Getting tired of Luck taking a beating in the game and on this board

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Coltfreak said:

I dont think anyone is criticizing his talent, but he does hold the ball too long.  He has admitted himself.  Said some of the sacks are because of it.   I blame it on play calling more than anything.  Plays take too long to develop.   And I think Luck is not always sure where the pocket is going to form so he hesitates to see where he needs to move to find it. 

 

Shorter passes would do this team a big favor.  It would protect Luck and give the Oline less time to have to hold off the wolves

 

Absolutely. Luck is not perfect. I talk about what I think he can do better all the time. 

 

But someone made a thread the other day about how the Colts need to get rid of him because "blah blah blah." That stuff is stupid.

 

And despite whatever he still needs to improve on -- sometimes he hold the ball too long, misses high, is late, whatever -- he's still the engine that makes this thing go. And lately, he's the gas, the oil, the transmission, the suspension, the body, the seats, even the doggone radio. So no complaining about Luck right now. 

[Coltfreak]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Absolutely. Luck is not perfect. I talk about what I think he can do better all the time. 

 

But someone made a thread the other day about how the Colts need to get rid of him because "blah blah blah." That stuff is stupid.

 

And despite whatever he still needs to improve on -- sometimes he hold the ball too long, misses high, is late, whatever -- he's still the engine that makes this thing go. And lately, he's the gas, the oil, the transmission, the suspension, the body, the seats, even the doggone radio. So no complaining about Luck right now. 

Agree.    I still think it has a lot to play calling and a new system 

 

takes more than a second to process.    The offense is progressing.   Should be much much better when 10 is back on the field 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, theanarchist said:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&role=TM&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=PASSING_QBHIT

 

50 times. Good enough for 3rd worst in the NFL. Yet Luck is 3rd best in yards and 5th in TD's.

 

Thanks. I forgot NFL.com provided that.

 

The OL is also the 10th least experienced in the league, based on games started. Luck is definitely rising above it. 

[Coltsman1788]

9 hours ago, tikyle said:

We just want to hold Luck up to the standard that his contract and quite frankly his hype have set for him.  Luck can't simply be good.  He needs to be great to outstanding.  Luck needs a 16 game season with 10 or less INT.  He needs to cut down the fumbles.  That is all we ask.  For the most part the sacks are not his fault.  But most if not all the turnovers are.  That is the only hole in his game and he has improved on that this year.

 

But to think he is above criticism because he is "our QB" or because he's the best player on this team is ridiculous to me.  When he stinks or costs us a game it should be pointed out just like when the defense or another particular player stinks or costs us the game.

Amen.

[ThatOneColtFan]

There are a minority of posters here who believe that Luck is a negative on the team. 

 

That minority is minuscule. 

 

If we had more wins he'd be top 5 in the MVP run.

[braveheartcolt]

4 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:

I have searched and searched and cannot find where i read this, but i KNOW i did and it was a statistics site, not an opinion board., so i appologize for not having a link to back this up,...but:

I did read that so far this year A. Luck takes the 2nd longest in the NFL to let the ball go.  And was like 5th longest to decide to tuck and run when he has made that decision.

This is averages for the year,..not picking out a single play and timing it.  So yes,...he does hold the ball too long still. 

But like said earlier in the thread, i am NOT bashing Luck,...just some constructive critism.  I like Luck and think he's the top QB in the NFL at this time i would want.   Yes over Brady, Rodgers, Newton, ect.  When Luck is 'on',..no-one is better than Luck.

......and getting rid of the ball quicker would means what? Less yards, less TD's and less wins? Probably. But he would be super healthy. Yay!!!

[AZColt11]

Didn't read all the replies but in regards to the original post.  I am not a Luck basher at all but I also admit he does not walk on water either.  He's fine.  He's doing the best he can.  Is he enough to get this team to the Superbowl?  No.  Nobody is.  Is he living up to his contract?  No, but that's a loaded question, IMHO NONE of the NFL players are worth that, but that's a whole other discussion.  Is he living up to his "market value" in terms of his position?  Yes, I think he is.  But to answer it you have to understand that his contract is the going rate for a QB of his age, experience, and skills.  It just is.  Do you not think if Peyton Manning were in year 5 today that he wouldn't get this kind of contract also?  Of course he would!  As someone else mentioned, Brock Osweiler got half of what Luck did and he started like a handful of games!  Luck has demonstrated WAY more than Osweiler has.  Teams are just hard up for QB's and for good reason.  Not many that don't have one win a Superbowl.  

