CR91

Is Andrew the next Dan Marino

Recommended Posts

It's very dubious that the Texans are a quarterback from being Super Bowl contenders. 

 

It's too early to start making Marino comparisons but I will say there are worse things than Andrew finishing his career regarded as one of the greatest players of all time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Myles said:

I have him in my top 3.  

 

I wonder how many Dolphin fans would have given up the Marino years for 1 championship by a Scott Mitchell lead team?

I wouldn't give up the Manning years for anything.  

Talent wise he is Top 3, overall he may even be Top 5. I do have him Top 10 without a doubt. Peyton and Brady have been the best since the 2000's and prior to that Montana, Elway, Unitas, Farve in the 90's, etc.. were all in this discussion along with Dan the Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VocableLoki said:

It's very dubious that the Texans are a quarterback from being Super Bowl contenders. 

 

they have a really good defense, if fully healthy its almost scary.  watt and clowney, plus their other pass rushers can get after any QB.  they have good players at the second and third levels too, but injuries have been a major problem there

 

on offense they have good receivers and running backs, they just need a QB and maybe Oline or two.  lots of teams have oline issues though, the patriots and falcons dont have much better than average lines

 

i do think they are a good QB away from contention

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending upon the criteria, and the way things go, he might be the next Dan Marino.  Who knows.

 

But I will tell you this, and it will really tick off some members here.  Andrew Luck is fast becoming something like the next Matthew Stafford-

 

MS-

MS_Stats_zpslbueqxaj.png

AL-

AL_Stats_zpssw4f0bjz.png

 

Does anyone else feel the Lions are closer to being ready to compete fore the Lombardi than the Colts?

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Depending upon the criteria, and the way things go, he might be the next Dan Marino.  Who knows.

 

But I will tell you this, and it will really tick off some members here.  Andrew Luck is fast becoming something like the next Matthew Stafford-

 

MS-

MS_Stats_zpslbueqxaj.png

AL-

AL_Stats_zpssw4f0bjz.png

 

Does anyone else feel the Lions are closer to being ready to compete fore the Lombardi than the Colts?

 

Ouch!  That hurts.   But there is truth to it.   Detroit has managed to keep their team mostly irrelevant for years.  I think the difference is that Luck is a little better than Stafford.   However, if he has peaked and the Colts hover around 8-8 for the next few years, the comparison would be valid.  

 

I don't think that will happen.   I have a little faith in Ballard.   It may not be till the 2019 season, but I think this team will be solid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

It appears it's time for a reminder I seem to make most every year....

 

Peyton Manning won his FIRST Super Bowl in Year 9.     Andrew Luck is just starting his Year 6.     So, he still has 3 more years before he even reaches year 9.

 

He's not in Dan Marino territory yet,  not for a long time.     (He might someday,  but that day is a long ways off).

 

 

 

Not to mention he only has 2 rings and is still considered top 5 all-time anyway. Rings really overrated, takes a team to win them. Hate how people compare rings when discussing individuals 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you still keep the same coach for the next few years that make these bone head decisions, it's all but assured Luck will never go to the big Dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:

Not to mention he only has 2 rings and is still considered top 5 all-time anyway. Rings really overrated, takes a team to win them. Hate how people compare rings when discussing individuals 

Rings are a factor but I agree when people only look at that, that is nuts. Peyton won 5 MVP's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are QB's that were Great that have no Rings:

Dan Marino

Fran Tarkenton

Warren Moon

Dan Fouts

Jim Kelly

Donavon McNabb

-It happens sometimes, hopefully Andrew wins at least 1.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TKnight24 said:

Not to mention he only has 2 rings and is still considered top 5 all-time anyway. Rings really overrated, takes a team to win them. Hate how people compare rings when discussing individuals 

 

Well....   when someone makes that argument I don't think they're focusing on rings for Luck....

 

I think they're trying to say Luck is running out of time to bring the Colts a Super Bowl victory.    That's mostly how I read it....     Colts fans want Luck to bring their favorite team a Super Bowl Championship.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Nah he is better than Matt Stafford and Matt Ryan for that matter.

 

What makes him better than Stafford?  These ar my most relevant QB stats of the two-

 

QB comp-

Name         Comp. %     TD%     Int%     Yd/gm     Y/A    QB rate    Sk/yr

Luck              59.2          5.0       2.6       272.5      7.0     87.3          31

Stafford         61.5          4.4       2.5        278        7.1     86.8          30

 

Where is the mark delineating one from the other?  Team record aside, that's a team thing.  And besides, Colts record has been .500 2 years straight while Detroit seems on the rise, even without Megatron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

What makes him better than Stafford?  These ar my most relevant QB stats of the two-

 

QB comp-

Name         Comp. %     TD%     Int%     Yd/gm     Y/A    QB rate    Sk/yr

Luck              59.2          5.0       2.6       272.5      7.0     87.3          31

Stafford         61.5          4.4       2.5        278        7.1     86.8          30

 

Where is the mark delineating one from the other?  Team record aside, that's a team thing.  And besides, Colts record has been .500 2 years straight while Detroit seems on the rise, even without Megatron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew has been solid in some Playoff games, Stafford has never won a Playoff game. That is your difference. Andrew went into MileHigh and beat Peyton and Von Miller to go to a Final 4 without a running game and an Average Defense. The eye test right there is obvious. Regarding Matt Ryan he just showed us what a choker he is too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Myles said:

If the Texans get Romo, they could be very good.   Assuming Romo stays healthy.   But the Colts only have a chance if Luck stays healthy.  

I mean you can never predict injuries obviously, and Romo would have a lot more support in Houston than he would have in Dallas, but behind that leaky O line (which is arguably worse than Indy's moving forward), I don't realistically seeing him play 14 + games and deep into the playoffs at full health if HOU got him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Andrew has been solid in some Playoff games, Stafford has never won a Playoff game. That is your difference. Andrew went into MileHigh and beat Peyton and Von Miller to go to a Final 4 without a running game and an Average Defense. The eye test right there is obvious. Regarding Matt Ryan he just showed us what a choker he is too.

He played defense?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Myles said:

He played defense?

 

No but he led an Offense with a 28-3 lead and chose to be pass happy instead of doing the obvious thing by running and kicking a FG to seal a SB win. Doesn't really matter what a Coach calls because as a QB you can audible and should when it is obvious much like Wilson in SB 49 vs NE with his dumb pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Peyton Manning won his FIRST Super Bowl in Year 9.

 

 

Yep.

 

I do wonder if Polian had adopted a more aggressive D and FA approach like Elway did, would Peyton have had more defensive support in his earlier years and won it any earlier? It is hard not to see the different paths Polian and Elway took. Maybe teams nowadays are not sticking around and being too patient as much nowadays and are more aggressive in FA in the early years of their QBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. 

 

Every good looking QB eventually is compared to Dan Marino at least once. 

 

Marino played in an era where the passing stats were not inflated yet. In today's age, passing stats are so inflated that even Blake Bortles and Ryan Tannehill can put up "Marino numbers" any given Sunday. Your average QB throwing for 300+ yards and 3 TD's is doing Marino numbers. Any QB today can be compared to Marino, where in his era it was truly impressive when he put up a 5,000 yard season with 45+ TD's in 1984, or when he would throw for crazy numbers in a single game. 

 

Luck does not play like Marino at all. Marino became the shining example of pocket passers. Luck is more mobile in the pocket to be compared to that. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Ryan has played 150 NFL games. Let's not put too much focus on 1 half over the rest of his track record, especially when he was going against arguably the greatest defensive coach of all time.

 

And even though it was one of the worst chokes ever, Falcons did have one of the best offenses of all time and managed to do that with fairly pass heavy offense.

 

Doesn't make much sense to hold SB 48 a lot against Peyton, either.

 

Like it comes up here in every Brady vs. Peyton argument, it's a team game. Stafford actually has better PO-stats than Luck over their careers, though in smaller sample. I think Luck will end up being better player by fair margin but so far, he hasn't distanced himself from the likes of Stafford that much either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Myles said:

He played defense?

 

 

All they had to do was run the ball....That choke job is more on the offense and Kyle Shanahan than the Falcons defense. Still by the end of that game, their defense did it's job when everyone doubted them. Matt Ryan's passing stats were more important than handing the ball off to DeVonte Freeman, a running back who broke a 40 yard run on his first carry in that game. The Falcons led by 25 points, and still only called 19 run plays the entire game. They deserved to lose. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Andrew has been solid in some Playoff games, Stafford has never won a Playoff game. That is your difference. Andrew went into MileHigh and beat Peyton and Von Miller to go to a Final 4 without a running game and an Average Defense. The eye test right there is obvious. Regarding Matt Ryan he just showed us what a choker he is too.

Andrew has been horrible in our losses too though. All in all I think he has a ton of potential but let's not act like he has been some 2nd coming of Dan Marino or John Elway. He has been good mostly and great on occasions...but he hasn't done anything special yet. That's not to say he can't or won't but he has plenty of flaws. At this point his career arc is pretty similar to Ryan's and Stafford....I mean he hasn't been to a SB or won an MVP but I would say he is well on his way. To suggest that he is going to have a career like Brady or Peytons I think is a stretch. I think his career will more closely resemble Big Ben's than anyones. When he came into the league he was anointed to be this once in a generation qb.....I'm kinda thinking he may have been overhyped just a bit....but I wouldn't want another young qb on our team that is for sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Finball said:

Matt Ryan has played 150 NFL games. Let's not put too much focus on 1 half over the rest of his track record, especially when he was going against arguably the greatest defensive coach of all time.

 

And even though it was one of the worst chokes ever, Falcons did have one of the best offenses of all time and managed to do that with fairly pass heavy offense.

 

Doesn't make much sense to hold SB 48 a lot against Peyton, either.

 

The Falcons have a history of choking. Go look at Matt Ryan's playoff record if you don't believe me. 

 

He has only THREE playoff wins, and all of them are at home. It took that team until 2012 to finally win a playoff game with him, and thank their lucky stars that Pete Carroll called a timeout trying to ice the kicker in what was a miss, and later corrected with the next attempt. 

 

This year, they avoided Dallas and got a beat up, mediocre GB team that had no business being there. All after playing a Seattle team with no offense. 

 

Atlanta does not make the playoffs consistently every year. When they do, it's when they get a weak schedule. This year, the Falcons had among the top 3 one of the weakest schedules in the league playing the AFC West and NFC West, and yet they barely went 11-5 with that schedule. Same thing in 2012 and 2010, they played easy weak schedules, went 13-3, and in 2010 they got stomped in the ground in the first round, and then in 2012 needed Pete Carroll to screw around and give them a playoff win.

 

Watch next year when Ryan regresses back to being a generic mediocre quarterback and the Falcons go 8-8 or worse. Carolina lost a SB being 15-1 and had far greater depth of a team and we saw what happened to them after. The Falcons made the SB on a fluke with a weak schedule, the 27th ranked defense, and that historically great offense didn't save them in the end. Their offense was good, but I'll still take 2013 Denver, 2011 New Orleans, 2007 NE, and 2001 St Louis over them. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Andrew has been solid in some Playoff games, Stafford has never won a Playoff game. That is your difference. Andrew went into MileHigh and beat Peyton and Von Miller to go to a Final 4 without a running game and an Average Defense. The eye test right there is obvious. Regarding Matt Ryan he just showed us what a choker he is too.

 

Winning, regular season or playoffs, is a team together thing.  My best examples?  Head to head.

 

Didn't the Colts go up in their house (2012 maybe?) and sneak out  a great victory late?  Then fast forward, September last year. Didn't the Lions come in to LOS and steal a heart breaker from the Colts?  So not only are stats mirrors, so is head to head.  You can spin everything else which ever way you want to go, but by the same token so could Lions fans.  To me, there are way more similarities than differences.  And I knew this would touch off some Colts fans here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Synthetic said:

 

The Falcons have a history of choking. Go look at Matt Ryan's playoff record if you don't believe me. 

 

He has only THREE playoff wins, and all of them are at home. It took that team until 2012 to finally win a playoff game with him, and thank their lucky stars that Pete Carroll called a timeout trying to ice the kicker in what was a miss, and later corrected with the next attempt. 

 

This year, they avoided Dallas and got a beat up, mediocre GB team that had no business being there. All after playing a Seattle team with no offense. 

 

Atlanta does not make the playoffs consistently every year. When they do, it's when they get a weak schedule. This year, the Falcons had among the top 3 one of the weakest schedules in the league playing the AFC West and NFC West, and yet they barely went 11-5 with that schedule. Same thing in 2012 and 2010, they played easy weak schedules, went 13-3, and in 2010 they got stomped in the ground in the first round, and then in 2012 needed Pete Carroll to screw around and give them a playoff win.

 

Watch next year when Ryan regressing back to being a generic mediocre quarterback and the Falcons go 8-8 or worse. Carolina lost a SB being 15-1 and had far greater depth of a team and we saw what happened to them after. The Falcons made the SB on a fluke with a weak schedule, the 27th ranked defense, and that historically great offense didn't save them in the end. Their offense was good, but I'll still take 2013 Denver, 2011 New Orleans, 2007 NE, and 2001 St Louis over them. 

 

 

I don't like to use wins to evaluate individual players. I had Peyton as the best or 2nd best QB in the game (much higher than were I have Ryan) before Colts won the SB. He had one road PO win and 3 wins total before that year. I do agree that they benefited from weak schedule and I expect that offense to regress. Teams don't usually maintain historical performances from one year to next.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Winning, regular season or playoffs, is a team together thing.  My best examples?  Head to head.

 

Didn't the Colts go up in their house and sneak out  a great victory late?  Then fast forward, September last year. Didn't the Lions come in to LOS and steal a heart breaker from the Colts?  So not only are stats mirrors, so is head to head.  You can spin everything else which ever way you want to go, but by the same token so could Lions fans.  To me, there are way more similarities than differences.  And I knew this would touch off some Colts fans here.

They actually play the game very similarly. Stafford plays hurt a lot and is a tough sob just like Andrew. They also tend to be very inaccurate when they get pressure in the passing games sometimes and both force balls trying to make a play. I will say Stafford has had mega-tron to bail him out most of his career but he is not a bad qb. I thought they were going to beat Dallas a couple years ago in the playoffs until that phantom PI call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dgambill said:

They actually play the game very similarly. Stafford plays hurt a lot and is a tough sob just like Andrew. They also tend to be very inaccurate when in the passing games sometimes. I will say Stafford has had mega-tron to bail him out most of his career but he is not a bad qb. I thought they were going to beat Dallas a couple years ago in the playoffs until that phantom PI call.

 

Luck had Reggie Wayne as his bail out receiver.  Both Wayne and Calvin Johnson are retired, and Stafford and Luck continue on.  Jim Caldwell earned his stay up there in Detroit, and Jim Bob Cooter is really putting together an effective offense for Stafford to guide.  I hope we beat them to the Super Bowl, or if not... in the Super Bowl!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Winning, regular season or playoffs, is a team together thing.  My best examples?  Head to head.

 

Didn't the Colts go up in their house (2012 maybe?) and sneak out  a great victory late?  Then fast forward, September last year. Didn't the Lions come in to LOS and steal a heart breaker from the Colts?  So not only are stats mirrors, so is head to head.  You can spin everything else which ever way you want to go, but by the same token so could Lions fans.  To me, there are way more similarities than differences.  And I knew this would touch off some Colts fans here.

Not really touched off but let me ask you this, who is better Andrew or Matt Stafford?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Finball said:

Matt Ryan has played 150 NFL games. Let's not put too much focus on 1 half over the rest of his track record, especially when he was going against arguably the greatest defensive coach of all time.

 

And even though it was one of the worst chokes ever, Falcons did have one of the best offenses of all time and managed to do that with fairly pass heavy offense.

 

Doesn't make much sense to hold SB 48 a lot against Peyton, either.

 

Like it comes up here in every Brady vs. Peyton argument, it's a team game. Stafford actually has better PO-stats than Luck over their careers, though in smaller sample. I think Luck will end up being better player by fair margin but so far, he hasn't distanced himself from the likes of Stafford that much either.

Stafford has never won a Playoff game though, so I don't see how he can be any convo with other Very Good or Great QB's. Ryan has won the same amount of Playoff games as Andrew has (3) but literally choked away the SB by not playing smart at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Synthetic said:

 

No. 

 

Every good looking QB eventually is compared to Dan Marino at least once. 

 

Marino played in an era where the passing stats were not inflated yet. In today's age, passing stats are so inflated that even Blake Bortles and Ryan Tannehill can put up "Marino numbers" any given Sunday. Your average QB throwing for 300+ yards and 3 TD's is doing Marino numbers. Any QB today can be compared to Marino, where in his era it was truly impressive when he put up a 5,000 yard season with 45+ TD's in 1984, or when he would throw for crazy numbers in a single game. 

 

Luck does not play like Marino at all. Marino became the shining example of pocket passers. Luck is more mobile in the pocket to be compared to that. 

 

 

 

No one here is comparing Luck to Marino as passers, or in style of QB.

 

They comparing them in terms of their career.     Marino never won a Super Bowl and fans here worry that the same thing will happen to Luck.   

 

That's the comparison they're making.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dgambill said:

Andrew has been horrible in our losses too though. All in all I think he has a ton of potential but let's not act like he has been some 2nd coming of Dan Marino or John Elway. He has been good mostly and great on occasions...but he hasn't done anything special yet. That's not to say he can't or won't but he has plenty of flaws. At this point his career arc is pretty similar to Ryan's and Stafford....I mean he hasn't been to a SB or won an MVP but I would say he is well on his way. To suggest that he is going to have a career like Brady or Peytons I think is a stretch. I think his career will more closely resemble Big Ben's than anyones. When he came into the league he was anointed to be this once in a generation qb.....I'm kinda thinking he may have been overhyped just a bit....but I wouldn't want another young qb on our team that is for sure.

I would call one of the greatest playoff comebacks of all time special.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VocableLoki said:

I would call one of the greatest playoff comebacks of all time special.

What was it 38-10? Peace of cake for Andrew :thmup:. We had them right where we wanted them, Andrew just wanted to make it interesting lmao 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NorthernBlue said:

What's so annoying about NE winning all those championships, or simply Brady winning one in his rookie year (or even Wilson his second year), is that fans start thinking a player needs a championship early on in his career otherwise he's not one of the all time greats (or on the flip side, if that player doesn't get one early in his career, the team is "wasting" his talents, as is Indy's case).

 

Peyton never won a ring till his 9th year. Brees didn't get one till his 8th. Doesn't take away their legacy.

 

Heck Micheal Jordan never won a championship until his 7th or 8th year in the NBA (or something like that).

 

Yeah it sucks to see how much the team regressed from being in the AFC championship 3 seasons ago . But even if Luck doesn't win a championship, it won't take away from whatever his legacy is.

 

Also one last thing, Rings are overrated when evaluating a players individual career. Seriously. Trent Dilfer has one. 

 

No rookie QB has won a SB. But I get your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Not really touched off but let me ask you this, who is better Andrew or Matt Stafford?

 

I like Andrew much better, he's our (Colts) quarterback).  And I want that guy to do better than his opponents, and win every game he plays.

 

Now, as far as who is factually better, I'm not sure.  I think they're more similar overall than different.  That was my point.  Nothing major one can honestly say that dramatically places one ahead of the other, IMHO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that this will be the case....I truly believe that Luck will take Indy to at least one Super Bowl victory.  My hope is that Ballard is a competent enough GM to surround him with the talent needed....on BOTH sides of the ball.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Depending upon the criteria, and the way things go, he might be the next Dan Marino.  Who knows.

 

But I will tell you this, and it will really tick off some members here.  Andrew Luck is fast becoming something like the next Matthew Stafford-

 

MS-

MS_Stats_zpslbueqxaj.png

AL-

AL_Stats_zpssw4f0bjz.png

 

Does anyone else feel the Lions are closer to being ready to compete fore the Lombardi than the Colts?

 

 

Had to give you a like just for the stats.

 

Talk about a buzz kill. I mean we go from comparing him to Dan Marino to Matt Stafford, total bummer man.......

 

lmao 

 

For the record I totally prefer Luck to Stafford so nobody come after me with pitchforks. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Synthetic said:

 

All they had to do was run the ball....That choke job is more on the offense and Kyle Shanahan than the Falcons defense. Still by the end of that game, their defense did it's job when everyone doubted them. Matt Ryan's passing stats were more important than handing the ball off to DeVonte Freeman, a running back who broke a 40 yard run on his first carry in that game. The Falcons led by 25 points, and still only called 19 run plays the entire game. They deserved to lose. 

 

I put some blame on Ryan, but the defense gets some too.   Most of all, it is the OC and the Head Coach for the play calling.   Coltsbeliever even blamed Ryan for not kicking a FG.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2017 at 8:26 PM, bananabucket said:

He's 27.  

 

His supporting cast has been supplied by Ryan Grigson for his whole career.

I'm 9 years luck will still only be 36 which is not really old in today NFL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.