CR91

Is Andrew the next Dan Marino

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Stafford in year 8 had his definitively best season and ranked 8th, top ten consensus this season.

 

Luck had one of his 3 best seasons and was a consensus top five in year five. This represents the gap between the two in my mind, if that's what you are thinking then we are in agreement.

Share this post


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

Stafford in year 8 had his definitively best season and ranked 8th, top ten consensus this season.

 

Luck had one of his 3 best seasons and was a consensus top five in year five. This represents the gap between the two in my mind, if that's what you are thinking then we are in agreement.

 

Last year was representative, and Stafford without Megatron.  But my benchmark is the year 3 in the league stats.  By then a QB is used to the speed of the game, and advanced in knowing their O scheme and better at reading a defense and moving a safety with his eyes.  Here are the year 3 stats for each-

 

Year 3 in NFL for each:

record      Comp   Att    Comp %    Yds      TD     Int      Y/Att   yds/gm    Rate    QBR

 

Stafford
10-6-0       421    663       63.5      5038    41      16         7.6    314.9     97.2     64.4

Luck
11-5-0       380    616       61.7      4761    40      16         7.7    297.6     96.5     68.5

 

It could easily be argued year 3 has been the best for each QB thus far as well.

 

Share this post


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

Keep in mind Andrew outdueled Stafford in Detroit as well when he was a rookie. So they are 1-1 vs each other. What I mean by eye test is looking at their whole career's not just last season. Andrew has had the better ability to lead his team to Playoff wins with what he has had than Stafford is. That is a proven fact. Stafford has had better Defenses compared to Andrew as well which is a huge to QB's. Also Andrew has had basically no run game his whole career, how we made the Championship Game in 2014 is a miracle actually with the Roster we had. We probably would've been in the SB had we not ran into the Pats, we almost always beat the Ravens and that game would've been in Indy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 1:00 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

TD % is there.

 

But as I mentioned earlier, team victories mean little.

 

I might even add Matthew Stafford would have many more victories if he QB'd for the Colts in his career rather than the Lions.  So you can't use team victories unless you can prove the Lions were a better fit for Stafford and would give him more team victories than if playing for the Colts.

You cant use team victories?

I dont agree with the QB record as an absolute but Andrew led a team that started 7 rookies to the playoffs..

Never been done since the merger...

.what we cant do is accurately (or in any way) determine whether Matt would have done better with the Colts.

There's too many factors there to switch players like they were on fantasy teams.

 

Andrew Luck's running ability..ability to keep a play alive and frankly, ability to take a hit..put him above Matt

 

 

Share this post


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

Keep in mind Andrew outdueled Stafford in Detroit as well when he was a rookie. So they are 1-1 vs each other. What I mean by eye test is looking at their whole career's not just last season. Andrew has had the better ability to lead his team to Playoff wins with what he has had than Stafford is. That is a proven fact. Stafford has had better Defenses compared to Andrew as well which is a huge to QB's. Also Andrew has had basically no run game his whole career, how we made the Championship Game in 2014 is a miracle actually with the Roster we had. We probably would've been in the SB had we not ran into the Pats, we almost always beat the Ravens and that game would've been in Indy.

 

My point is, they are closer than people think or will admit.  And I have shown this via objective metrics for this to be true.  A fair amount of the push back has been with subjective criteria and a small amount of objective validation.   So I remain convinced Stafford is nearly (but not quite) the QB Luck is. And the Jim Caldwell / Jim Bob Cooter combo seems to be working well for them.  The Pack and the Vikes need to look over their shoulder.  And I believe Stafford will be mentioned (along with Rodgers, Luck, Newton, and Ryan) as a top QB when the Brady's and Brees of the NFL world are gone. Plus, there is Carr, Winston, Prescott, and Mariota to keep an eye on as well.

 

Who do you think gets to the Super Bowl first from here, Colts or Lions?

I'm leaning Lions but hoping Ballard 'hits' on a lot of 4-7 draft choices (I am already convinced he will do well in rounds 1-4) that surprise and propel the Colts to upper tier level quickly once more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

You cant use team victories?

