Andrew Luck at 5

SteelCityColt · February 22, 2017

Now that we’re firmly into the offseason lull, I thought it would be as good a time as any to look back at Luck’s career over the last 5 years from a statistical point of view and compare him to other QBs first 5 years in the league (since 1970). All numbers cited have been sourced from Pro Football Reference (http://www.pro-football-reference.com) , a most excellent site. With every category in this breakdown I’ll list Luck’s numbers, where that ranks in parentheses, as well as the numbers of a few QBs who I feel are good yard sticks. Without further ado:

A lot is made of passing yards and TD numbers but their use as an evaluator is somewhat flawed, especially when we’re looking at the 1^st 5 years of a QB’s career with some players sitting for a few years or injuries limiting their production.

Player	Passing Yards	TDs	Games Played
Andrew Luck	19078 Yds (3^rd)	132 TDs (3^rd)	70
Peyton Manning	20618 Yds (1^st)	138 TDs (2^nd)	80
Dan Marino	19422 Yds (2^nd)	168 TDs (1^st)	71
Russell Wilson	18193 Yds (8^th)	127 TDs (5^th)	80
Cam Newton	18263 Yds (7^th)	117 TDs (7^th)	78
Ryan Tannehill	18455 Yds (5^th)	106 TDs (14^th)	77
Ben Rustlersburger	14794 Yds (19^th)	69 TDs (27^th)	72
Tom Brady	13925 Yds (32^nd)	97 TDs (24^th)	64
Aaron Rodgers	8801 Yds (91^st)	59 TDs (73^rd)	39
Drew Brees	12348 Yds (48^th)	80TDs (36^th)	36
Kurt Warner	14082 Yds (31^st)	101 (20^th)	51

You can’t argue with his production volume, and I’d feel confident in wagering if he’d played the full 80 he’d top both passing yards and TDs. However as stated, and as we can see from the lowly ranking of some elite QBs it’s not a great measure. So let’s look at it from a per play perspective as well as passer rating (again a flawed metric IMO but it still has value).

To briefly explain Adjusted Net Yards per attempt the formula used is:

(pass yards + 20*(pass TD) - 45*(interceptions thrown) - sack yards)/(passing attempts + sacks)

Player	TD %	Passer Rating	Y/A	ANY/A
Andrew Luck	5.00% (12^th)	87.3 (21^st)	7.20 (34^th)	6.29 (14^th)
Peyton Manning	4.90% (20^th)	85.9 (27^th)	7.32 (25^th)	6.20 (19^th)
Dan Marino	6.70% (1^st)	94.1 (5^th)	7.79 (6^th)	7.27 (1^st)
Russell Wilson	5.60% (4^th)	99.6 (1^st)	7.98 (4^th)	7.01 (4^th)
Cam Newton	4.80% (24^th)	88.3 (17^th)	7.55 (11^th)	6.26 (16^th)
Ryan Tannehill	4.00% (54^th)	86.5 (23^rd)	7.00 (46^th)	5.61 (40^th)
Ben Rustlersburger	5.30% (7^th)	89.4 (12^th)	7.86 (5^th)	6.03 (26^th)
Tom Brady	4.80% (25^th)	86.5 (20^th)	6.90 (52^nd)	5.93 (32^nd)
Aaron Rodgers	5.20% (9^th)	97.2 (3^rd)	7.75 (8^th)	6.96 (6^th)
Drew Brees	4.40% (36^th)	84.9 (31^st)	6.83 (59^th)	5.70 (37^th)
Kurt Warner	6.20% (2^nd)	98.2 (2^nd)	8.68 (1^st)	7.25 (2^nd)

We see a great example here of volume not always being a product of great QB play when we look at how Tannehill drops like a stone in all the metrics. Conversely we see with players like Rodgers/Warner who don’t have huge numbers from not playing, that when they did play they played very well. Luck himself slides down somewhat, especially on his Y/A but his ANY/A and TD% numbers are decent enough.