 

I get why people are frustrated, they see us giving a QB so much and the rest of the roster is in shambles.  I get it.  But as I see it you have three choices: a)find a true franchise QB and try to build the rest of the roster the best you can to support him, 2) find any old average QB and use the money saved to build the rest of the roster and try to make it, or 3) find a decent QB, but not a franchise one, and try to be average or better everywhere.  The last choice makes you an average team.  You will probably win 8 games and not much more.  The other two are more preferred and different teams have different philosophies.  I'm more of the franchise QB choice because I think a really good one can make up for a lot of flaws in other areas.  But an argument can be made for the other side too if you have a really good defense.  I get it.  But I also know that it is harder to find a bunch of really good players to form a great unit than it is to find ONE really good QB.  You have to hit on more draft picks and FA's.  This is why I think more teams are going for the franchise QB hoping they can hit that ONE homerun than a bunch of them.  It makes some sense.

 

If you aren't a fan of the franchise QB approach, and some here probably aren't, then what is your alternative?  Who would you bring in?  What would you do in the other areas?  I think if you are going to criticize you should provide alternative options.

 

For me, if the Colts have 99 problems, Luck is like #95.  I think the Colts would be better served to try and fix other areas and I think that is what they are TRYING to do, albeit with little success.

 

[theanarchist]

8 hours ago, AZColt11 said:

Didn't read all the replies but in regards to the original post.  I am not a Luck basher at all but I also admit he does not walk on water either.  He's fine.  He's doing the best he can.  Is he enough to get this team to the Superbowl?  No.  Nobody is.  Is he living up to his contract?  No, but that's a loaded question, IMHO NONE of the NFL players are worth that, but that's a whole other discussion.  Is he living up to his "market value" in terms of his position?  Yes, I think he is.  But to answer it you have to understand that his contract is the going rate for a QB of his age, experience, and skills.  It just is.  Do you not think if Peyton Manning were in year 5 today that he wouldn't get this kind of contract also?  Of course he would!  As someone else mentioned, Brock Osweiler got half of what Luck did and he started like a handful of games!  Luck has demonstrated WAY more than Osweiler has.  Teams are just hard up for QB's and for good reason.  Not many that don't have one win a Superbowl.  

 

I get why people are frustrated, they see us giving a QB so much and the rest of the roster is in shambles.  I get it.  But as I see it you have three choices: a)find a true franchise QB and try to build the rest of the roster the best you can to support him, 2) find any old average QB and use the money saved to build the rest of the roster and try to make it, or 3) find a decent QB, but not a franchise one, and try to be average or better everywhere.  The last choice makes you an average team.  You will probably win 8 games and not much more.  The other two are more preferred and different teams have different philosophies.  I'm more of the franchise QB choice because I think a really good one can make up for a lot of flaws in other areas.  But an argument can be made for the other side too if you have a really good defense.  I get it.  But I also know that it is harder to find a bunch of really good players to form a great unit than it is to find ONE really good QB.  You have to hit on more draft picks and FA's.  This is why I think more teams are going for the franchise QB hoping they can hit that ONE homerun than a bunch of them.  It makes some sense.

 

If you aren't a fan of the franchise QB approach, and some here probably aren't, then what is your alternative?  Who would you bring in?  What would you do in the other areas?  I think if you are going to criticize you should provide alternative options.

 

For me, if the Colts have 99 problems, Luck is like #95.  I think the Colts would be better served to try and fix other areas and I think that is what they are TRYING to do, albeit with little success.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00.htm

 

1) The "QB getting so much" just happened 6 month ago. It in no way has any bearing on the current state of the roster. Or, very little bearing. The cause of the "roster being in shambles" is due to the bone head moves by the GM. Period

 

2) Luck being a "problem" on a list of any problems is ridiculous. When you compare his numbers to Peyton Manning's numbers up to this point in their careers there is only one stat that Manning has total dominance over Luck and that is the number of times he has been sacked! I'll be so bold as to say if Peyton Manning had to play behind the lines that Luck has had to play behind Manning would have never made it to where he ended up in his career. You can say all you want about his contract the fact of the matter is theres probably 27 other teams in the league who would have given Luck that money if they'd had the chance.