I dont agree with the QB record as an absolute but Andrew led a team that started 7 rookies to the playoffs..

Never been done since the merger...

.what we cant do is accurately (or in any way) determine whether Matt would have done better with the Colts.

There's too many factors there to switch players like they were on fantasy teams.

 

Andrew Luck's running ability..ability to keep a play alive and frankly, ability to take a hit..put him above Matt

 

 

 

You can, but I rank it lower on the list compared to other metrics.  QB's generally get too much credit n wins, and too much of the heat in losses.  But they're the face of the team, so they have to shoulder the load.  And they are the only person on the team that touches the ball 99.5% at some point of the time on offense.

 

Great play at the end of a game by a QB can be totally washed out by a bad coaching decision, let alone a let down via a team mate.  (Luck to Allen pass / drop, anyone? Did we blame Luck for that loss?)

Share this post


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

 

Last year was representative, and Stafford without Megatron.  But my benchmark is the year 3 in the league stats.  By then a QB is used to the speed of the game, and advanced in knowing their O scheme and better at reading a defense and moving a safety with his eyes.  Here are the year 3 stats for each-

 

Year 3 in NFL for each:

record      Comp   Att    Comp %    Yds      TD     Int      Y/Att   yds/gm    Rate    QBR

 

Stafford
10-6-0       421    663       63.5      5038    41      16         7.6    314.9     97.2     64.4

Luck
11-5-0       380    616       61.7      4761    40      16         7.7    297.6     96.5     68.5

 

It could easily be argued year 3 has been the best for each QB thus far as well.

 

It could also be argued that Luck's best season was season one when he took to the NFL very quickly and led his team to the playoffs as a rookie.

To me, that is what made him stand out. He's been hurt the last two years and I am assuming we're ranking them when health is good.

Matt Stafford played with an injured hand and carried on. Both play hurt.

 

But even in your  'year 3' benchmark matchup, the rushing stats aren't included

Share this post


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

 

My point is, they are closer than people think or will admit.  And I have shown this via objective metrics for this to be true.  A fair amount of the push back has been with subjective criteria and a small amount of objective validation.   So I remain convinced Stafford is nearly (but not quite) the QB Luck is. And the Jim Caldwell / Jim Bob Cooter combo seems to be working well for them.  The Pack and the Vikes need to look over their shoulder.  And I believe Stafford will be mentioned (along with Rodgers, Luck, Newton, and Ryan) as a top QB when the Brady's and Brees of the NFL world are gone. Plus, there is Carr, Winston, Prescott, and Mariota to keep an eye on as well.

 

Who do you think gets to the Super Bowl first from here, Colts or Lions?

I'm leaning Lions but hoping Ballard 'hits' on a lot of 4-7 draft choices (I am already convinced he will do well in rounds 1-4) that surprise and propel the Colts to upper tier level quickly once more.

As of now I don't see either making the SB for a while but I would say Colts because I think Ballard will put a Defense around Andrew. Andrew has already shown he can make a Title Game with really a mediocre Roster (Pats were his road block twice). Honestly I cant even picture the Lions making a SB. They haven't won a Playoff game with Stafford.

Share this post


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

 

You can, but I rank it lower on the list compared to other metrics.  QB's generally get too much credit n wins, and too much of the heat in losses.  But they're the face of the team, so they have to shoulder the load.  And they are the only person on the team that touches the ball 99.5% at some point of the time on offense.

 

Great play at the end of a game by a QB can be totally washed out by a bad coaching decision, let alone a let down via a team mate.  (Luck to Allen pass / drop, anyone? Did we blame Luck for that loss?)

True...

and to be honest, I thought that Detroit beat Dallas in the post-season 3 years ago but some very questionable ref calls against the Lions' defense denied them and stopped a very good Detroit team from advancing and Matt Stafford for claiming one playoff win..maybe more.

