at this stage of his career.

 

 

Again, that's absurd but more importantly, who cares?  Can you read defenses like Manning?  Can you throw as accurately as Manning?  Can you complete 66% of your passes against NFL defenses throwing for almost 5,000 yards and 39 TDs?  That'd be a big no.

[Jason_]

I could maybe buy Manning/Brady/Brees like 5 years ago.

I love Russell Wilson, but Luck is a better QB.

Rodgers... IMO the difference is negligible and we likely haven't even seen the best of Luck yet.

I'll happily hitch my wagon to the neck beard without hesitation.

 

Manning, Brady and Brees today are still better QBs than Andrew Luck is today.  He may very well wind up in the same category as them when it's all said and done..he may even eclipse all of them.  That, however, has not happened as of today.

 

And if you think the difference between Aaron Rodgers today and Andrew Luck today is negligible then good god man, lay off the Madden!

[Jaric]

You really don't think at 39 years old Manning is more susptible to injury than other QBs?

Really?

[horseshoeblue22]

...and we likely haven't even seen the best of Luck yet.

I'll happily hitch my wagon to the neck beard without hesitation.

We havent seen the best of Luck yet. I am comparing Luck NOW to other quarterbacks NOW. When Luck is a ten year vet, good chance he will be playing at a higher level than any of those guys are now. But Luck isnt a ten year vet yet, and hes not playing on the level of those guys YET. Can we stop pretending that he is?

Theres no shame in admitting your third year pro QB has a lot of room to grow.

[Jaric]

Manning, Brady and Brees today are still better QBs than Andrew Luck is today. He may very well wind up in the same category as them when it's all said and done..he may even eclipse all of them. That, however, has not happened as of today.

And if you think the difference between Aaron Rodgers today and Andrew Luck today is negligible then good god man, lay off the Madden!

Ahh a Madden slam. An unoriginal, passive-aggressive way to demean an opinion differing than yours. Well done.

You don't have to agree with me, but there's no reason to insult me because I have a differing opinion.

Besides, in 5 years you're going to be like "Man, Jaric was right!"

[Jaric]

We havent seen the best of Luck yet. I am comparing Luck NOW to other quarterbacks NOW. When Luck is a ten year vet, good chance he will be playing at a higher level than any of those guys are now. But Luck isnt a ten year vet yet, and hes not playing on the level of those guys YET. Can we stop pretending that he is?

Theres no shame in admitting your third year pro QB has a lot of room to grow.

Of course he has room to grow. Which just means the gap is going to get even BIGGER.

I'm surprised more of you aren't on board with this. I assumed most of us knew it, we just didn't want to say it because it defies conventional wisdom.

[horseshoeblue22]

Thats because "conventional wisdom" is right in this case. Luck will probably be widely considered the best QB in the league in 5 years...but that does not make him the best QB playing RIGHT NOW. Potential and hypothetical growth over the course of his career mean very little.

In five years, Mariota or some other newcomer could be considered miles ahead of Luck. There is very little benefit to looking 5 years into the future.