 

Atleast Bill Polian was savvy enough to put a decent line in front of Manning and had the foresight to understand that in Dungy's defense that having two defensive ends who could rush the passer was a formula for success. We can argue all day about how that forumula wasn't perfect but it was tremendously successful. I don't even have any idea up to this point what Grigson's vision is other than using duct tape and bubble gum to assemble a roster.

[Lawrence Owen]

9 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

......and getting rid of the ball quicker would means what? Less yards, less TD's and less wins? Probably. But he would be super healthy. Yay!!!

yeah, that is why i said what i did at the bottom.   Still rather have him, even if he does hold the ball to make things happen.  It's just the o-line do have moments,..but all o-lines do...no QB is clean every game all game.  Some of those 'hurries, qb hits, sacks" are on Luck.  But the conundrum is : Do you make him give up on the play to be healthy?,..or try to make something happen?  IMO ,If you are behind, yes,..make something happen.  but if you have the lead,..let the play go.  Most teams would give thier QB and #1 wr, and probably a pick or 2 to have a QB with Lucks skills and physical ability.

[Lawrence Owen]

11 hours ago, ThatOneColtFan said:

There are a minority of posters here who believe that Luck is a negative on the team. 

 

That minority is minuscule. 

 

If we had more wins he'd be top 5 in the MVP run.

Frankly, you don't have to win to be MVP candidate..it helps but many MVP's either didn't go to the playoff's are barely made it.   justy lately MVPs end up being superbowl contenders.  EVERYONE knows Luck has been doing what he's been doing this year with many injuries on the team,...different o-line looks with young guys/rookies playing the majority of the line positions at times,..and a shoddy defense.

[AZColt11]

1 hour ago, theanarchist said:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00.htm

 

1) The "QB getting so much" just happened 6 month ago. It in no way has any bearing on the current state of the roster. Or, very little bearing. The cause of the "roster being in shambles" is due to the bone head moves by the GM. Period

 

2) Luck being a "problem" on a list of any problems is ridiculous. When you compare his numbers to Peyton Manning's numbers up to this point in their careers there is only one stat that Manning has total dominance over Luck and that is the number of times he has been sacked! I'll be so bold as to say if Peyton Manning had to play behind the lines that Luck has had to play behind Manning would have never made it to where he ended up in his career. You can say all you want about his contract the fact of the matter is theres probably 27 other teams in the league who would have given Luck that money if they'd had the chance.

 

Atleast Bill Polian was savvy enough to put a decent line in front of Manning and had the foresight to understand that in Dungy's defense that having two defensive ends who could rush the passer was a formula for success. We can argue all day about how that forumula wasn't perfect but it was tremendously successful. I don't even have any idea up to this point what Grigson's vision is other than using duct tape and bubble gum to assemble a roster.

I think we agree.  I'm not sure how you interpreted my post but I am saying the Colts had to do what they did with Luck and he is NOT the problem here.

[tikyle]

17 hours ago, theanarchist said:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FavrBr00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm

 

1) Less than 10 picks? Above are the stats of two of the all time greats. There really isnt much dispute about that. Favre was able to do this 1 time in his career and Manning threw less than 10 1 time as well.

 

2) I'm not sure how you can honestly make a statement about "But most if not all of the turnovers are" his fault? So, Im assuming you have gone over all the game film and decided that every pick he's ever thrown and every fumble he made were unforced errors? Give me a break, passes get tipped, balls get batted, sacks turn into fumbles much easier for quarterbacks that running backs because of the differences in how the ball is carried.

 

 

You are the exact type of person on this forum that I rebel against.

1. Favre wasn't that great.

2. For all of Manning's stats he only won 1 SB being "Manning."  His 2nd one came when he was a "game manager."

3. Yes 10 INT or less.  That is today's NFL.  With all of the rules for receivers and QBs that is very achievable.  The name of the game in the NFL is to protect the ball. 