 

I can agree that Stafford and Luck are closer than I originally argued

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really the bottomline is that Andrew is better. I am sure we all agree on that. I don't know 1 person in the media that thinks Stafford is better. If they do they have to be from Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:
12 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Last year was representative, and Stafford without Megatron.  But my benchmark is the year 3 in the league stats.  By then a QB is used to the speed of the game, and advanced in knowing their O scheme and better at reading a defense and moving a safety with his eyes.  Here are the year 3 stats for each-

 

Year 3 in NFL for each:

record      Comp   Att    Comp %    Yds      TD     Int      Y/Att   yds/gm    Rate    QBR

 

Stafford
10-6-0       421    663       63.5      5038    41      16         7.6    314.9     97.2     64.4

Luck
11-5-0       380    616       61.7      4761    40      16         7.7    297.6     96.5     68.5

 

It could easily be argued year 3 has been the best for each QB thus far as well.

 

It could also be argued that Luck's best season was season one when he took to the NFL very quickly and led his team to the playoffs as a rookie.

To me, that is what made him stand out. He's been hurt the last two years and I am assuming we're ranking them when health is good.

Matt Stafford played with an injured hand and carried on. Both play hurt.

 

But even in your  'year 3' benchmark matchup, the rushing stats aren't included 

 

OK,  add 78 yards and no TD's for Stafford, for 5,116 total yards. 41 TD's

Then add 273 yards and 3 TD's for Andrew for 5,034 total yards and 43 TD's

 

Still very close. When your running, your not throwing. When your throwing, your not running.  Can't have both at the same time. Now while Luck year one play was stellar, and maybe unprecendented, the lack of doing such doesn't indicate a poor career for another QB.  Peyton Manning was chosen #1 overall for a team that went 3 - 13.  Then the next year as Colts starter, the Colts again went 3 - 13. 

 

Stafford was chosen #1 overall after the Lions went 0 - 16.  and the franchise was a burden of mediocrity prior to that lowest of lows.  First year as starter, Stafford was 2 - 14, then 6 - 10, and in his 3rd year was 10 - 6.  For a generally horrid ( rooted i history ) Lions club.  He has gone 11-5 since, and if their team can avoid / minimize injuries, are poised to compete vs. the Packers and Vikings.

 

I'm done with this, and will watch the seasons unfold, and hope Andrew finally reveals the talent he was hyped to have that clearly separates him form almost all other NFL QB's.  He's not there, yet.

Share this post


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

Really the bottomline is that Andrew is better. I am sure we all agree on that. I don't know 1 person in the media that thinks Stafford is better. If they do they have to be from Detroit.

 

That wasn't the point.  The point was if Andrew doesn't get better, his career will similar and only be a little better than Matthew Stafford.   Both are young and talented enough to alter that in their favor.  Let's see if either or both do.

Share this post


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

 

That wasn't the point.  The point was if Andrew doesn't get better, his career will similar and only be a little better than Matthew Stafford.   Both are young and talented enough to alter that in their favor.  Let's see if either or both do.

I got your point and I think Stafford is Good, one thing I didn't even mention too is Stafford has played 8 seasons, Andrew only 5. Lets see where Andrew is at in season 8. Stafford has 0 Playoff wins in 8 seasons played which is a glaring fact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

OK,  add 78 yards and no TD's for Stafford, for 5,116 total yards. 41 TD's

Then add 273 yards and 3 TD's for Andrew for 5,034 total yards and 43 TD's

 

Still very close. When your running, your not throwing. When your throwing, your not running.  Can't have both at the same time. Now while Luck year one play was stellar, and maybe unprecendented, the lack of doing such doesn't indicate a poor career for another QB.  Peyton Manning was chosen #1 overall for a team that went 3 - 13.  Then the next year as Colts starter, the Colts again went 3 - 13. 

 

Stafford was chosen #1 overall after the Lions went 0 - 16.  and the franchise was a burden of mediocrity prior to that lowest of lows.  First year as starter, Stafford was 2 - 14, then 6 - 10, and in his 3rd year was 10 - 6.  For a generally horrid ( rooted i history ) Lions club.  He has gone 11-5 since, and if their team can avoid / minimize injuries, are poised to compete vs. the Packers and Vikings.