Now would be as good a point as any to address the two biggest elephants in the room when it comes to Luck, accuracy and turnovers:

Player	Cmp	Att	Cmp %	Int	Int%	Fmb	Fmb%	Ttl T/O	Ttl T/O %
Andrew Luck	1570 (5^th)	2651 (3^rd)	59.22% (38^th)	68 (72^nd)	2.57% (21^st)	38 (71^st)	8.60%	106	3.43%
Peyton Manning	1749 (1^st)	2817 (2^nd)	62.09% (19^th)	100 (98^th)	3.55% (63^rd)	27 (31^st)	10.07%	127	4.12%
Dan Marino	1512 (7^th)	2494 (8^th)	60.63% (25^th)	80 (91^st)	3.21% (47^th)	33 (54^th)	19.07%	113	4.24%
Russell Wilson	1476 (10^th)	2281 (15^th)	64.71% (4^th)	45 (22^nd)	1.97% (3^rd)	46 (88^th)	6.69%	91	3.07%
Cam Newton	1440 (12^th)	2418 (10^th)	59.55% (35^th)	64 (29^th)	4.80% (76^th)	35 (60^th)	4.46%	99	3.09%
Ryan Tannehill	1653 (3^rd)	2637 (5^th)	62.68% (12^th)	67 (66^th)	2.50% (16^th)	47 (90^th)	10.96%	114	3.72%
Ben Rustlersburger	1189 (30^th)	1905 (38^th)	62.41% (14^th)	69 (74^th)	3.62% (70^th)	32 (50^th)	8.42%	101	4.42%
Tom Brady	1243 (22^nd)	2018 (31^st)	61.60% (21^st)	52 (38^th)	2.58% (22^nd)	43 (83^rd)	14.70%	95	4.11%
Aaron Rodgers	726 (90^th)	1136 (97^th)	63.91% (6^th)	21 (1^st)	1.85% (1^st)	23 (18^th)	10.55%	44	3.25%
Drew Brees	1125 (38^th)	1809 (47^th)	62.19% (18^th)	53 (41^st)	2.93% (33^rd)	24 (21^st)	10.57%	77	3.78%
Kurt Warner	1083 (40^th)	1623 (62^nd)	66.73% (1^st)	64 (60^th)	3.94% (83^rd)	31 (58^th)	16.75%	95	5.25%

We see the fallacy again at just looking at the volume numbers, the dangers of looking at a number which is lacking context. Has Luck had a lot of turnovers in his first 5 years? Yes. But when you look at his percentages he’s actually been better then Manning, Marino, Big Ben even Brady. All QBs who I think we can all agree belong firmly in the elite bracket. I was actually more surprised at how low Cam Newton’s number of turnovers was considering the style in which he plays the game. Bottom line though is the myth that Luck is a “turnover machine” is just that, a myth.

In terms of accuracy though, there’s no hiding he’s not in the same ball park as the others, somewhat worrying. But playing Devil’s advocate somewhat here. Look at Tannehill’s raw production (volume) and his completion %. Both are pretty good, but would you say he’s an elite QB?

A common excuse or reason for poor accuracy and/or turnovers is a QB getting hit/hurried/sacked a lot and it’s again a common perception that Luck has been hit more than any of his peers due to the shocking line he’s played behind. But how true is that statement?

Player	Sacks Taken
Andrew Luck	156 (21^st)
Peyton Manning	108 (69^th)
Dan Marino	67 (95^th)
Russell Wilson	205 (6^th)
Cam Newton	185 (9^th)
Ryan Tannehill	213 (4^th)
Ben Rustlersburger	192 (7^th)
Tom Brady	130 (49^th)
Aaron Rodgers	93 (82^nd)
Drew Brees	92 983^rd)
Kurt Warner	108 (72^nd)

A common thought on these forums is that the incompetence of the FO would lead to Luck suffering from Derek Carr syndrome (for reference Carr was sacked 249 times in his first 5 years). We can see from the above however that Tannehill, Wilson, Newton and Big Ben were far more in danger of getting the jitters from being sacked a number of times. I will confess that I’ve missed out a huge part of the story here in that I’ve not looked at QB hits. I was struggling to find one consistent source of data for the time periods I required so felt it was better to leave it out then present incomplete data.

Lastly I wanted to look at what Luck can offer with his legs, as much as we don’t really want him running around too much (see RG3) it is priceless having the threat of a QB who can make plays with his legs. Even a QB like Brady who’s not exactly a sprinter but who has perfected the QB sneak gives you another dimension on offense:

Player	Attempts	Yards	Y/A	TDs
Andrew Luck	286 (12^th)	1442 (11^th)	5.04 (23^rd)	14 (10^th)
Peyton Manning	160 (44^th)	556 (50^th)	3.48 (54^th)	9 (29^th)
Dan Marino	105 (80^th)	6 (100^th)	0.06 (100^th)	3 (81^st)
Russell Wilson	483 (2^nd)	2689 (2^nd)	5.57 (10^th)	13 (12^th)
Cam Newton	599 (1^st)	3207 (1^st)	5.35 (12^th)	43 (1^st)
Ryan Tannehill	209 (20^th)	1065 (20^th)	4.93 (25^th)	6 (48^th)
Ben Rustlersburger	188 (34^th)	616 (43^rd)	3.28 (59^th)	10 (24^th)
Tom Brady	163 (42^nd)	244 (81^st)	1.50 (94^th)	2 (94^th)
Aaron Rodgers	125 (67^th)	570 (47^th)	4.56 (32^nd)	9 (28^th)
Drew Brees	135 (57^th)	366 (67^th)	2.71 (71^st)	4 (68^th)
Kurt Warner	77 (96^th)	200 (90^th)	2.61 (77^th)	1 (95^th)

No real surprises here to see Newton way out in front with Wilson not far behind. Still it’s pleasing to see Luck is an effective runner when needed and is more than capable of tucking it and getting to the end zone all by himself. I suspect there is an issue with some of the numbers above due to rule changes surround running yardage and sacks, Marino’s numbers look way off.

So what does this little burst of data actually mean? That as always is in the eye of the beholder, numbers can only give the information to inform your opinion, but at the end it’s still just an opinion. You have to factor in too this is just looking at stats and doesn’t include any play analysis/grading (a la PFF) or any attempt to quantify off the field attributes such as leadership and personality.

That aside, for me personally, I think it confirms what I already thought. We have a very good young QB who’s carried this team by himself pretty much for 5 seasons.

Has he lived up the hype? No. But I don’t think that was ever going to be possible. Is he head and shoulders above his peers (the younger QBs), again no I don’t think so. Doing this little piece of data digging I was shocked somewhat at Wilson’s numbers, I knew he was good, but the above has shown me just how good. However I do think put Andrew Luck on the Seahawks and he has one if not more SB rings by now. Outside of those 2 I will be curious to see how Carr/Mariota continue to develop.

If Luck continues to progress and improve past the 5 year mark at a similar pace to some of the QBs listed above I don’t doubt he will end up in the “elite” tier, probably with Wilson, possibly with another one of two of the young up and coming QBs. The future is still bright and if we can put a semblance of a decent roster around him I don’t doubt we can be contenders consistently for years to come.

SteelCityColt · February 22, 2017

Urg, apologies for the tables going wonky, I'll try and fix with an edit at some point.

CR91 · February 22, 2017

Tremendous job. You obviously put a lot of work into this

Smonroe · February 22, 2017

11 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

Urg, apologies for the tables going wonky, I'll try and fix with an edit at some point.

Look good to me, on the iPad.

Great job. Lots to digest.

Smonroe · February 22, 2017

Marino was such an outlier for his times. I got to see him play a couple times and his vision and release was tremendous.

Yet, for all his numbers he only made it to one SB and was 8-10 in playoff games in 17 years.

SteelCityColt · February 22, 2017

18 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Marino was such an outlier for his times. I got to see him play a couple times and his vision and release was tremendous.

Yet, for all his numbers he only made it to one SB and was 8-10 in playoff games in 17 years.

It did strike me when I was putting this together that considering the era he played in that he was just so far ahead as Rookie. A bit before my time so I've never really watched much game film on him past the usual highlights.

It is my biggest fear that Luck ends up in the same boat, being so good, yet never getting to win the big one.

GoColtsWin · February 22, 2017

Great write up SteelCityColt. Thank you for the effort of it, very impressive and allot to digest. Man are we as a fan base fortunate to have a field general like AL. And to think he really hasn't even hit his stride yet, because when they(Colts) field a good D to prop up the O, AL won't have to resort to hero antics to keep us in games.

Steamboat_Shaun · February 22, 2017

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

Now that we’re firmly into the offseason lull, I thought it would be as good a time as any to look back at Luck’s career over the last 5 years from a statistical point of view and compare him to other QBs first 5 years in the league (since 1970). All numbers cited have been sourced from Pro Football Reference (http://www.pro-football-reference.com) , a most excellent site. With every category in this breakdown I’ll list Luck’s numbers, where that ranks in parentheses, as well as the numbers of a few QBs who I feel are good yard sticks. Without further ado:

I'm cracking up over the fact that Roethlisberger's name is spelled Rustlersburger on each of these tables.

buccolts · February 22, 2017

51 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

It did strike me when I was putting this together that considering the era he played in that he was just so far ahead as Rookie. A bit before my time so I've never really watched much game film on him past the usual highlights.