4. I have seen every Colts game since like 2002.  Trust me most of Luck's TOs are on him.  He will even tell you that.  And yes even tipped passes are on the QB.  Maybe not the ones tipped at the line but tipped by the a defender on the 2nd level or beyond.  So of all his TOs you are trying to tell me the majority are either tipped at the line or hits the WRs hands and then picked?  HAHAHA!!  I laugh at that one.  And his crazy stat year of 40TD and 16INT he threw about another 15-20 passes that should have been picked but were dropped by the defender.  You can go somewhere if you want to say that Luck isn't to blame for most of his turnovers.  If that's your "hot take" you have no credibility as an observer or Colts fan.

5. We all know Luck's weakness is TOs.  No one can deny it.  Even he brings it up.  Why can't you just accept that?

[tikyle]

Double post

[tikyle]

Double post

[braveheartcolt]

38 minutes ago, tikyle said:

You are the exact type of person on this forum that I rebel against.

1. Favre wasn't that great.

2. For all of Manning's stats he only won 1 SB being "Manning."  His 2nd one came when he was a "game manager."

3. Yes 10 INT or less.  That is today's NFL.  With all of the rules for receivers and QBs that is very achievable.  The name of the game in the NFL is to protect the ball. 

4. I have seen every Colts game since like 2002.  Trust me most of Luck's TOs are on him.  He will even tell you that.  And yes even tipped passes are on the QB.  Maybe not the ones tipped at the line but tipped by the a defender on the 2nd level or beyond.  So of all his TOs you are trying to tell me the majority are either tipped at the line or hits the WRs hands and then picked?  HAHAHA!!  I laugh at that one.  And his crazy stat year of 40TD and 16INT he threw about another 15-20 passes that should have been picked but were dropped by the defender.  You can go somewhere if you want to say that Luck isn't to blame for most of his turnovers.  If that's your "hot take" you have no credibility as an observer or Colts fan.

5. We all know Luck's weakness is TOs.  No one can deny it.  Even he brings it up.  Why can't you just accept that?

Why don't you try a balanced argument? We can all cherry pick stats to promote our stance. LIke how many passes should have been caught etc. Works both ways.  

[Coffeedrinker]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

You are the exact type of person on this forum that I rebel against.

1. Favre wasn't that great.

2. For all of Manning's stats he only won 1 SB being "Manning."  His 2nd one came when he was a "game manager."

3. Yes 10 INT or less.  That is today's NFL.  With all of the rules for receivers and QBs that is very achievable.  The name of the game in the NFL is to protect the ball. 

4. I have seen every Colts game since like 2002.  Trust me most of Luck's TOs are on him.  He will even tell you that.  And yes even tipped passes are on the QB.  Maybe not the ones tipped at the line but tipped by the a defender on the 2nd level or beyond.  So of all his TOs you are trying to tell me the majority are either tipped at the line or hits the WRs hands and then picked?  HAHAHA!!  I laugh at that one.  And his crazy stat year of 40TD and 16INT he threw about another 15-20 passes that should have been picked but were dropped by the defender.  You can go somewhere if you want to say that Luck isn't to blame for most of his turnovers.  If that's your "hot take" you have no credibility as an observer or Colts fan.

5. We all know Luck's weakness is TOs.  No one can deny it.  Even he brings it up.  Why can't you just accept that?

Not to jump in here, Braveheart is more than capable of carrying out his own debates.

 

I just wanted to point that the person that starts a list with "Favre wasn't that great" is the person that lacks credibility.

[theanarchist]

Just now, Coffeedrinker said:

Not to jump in here, Braveheart is more than capable of carrying out his own debates.

 

I just wanted to point that the person that starts a list with "Favre wasn't that great" is the person that lacks credibility.

 

I wish I would have beat you to the punch on that but you said it so eloquently

[theanarchist]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

You are the exact type of person on this forum that I rebel against.

1. Favre wasn't that great.

2. For all of Manning's stats he only won 1 SB being "Manning."  His 2nd one came when he was a "game manager."

3. Yes 10 INT or less.  That is today's NFL.  With all of the rules for receivers and QBs that is very achievable.  The name of the game in the NFL is to protect the ball. 