 

I'm done with this, and will watch the seasons unfold, and hope Andrew finally reveals the talent he was hyped to have that clearly separates him form almost all other NFL QB's.  He's not there, yet.

I'm saying that rushing ability must be included on how you rank QBs...not that rush yards are added to pass yards to show worth. Rushing is a seperate category with a separate value and Andrew is better at that.

I did not and would not suggest that Stafford's 2-14 is indicative of his career anymore than Peyton's 3-13 was.....but if we're comparing them and we need seperation points, , the fact that Andrew inherited a 2-14 team and went 10-6 is evidence that can be put before the jury in his case.

 

Dont assume that my praising Andrew suggests I feel that a guy who has had five 4,000-yard seasons in a row and one 5,000-yard season is poor or average in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 QB comparisons are so multi-faceted and subjective.

Its assumed that the QB has a major hand in deciding wins and losses even though he never plays defense or special teams..

 

Where does Jim Kelly rank on the list of all-time QBs if one kick by Scott Norwood doesn't slide to the right?

(and yes, I did watch that 30-for-30 ESPN story on the Bills last night!)

Share this post


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

Stafford has 0 Playoff wins in 8 seasons played which is a glaring fact.

 

Things happen.  Matchups, tough opponents, etc..  How many years and post season games did it take Peyton Manning to win a playoff game?  How many to get a AFC championship game?  How many to get a Super Bowl ring?  And our Colts team was the wiiningest regular season club in the decade.  Only adding in post season play did the Patriots eclipse the Colts in total games won in the decade of the 2000's...

 

Luck has had some success but I dare that almost nobody places him in Peyton's level at this time.  He has plenty of room to grow.

Share this post


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

the fact that Andrew inherited a 2-14 team and went 10-6 is evidence that can be put before the jury in his case.

 

But consider this... that Colts 2 14 team was 0 -13 with Kerry Collins and Curtis Painter.  Dan Orlovsky came in and helped the Colts to go 2 - 3 in the Colts last 5 games.  Yes, this is the exact same Orlovsky that went 0 - 12 to finish out the Lions winless season the year (Kitna started the first 4) before Stafford was drafted #1.

 

Tells me which of these teams Stafford and Luck inherited were better , no question.

 

Rushing ability is a great asset (Cam Newton is light years better at it than Luck!), but winning from the pocket is still the most important aspect in a QB's game.  Do not be fooled. And GM's/Owners are telling their running QB's (including Cam!)  to tame it some.  Luck's kidney laceration that ended his season being big reason #1.

Share this post


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

 

My point is, they are closer than people think or will admit.  And I have shown this via objective metrics for this to be true.  A fair amount of the push back has been with subjective criteria and a small amount of objective validation.   So I remain convinced Stafford is nearly (but not quite) the QB Luck is. And the Jim Caldwell / Jim Bob Cooter combo seems to be working well for them.  The Pack and the Vikes need to look over their shoulder.  And I believe Stafford will be mentioned (along with Rodgers, Luck, Newton, and Ryan) as a top QB when the Brady's and Brees of the NFL world are gone. Plus, there is Carr, Winston, Prescott, and Mariota to keep an eye on as well.

 

Who do you think gets to the Super Bowl first from here, Colts or Lions?

I'm leaning Lions but hoping Ballard 'hits' on a lot of 4-7 draft choices (I am already convinced he will do well in rounds 1-4) that surprise and propel the Colts to upper tier level quickly once more.

Your "objective metrics" are just total passing yards and touchdowns. I keep giving out more advanced statistics (QBR, PFF metric, etc) you just aren't discussing those points. It's also not "subjective criteria" to argue that Stafford has had a better team around him when that can also be backed statistically.

 

It's fine if don't want to discuss further but don't try to bury other arguments on your way out. They are close in only a few passing statistics, they aren't similar players, don't play on similar teams and have had very different careers. 