It is my biggest fear that Luck ends up in the same boat, being so good, yet never getting to win the big one.

That was my fear when drafting Peyton.

Steamboat_Shaun · February 22, 2017

6 minutes ago, buccolts said:

That was my fear when drafting Peyton.

59 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

It is my biggest fear that Luck ends up in the same boat, being so good, yet never getting to win the big one.

That's any fan's biggest fear when taking any franchise QB with the #1 overall pick. Based on the trajectory that Luck is on, and comparing to the other guys on that list, I think the chances of him winning a Super Bowl, or multiple Super Bowls, is pretty good. We're going to need some 14-2 or 13-3 seasons to start piling up though, because as long as Belichick & Brady are breathing, home field advantage will be crucial, so we need to lock up that 1 seed in a bad way.

SteelCityColt · February 22, 2017

16 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

I'm cracking up over the fact that Roethlisberger's name is spelled Rustlersburger on each of these tables.

A bit naughty on my part but a long standing in joke between me and a buddy. I didn't consider that you might not have the brand in the US though.

Back in the halcyon days of a shared man flat these were called "Big Bens":

Steamboat_Shaun · February 22, 2017

5 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

A bit naughty on my part but a long standing in joke between me and a buddy. I didn't consider that you might not have the brand in the US though.

Back in the halcyon days of a shared man flat these were called "Big Bens":

I just threw up a little, at least I get the joke now though hahaha.

21isSuperman · February 22, 2017

Awesome post!

2 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

Now that we’re firmly into the offseason lull, I thought it would be as good a time as any to look back at Luck’s career over the last 5 years from a statistical point of view and compare him to other QBs first 5 years in the league (since 1970).

...

If Luck continues to progress and improve past the 5 year mark at a similar pace to some of the QBs listed above I don’t doubt he will end up in the “elite” tier, probably with Wilson, possibly with another one of two of the young up and coming QBs. The future is still bright and if we can put a semblance of a decent roster around him I don’t doubt we can be contenders consistently for years to come.

Just a few thoughts as I read through...

1. I also really like Pro Football Reference, but I've noticed some errors on it. For example, Simeon Rice's page says he was a one-time All Pro, but he was actually a four-time All Pro. Twice he was first team (2002, 2003), and twice he was second team (1996, 1999), per Wikipedia. That's not to say any of your data has errors in it, but just to let you know if you decide to use that website for future posts

2. You do acknowledge this, but it might be worthwhile to redo the numbers for players in their first five years of playing full time instead of just their first five years. For example, Rodgers and Brady didn't start right away whereas Luck and Newton did.

3. Carr's sack number (250 in 5 years) is unreal.

4. I don't think this data does Luck justice. He's been playing in an offense that has tons of deep routes and is focused on making big plays. Put him in New England's dink-and-dunk offense and I think his stats would skyrocket. Give Luck a more sensible offense, one that takes advantage of what the defense gives and makes the smart/efficient play instead of always looking for the big play and I think you'll see a reduction in sacks and turnovers and an improvement in accuracy, completion, yards, and touchdowns.

Great post, @SteelCityColt!

SteelCityColt · February 22, 2017

2 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Awesome post!

Great post, @SteelCityColt!

Thank you, it's been irking me for a while that Luck has picked up this label as a Turnover Machine so I'd meaning to do some proper research for a while and compare him to other early career QBs.

To answer your points raised:

1) I have no doubt there are some errors in my numbers, if only from my less than efficient way of transposing the numbers by hand typing them out rather than cutting and pasting. The total turnover number, fumble percentage and overall percentage are hand calculated, hence the lack of ranking. Again I don't doubt I've made an error somewhere. As for the site itself, I can forgive the less than 100% accuracy for the sheer amount of information and conditions you can set to filter that information. I mean where else can you find out which left handed QB had the most wins on the road that involved a 4th Qtr comeback between the years 1995-1998 (Mark Brunell), or the team with the most wins coming off their bye week when it's been hotter than 86 degrees (Arizona).

2) It's a tough one, as in where do you draw the line and decide which 5 years do you compare. The fairest way can only be to compare Rookie through to season 5 as a like for like. Players will suffer somewhat in terms of volume production if they had to sit for a while, but as I stated I'm not a fan of volume stats anyway. You can see Rogers for example still played very very well when he did get his chance.