4. I have seen every Colts game since like 2002.  Trust me most of Luck's TOs are on him.  He will even tell you that.  And yes even tipped passes are on the QB.  Maybe not the ones tipped at the line but tipped by the a defender on the 2nd level or beyond.  So of all his TOs you are trying to tell me the majority are either tipped at the line or hits the WRs hands and then picked?  HAHAHA!!  I laugh at that one.  And his crazy stat year of 40TD and 16INT he threw about another 15-20 passes that should have been picked but were dropped by the defender.  You can go somewhere if you want to say that Luck isn't to blame for most of his turnovers.  If that's your "hot take" you have no credibility as an observer or Colts fan.

5. We all know Luck's weakness is TOs.  No one can deny it.  Even he brings it up.  Why can't you just accept that?

I don't think I will dignify this with a reply other than....

[GoColtsWin]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

And despite whatever he still needs to improve on -- sometimes he hold the ball too long, misses high, is late, whatever -- he's still the engine that makes this thing go. And lately, he's the gas, the oil, the transmission, the suspension, the body, the seats, even the doggone radio. So no complaining about Luck right now

Well said. Eerily reminiscent of another Colts legends career that's about to be in Canton soon. Just don't get why we seem cursed with unbalanced teams!?!

[tikyle]

1 hour ago, braveheartcolt said:

Why don't you try a balanced argument? We can all cherry pick stats to promote our stance. LIke how many passes should have been caught etc. Works both ways.  

What are talking about?  You stated how I was wrong that Luck's turnovers were not his fault.  Then I gave you were in his best statistical season how he had many more passes that interceptable that were dropped by defenders.  And you come back with how many passes should have been caught by his WRs?  Huh?  No one is arguing whether or not Luck is good or his completion % or even his help.  We are talking TOs.

 

37 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Not to jump in here, Braveheart is more than capable of carrying out his own debates.

 

I just wanted to point that the person that starts a list with "Favre wasn't that great" is the person that lacks credibility.

I mis-typed.  I should have said his style of play wasn't that great.  He is obviously a HOF QB.  But his style of play did not maximize the success that his talent could have yielded.

 

31 minutes ago, theanarchist said:

I don't think I will dignify this with a reply other than....

I need a reality check?  I still have not had one person who can dispute my argument.

[shakedownstreet]

Luck is one bad mutha!

[Superman]

1 hour ago, GoColtsWin said:

Well said. Eerily reminiscent of another Colts legends career that's about to be in Canton soon. Just don't get why we seem cursed with unbalanced teams!?!

 

Or blessed with great QBs...?

[Surge89]

Interesting, 

 

I've been critical of Luck in the past (when he throws high and behind every 100 throws or so, I'm in full panic) but honestly this year he's been playing on another level.  In fact I'm pretty confident that this is the year that we look back on and say man that's when Luck truly started getting it.

 

And it's no coincidence that he looks relevant with an offensive coordinator that can actually game plan.  Imagine if he's doing this now with a very young and inexperienced oline it can only get better as they mature with him.

[GoColtsWin]

On 10/28/2016 at 2:55 PM, Superman said:

 

Or blessed with great QBs...?

Touche 

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 10/27/2016 at 8:20 PM, Superman said:

 

Thanks. I forgot NFL.com provided that.

 

The OL is also the 10th least experienced in the league, based on games started. Luck is definitely rising above it. 

 

 

along with the 50 hits is the 25 sacks... the most in the NFL so far in 2016.  Combine the two and only the Browns have a higher Hits+Sacks number.  We have to get better blocking, and Andrew has to go to the second and third quicker.

 

[Introspect]

18 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

along with the 50 hits is the 25 sacks... the most in the NFL so far in 2016.  Combine the two and only the Browns have a higher Hits+Sacks number.  We have to get better blocking, and Andrew has to go to the second and third quicker.

 

Luck is gonna average 5 sacks a game this season.  The coaching staff doesn't care if he gets decapitated or shatters his knee. They had him pissing blood last year,,,,,,, He needs to demand a change to Irsay because the life he saves may be his own!!!!

[Archangel]

Well have to admit after watching today game he has every right to be angry. I do not know who the O-line coach is but he cannot coach this guy, AC is not a good LT and the colts paid a lot of money to this guy was a joke he allowed 2 sacks from his side and 1 holding call. Good and Haeg did not do well at all 

[JPFolks]

What non-Troll has beaten up Luck here? It's usually just Troll bait when it happens.