 

I also don't think their future is that bright going forward. They are a 9-7 team with no wins against a team with a winning record and needed a comeback in a significant amount of wins and got soundly beaten in the playoffs. 

 

To to be honest, I'm not sure what the argument even is at this point. My stance is that Luck at his best now can be a top 5 QB and has the potential to get better, Stafford caps out at the lower end of top 10.

 

Share this post


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

Your "objective metrics" are just total passing yards and touchdowns. I keep giving out more advanced statistics (QBR, PFF metric, etc) you just aren't discussing those points.

 

 

You provided some numbers, not concrete proof.

I find this QBR (TQR) rating system is very subjective, and some factors are not entirely specified. I base this on the fact that anybody may review an important play or close game differently than others. So what makes this one the gold standard over other metrics?


You mentioned overall placement for each seaosn  (IIRC) by PFF, but you did not specify the parameters that PFF uses to make up each overall rating.  Again, weighting of metrics is a debatable platform, but it was ot presented.  Just the fional result that suits your agenda.

 

Quote

 

It's also not "subjective criteria" to argue that Stafford has had a better team around him when that can also be backed statistically.

 

It's fine if don't want to discuss further but don't try to bury other arguments on your way out. They are close in only a few passing statistics, they aren't similar players, don't play on similar teams and have had very different careers. 

 

Unless it's opinion stated as fact.  Or conjecture with no proof. Do you have such proof?   They are close in many areas-

 

StaffordQBR_zpsuk7g1cov.png  LuckQBR_zpsjzwunuis.png

 

Again, what makes QBR the Gold Standard over Rating?

 

Quote

 

I also don't think their future is that bright going forward. They are a 9-7 team with no wins against a team with a winning record and needed a comeback in a significant amount of wins and got soundly beaten in the playoffs. 

 

I think injury killed them in the second half, and Jim Bob Cooter really raised Stafford play.  I beg to differ and time will tell.

 

Quote

To to be honest, I'm not sure what the argument even is at this point. My stance is that Luck at his best now can be a top 5 QB and has the potential to get better, Stafford caps out at the lower end of top 10.

 

 

Point was, Andrew hasn't progressed as far as he was hyped to be.  He's  not much ahead of Stafford was my point.  I feel the ranking is currently is Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisburger, Wilson, Luck, Ryan, , Rivers, Stafford, Newton (Cam can move back up if run less and throw better), Carr, Prescott, Cousins, Flacco, Mariota, Winston, Bradford, Dalton... .and then the rest.

 

Your ranking is different, that is fine. We can agree to disagree and end our discussion to each other on the subject.  That's fine. But I have not been convinced that my original assessment was off target.

Share this post


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

 

You provided some numbers, not concrete proof.

I find this QBR (TQR) rating system is very subjective, and some factors are not entirely specified. I base this on the fact that anybody may review an important play or close game differently than others. So what makes this one the gold standard over other metrics?


You mentioned overall placement for each seaosn  (IIRC) by PFF, but you did not specify the parameters that PFF uses to make up each overall rating.  Again, weighting of metrics is a debatable platform, but it was ot presented.  Just the fional result that suits your agenda.

 

 

Unless it's pinion stated as fact.  Or conjecture with no proof. Do you have such proof?   They are close in many areas-

 

StaffordQBR_zpsuk7g1cov.png  LuckQBR_zpsjzwunuis.png

 

Again, what makes QBR the Gold Standard over Rating?

 

 

I think injury killed them in the second half, and Jim Bob Cooter really raised Stafford play.  I beg to differ and time will tell.

 

 

Point was, Andrew hasn't progressed as far as he was hyped to be.  He's  not much ahead of Stafford was my point.  I feel the ranking is currently is Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisburger, Wilson, Luck, Ryan, , Rivers, Stafford, Newton (Cam can move back up if run less and throw better), Carr, Prescott, Cousins, Flacco, Mariota, Winston, Bradford, Dalton... .and then the rest.

 

Your ranking is different, that is fine. We can agree to disagree and end our discussion to each other on the subject.  That's fine. But I have not been convinced that my original assessment was off target.