3) We think we had it bad....

4) I agree, and here's where looking just at numbers falls down somewhat. They can be very informative but without game film and the knowledge to break it down they can lead to false conclusions. What bugs me a lot is that I think some professional writers are lazy, or don't actually have the football knowledge required, so just skim a few stats and write up a piece based on those numbers without looking at the wider context.

AKB · February 22, 2017

thank you for your time in creating this. I know how annoying the formatting can be for tables on this site.

21isSuperman · February 23, 2017

4 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

Thank you, it's been irking me for a while that Luck has picked up this label as a Turnover Machine so I'd meaning to do some proper research for a while and compare him to other early career QBs.

To answer your points raised:

1) I have no doubt there are some errors in my numbers, if only from my less than efficient way of transposing the numbers by hand typing them out rather than cutting and pasting. The total turnover number, fumble percentage and overall percentage are hand calculated, hence the lack of ranking. Again I don't doubt I've made an error somewhere. As for the site itself, I can forgive the less than 100% accuracy for the sheer amount of information and conditions you can set to filter that information. I mean where else can you find out which left handed QB had the most wins on the road that involved a 4th Qtr comeback between the years 1995-1998 (Mark Brunell), or the team with the most wins coming off their bye week when it's been hotter than 86 degrees (Arizona).

2) It's a tough one, as in where do you draw the line and decide which 5 years do you compare. The fairest way can only be to compare Rookie through to season 5 as a like for like. Players will suffer somewhat in terms of volume production if they had to sit for a while, but as I stated I'm not a fan of volume stats anyway. You can see Rogers for example still played very very well when he did get his chance.

3) We think we had it bad....

4) I agree, and here's where looking just at numbers falls down somewhat. They can be very informative but without game film and the knowledge to break it down they can lead to false conclusions. What bugs me a lot is that I think some professional writers are lazy, or don't actually have the football knowledge required, so just skim a few stats and write up a piece based on those numbers without looking at the wider context.

I agree that PFR is a great website. I've just noticed a lot of sites have differing data. For example, NFL.com, Wikipedia, and PFR might all have data that says different things.

With regards to the five years point, I agree. I think there are multiple ways to approach it. If you just take the first five years, you run into issues of players not playing in their rookie seasons, like Rodgers or Brady. If you go with the first five seasons where they played 10+ games in a season, you have issues where guys like Rodgers might have been better prepared for their first full season than someone like Luck or Peyton Manning because he was able to sit and prepare. Another potential approach would be to use per game stats for the first five years (similar to what you did in your second table) or percentage stats instead of volume stats, like you did in your third table. It's a tricky battle, trying to navigate all these numbers.

ReMeDy · February 23, 2017

2 hours ago, AustinnKaine said:

thank you for your time in creating this. I know how annoying the formatting can be for tables on this site.

Yea, I just build a table myself in an art program and post it as an image. So much cleaner than messing with the forum.

AZColt11 · February 23, 2017

Excellent work and write-up good sir. Tip of the cap.

I too don't think AL is infallible by any means, and he does have some of those wth moments, but all-in-all I think he's a tremendous building block to have here and I do agree that the front office just needs to give him a little bit of help and the Colts will be right where we all want them to be. Of course that off-season shoulder surgery should help as well as I don't think he's been "right" for a couple of seasons now.

Chucklez · February 23, 2017

16 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

A bit naughty on my part but a long standing in joke between me and a buddy. I didn't consider that you might not have the brand in the US though.

Back in the halcyon days of a shared man flat these were called "Big Bens":

16 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

I just threw up a little, at least I get the joke now though hahaha.

I've had one, it was about 3 years after i moved from the USA to the UK... curiosity finally won out and i wish it never had... They are as horrible as you would imagine them to be, if not worse.

Steamboat_Shaun · February 23, 2017

1 hour ago, Chucklez said:

I've had one, it was about 3 years after i moved from the USA to the UK... curiosity finally won out and i wish it never had... They are as horrible as you would imagine them to be, if not worse.

Microwavable 1/4 pound cheeseburgers are an ill-advised endeavor, I know from experience. I've never had that particular brand, but I've had others, & they're really bad.

SteelCityColt · February 23, 2017

1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

Microwavable 1/4 pound cheeseburgers are an ill-advised endeavor, I know from experience. I've never had that particular brand, but I've had others, & they're really bad.

Like many things I did as a young man, after the event I felt a great deal of shame and regret.

More worrying was I was so cash strapped at the time I used to wait to buy them at a reduced rate because they'd gone past their sell by date...

Chucklez · February 23, 2017

2 hours ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

Microwavable 1/4 pound cheeseburgers are an ill-advised endeavor, I know from experience. I've never had that particular brand, but I've had others, & they're really bad.

Preaching to the choir my man.

King Colt · February 23, 2017

Five years to not build an OL, will 2017 be six? Nothing matters except now and tomorrow. "What have you done for me lately?"

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:23 AM, Steamboat_Shaun said:

I'm cracking up over the fact that Roethlisberger's name is spelled Rustlersburger on each of these tables.

Yeah, that's r-e-a-l important. I simply had no idea who that person was until you pointed it out.

Steamboat_Shaun · February 23, 2017

23 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Yeah, that's r-e-a-l important. I simply had no idea who that person was until you pointed it out.

Uh, okay?

dgambill · February 24, 2017

My point would be football in 2012-2016 is not even REMOTELY similar to football in 1998-2002 or 1984-1989 or even further back. The rules make throwing the ball so rewarding and make completing passes so much easier. Let's be honest since like 2005 the NFL is almost a different league. Comparing AL to Dan Marinos numbers is laughable. It's impossible to compare honestly but does anyone not think Marino would have put up even crazier numbers in today's NFL and as much of a switch in the rules and how the game is played perhaps could have won several SBs with just a high powered offense? I prefer to compare Luck to his peers of players in the last 10 years. He definaty still stacks up but what he has done to me is not as impresive as some others in my opinion.

Coltfreak · February 24, 2017

On 2/22/2017 at 2:44 PM, SteelCityColt said:

Now that we’re firmly into the offseason lull, I thought it would be as good a time as any to look back at Luck’s career over the last 5 years from a statistical point of view and compare him to other QBs first 5 years in the league (since 1970). All numbers cited have been sourced from Pro Football Reference (http://www.pro-football-reference.com) , a most excellent site. With every category in this breakdown I’ll list Luck’s numbers, where that ranks in parentheses, as well as the numbers of a few QBs who I feel are good yard sticks. Without further ado:

Quote Reduced to keep things Tidy

Love when someone actually bring facts to start a thread. Well done!!

Edited February 24, 2017 by SteelCityColt
Repost of OP via Quote

Coltfreak · February 24, 2017

That Marino cat was pretty good.

SteelCityColt · February 24, 2017

8 hours ago, dgambill said:

My point would be football in 2012-2016 is not even REMOTELY similar to football in 1998-2002 or 1984-1989 or even further back. The rules make throwing the ball so rewarding and make completing passes so much easier. Let's be honest since like 2005 the NFL is almost a different league. Comparing AL to Dan Marinos numbers is laughable. It's impossible to compare honestly but does anyone not think Marino would have put up even crazier numbers in today's NFL and as much of a switch in the rules and how the game is played perhaps could have won several SBs with just a high powered offense? I prefer to compare Luck to his peers of players in the last 10 years. He definaty still stacks up but what he has done to me is not as impresive as some others in my opinion.

I agree to a degree, but this is always an issue with sports. Rules change, and as a general trend people have become bigger,faster,stronger (the DaftPunk effect). But were do you set the lines in terms of when one era starts and finishes to act as your cut off? I included Marino mostly because he topped or was near the top in so many of the metrics I looked at that it would feel wrong not to put the numbers up there. It highlights just how far ahead of the curve he was.

Which additional QBs would you have liked to have seen on the list? There's one I considered putting on there because he came up a few times near the top of the metrics (Matt Ryan).

theanarchist · February 24, 2017

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:16 AM, Smonroe said:

Marino was such an outlier for his times. I got to see him play a couple times and his vision and release was tremendous.

Yet, for all his numbers he only made it to one SB and was 8-10 in playoff games in 17 years.

Yes, Marino and the Dolphins were such an interesting team for that time. They would have done well in today's NFL. Obvioulsy its been discussed to death why the Dolphins never won a SB. In that era the run game was still supreme and they didn't have one. Other teams were able to control the ball when it counted and keep Marino off the field. Plus I don't think Miami ever had a defense that was championship caliber.

King Colt · February 25, 2017

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 5:27 PM, Steamboat_Shaun said:

Uh, okay?

You misspelled "uh".

Sign In

Andrew Luck at 5

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Thread of the Week

Topics

Posts

Members