8

I find it difficult to understand how you can claim I am tailoring stats to fit my agenda when, again, your only point of debate is that Luck and Stafford have similar volume statistics. That is not a good enough analysis to claim that Luck and Stafford aren't that far apart. 

 

You can take issue with other statistical measurements, but when enough of them are pointing towards the same conclusion, I think it's worth listening to. 

 

The details of how QBR is computed has not been made public, however, it is essentially measuring a bunch of individual qualities: 

  •  
  • "Total QBR incorporates information from game charting, such as passes dropped or thrown away on purpose.
  • Total QBR splits responsibility on plays between the quarterback, his receivers, and his blockers. Drops, for example, are more on the receiver, as are yards after the catch, and some sacks are more on the offensive line than others.
  • Total QBR has a clutch factor which adds (or subtracts) value for quarterbacks who perform best (or worst) in high-leverage situations.
  • Total QBR combines passing and rushing value into one number and differentiates between scrambles and planned runs.
  • Beginning in 2016, Total QBR is now adjusted for strength of opponent. Total QBR on other stats pages (pre-2016) has not yet been updated with opponent adjustment. (Note: Other QB stats pages will be updated with adjusted QBR and a qualifying minimum of 200 passes sometime before the end of February.)"

 

Their QBR's are also not that close. Take away Andrew's 2015 season (an outlier) and Stafford's first two seasons and you have 68.25 (Luck) vs. 57.98 (Stafford).) If you average out their total then it is 66 vs 56.81.

 

I'll link two articles on why I think passer rating is a poor measurement 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/stat-sheet-misconceptions-passer-rating/

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2013/12/4/5175398/why-passer-rating-is-not-a-good-stat

 

Here is an explanation of PFF's grading system: https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/. It's a pretty thorough process that accounts for situation and performance of every play. I think that's pretty thorough and puts things in proper perspective. Those grades place Andrew Luck on a different tier than Matt Stafford.

 

So it would stand to reason that Andrew Luck is more valuable on a per-play basis gives his team and much better chance to win.

 

Finally, I think it's a little bit of a strange thing to claim that Andrew Luck isn't as good as the hype, then list him as the 6th best quarterback in the league, with only one guy remotely close to his age ahead. I would say that the difference between the 6th best quarterback and the 10th best quarterback (I'm flipping Newton and Stafford on your list) is significant. 

 

In terms of raw ranking, we aren't that far off, I just think the difference between those spots is pretty significant. I'm all ears if you have some other way of measuring these two that ranks them closer. I just Luck's circumstance and overall package makes him a better player.

 

 

Share this post


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

I find it difficult to understand how you can claim I am tailoring stats to fit my agenda when, again, your only point of debate is that Luck and Stafford have similar volume statistics.

 

 

{Snipped a well prepared rebuttal that I've been prodding for}

 

Much better.  Now I know where you come from. And that tool seems to be a potential improvement over Rate (which the two are almost identical).   But it is just one tool, and to me  it is not without fault as I mentioned earlier.  They (ESPN) don't make it public domain, so we don't really know nor can debate the merits of their weighting scale. Nor do we know who is looking and charting plays and applying subjective 'grade' to the players performances.  People have bias.  N matter how much they try no to.  That's why we have "double blind" tests.  Even if the test administrator knows the answer, they can give off non verbal cues unintentionally.  Thus double blind - test giver and taker do not know results until the experiment is complete.  People grading subjective issues and other things (like HOF voting - IE: T.Owens, etc...) may or may not be 'influenced' by their own subjective preference and bias. Thus I applaud the effort to improve the rating system, but the secrecy of the people involved and full mechanics and scale of the grading keep me from buying into it fully.  It's my nature, and in my industry, not the way things are done.

 

But I admit because there is a disparity in QBR (which I do not dismiss out of hand, mind you) is one reason I do place Luck ahead of Stafford.  Even though their Rating is almost exactly the same. I even have him in front of Matty Ice (a debatable choice as well). But neither are top 5 yet IMHO, Luck is ahead of Stafford a couple slots, but it is not a huge margin between them. Both have improvements they can make.

 

Here's a small sample of things I look at-

 

http://football-players.pointafter.com/compare/12698-19572/Andrew-Luck-vs-Matthew-Stafford

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 1:27 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Rings are a huge part of it but Marino is definitely Top 10 ever. It would suck if Andrew never won a Ring though. I hope he wins at least 1.

I agree. Hopefully Luck gets at least 1.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Dam marino are we talking-

The one that set passing records?

The one that went to a Super Bowl but lost?

or the one that is a spokesman for weight watchers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I think there is more concern about Luck being the next Bert Jones than Dan Marino.

Bert Jones was 47-49 in his career, 56% Completion%, 124 TD's and 101 INT's. Andrew Luck is already way better than he was. Andrew is 46-30 (went to a Title Game without a running game) and had 40 TD's passing in 1 season in 2014 lmao. If you take Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts history and combine them, Andrew could retire tomorrow and go down as the 3rd best QB we have ever had only behind Peyton and Unitas. I rank Harbaugh over Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Bert Jones was 47-49 in his career, 56% Completion%, 124 TD's and 101 INT's. Andrew Luck is already way better than he was. Andrew is 46-30 (went to a Title Game without a running game) and had 40 TD's passing in 1 season in 2014 lmao. If you take Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts history and combine them, Andrew could retire tomorrow and go down as the 3rd best QB we have ever had only behind Peyton and Unitas. I rank Harbaugh over Jones.

What I mean by that is a promising QB who had his career shortened by injury. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

What I mean by that is a promising QB who had his career shortened by injury. 

I figured that is what you meant. Yeah hopefully our Line keeps improving. Jones was an awesome talent but injuries hurt his career.

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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I like the assessment. I would personally include Mingo in pleasant surprises, the guy is all around the ball all the time, he is rejuvinated it seems with us after lackluster play in Cleveland and NE. I also would include Mack in pleasant surprises as i believe we have only seen glimpses of the REAL Mack attack yet due to the coaches not playing him, i understand we have a proven veteran RB on the team, after this season when Gore leaves im fully confident Mack will assume the number 1 role and become a top 5 running back in the league. Then lastly i would put the Oline in dissapointments, as you stated nobody expected them to blow anyone away but i personally dont think anyone expected them to be as bad as the have been either.
    • Geathers was having a great season last year under monachino before his neck injury I think he will be fine he needs to play more man to man.
    •   ^^^ ban this user!! ^^^
    • It was the only show I watched or listened to on ESPN. Now that they are no longer a team I will have no need to tune into ESPN at all.
    • I think you have done a very nice assessment of our teams progress and where we are right now.  Most of the teams improvement has come on the defensive side of the ball coming from additions and improvement from our young players.  The loss of Luck for the year and the hurried assimilation of Brissett to the lineup certainly has not helped the offense meet our preseason expectations.  I read where Doyle was second in the league in receptions among TE's before the Pittsburgh game.  A stat that blew me away actually.  Who knows what a healthy Luck and a better OL  would have done for Moncrief and the rest of the WR's.   I think you have to congratulate the coaches for this progress and continued improvement that we have seen from this team.  They have gotten better and that's what we are looking for.  It might be a lost season record wise but if you are looking at player and overall team development you have to be pleased with the great progress they have made this year.  No one is happy with the record but you can not ignore the overall improvements that have been achieved.  Everyone is looking forward to new coaches next year but this years staff has done some pretty impressive work teaching and improving the overall contributions of our players.  
  • Members

    • krunk

      krunk 8,264

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Coltfreak

      Coltfreak 555

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • crazycolt1

      crazycolt1 6,775

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • life long

      life long 200

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • 100GFB

      100GFB 741

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • gspdx

      gspdx 103

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Derakynn

      Derakynn 1,214

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ar7

      ar7 235

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Redbull

      Redbull 4

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • richard pallo

      richard pallo 669

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active: