Luck vs Manning's rookie season

[Colts1324]

I hope you guys on here can help me settle a debate. A few friends of mine are split on Luck and Peyton's rookie years. The argument is more over who had better surrounding talent during their rookie seasons... Luck or Manning? 

I believe it was Manning who had the better team. I love him to death but he struggled that year. 

Luck on the other hand, not only had a worse team, but a more efficient rookie year. 

 

Luck led Peyton in nearly every category except completion percentage and passing TD's. Both of which were relatively close. 

Peyton tossed a staggering 28 int's to Luck's 18.

Luck also had more total TD's, yards(passing and rushing), game winning drives, and most of all, he led the team on his back to an 11-5 season. 

Thoughts? 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

Talent wise IMO Manning had better talent at the specialty positions with Faulk and Harrison on the roster. I think Luck was better prepared to be a starter in the NFL than Manning was.

Looking back on Luck's rookie season it was really something special being the Colts were coming off a 2-14 season and in cap hades. Grigson truly deserved being named the GM of the year that year. The deal he made for Hilton was one of the best deals in Colts history. With that being said it really was a shame Grigson couldn't maintain or improve on bringing in players who developed.

[Dark Superman]

And Manning had a much better offensive line in front of him with Faulk, Harrison, Dilger and Pollard surrounding him. A year later he got James and Saturday too...

 

Shows how good Luck can be when we finally surround him with an offensive line and a strong running game.

 

Also shows how much better Bill Polian was over Ryan Grigson.

[Colts1324]

8 hours ago, I'm Negan said:

And Manning had a much better offensive line in front of him with Faulk, Harrison, Dilger and Pollard surrounding him. A year later he got James and Saturday too...

 

Shows how good Luck can be when we finally surround him with an offensive line and a strong running game.

 

Also shows how much better Bill Polian was over Ryan Grigson.

Exactly. Luck did not have a running game, an offensive line, or anybody on defense. You also forgot Tarik Glenn. He had a very positive rookie year. I believe Colts fans that argue everything against Luck when compared to Peyton are still salty about how the Manning-Colts relationship ended. Peyton will probably always be the GOAT regular season QB of all time. I do believe that Luck will get 2-3 SB's with the Colts tho. Ballard is getting ready to give us a team we a colts fans have wanted since the 2005 season. 

 

[Colts1324]

9 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Talent wise IMO Manning had better talent at the specialty positions with Faulk and Harrison on the roster. I think Luck was better prepared to be a starter in the NFL than Manning was.

Looking back on Luck's rookie season it was really something special being the Colts were coming off a 2-14 season and in cap hades. Grigson truly deserved being named the GM of the year that year. The deal he made for Hilton was one of the best deals in Colts history. With that being said it really was a shame Grigson couldn't maintain or improve on bringing in players who developed.

Agreed. I do believe Grigson did well in the 2012 draft. Fleener and Allen were good picks at the time. We got a good 4 years out of both of them. Both struggled last year, but are still two starters in this league. Hilton was an amazing trade up. Ballard was even a great pick IMO. 

 

Back to the Manning-Luck debate. Would you even say the 2012 Colts had one personnel group that was better than the 98 Colts? 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, Colts1324 said:

Back to the Manning-Luck debate. Would you even say the 2012 Colts had one personnel group that was better than the 98 Colts? 

 

Special Teams

[Lucky Colts Fan]

13 minutes ago, Colts1324 said:

Exactly. Luck did not have a running game, an offensive line, or anybody on defense. He had a very positive rookie year. I believe Colts fans that argue everything against Luck when compared to Peyton, are still salty about how the Manning-Colts relationship ended. 

 

 

Manning is the King, but Luck had the better rookie season.  The record alone is the best argument.  Luck and an overachieving Colts won 11 games his rookie season, while Manning and an underachieving Colts won 3.

[RockThatBlue]

Luck had the better rookie year, IMO.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Actually if you compare their first 5 seasons, Luck would go down as the better QB in history. It wasn't until season 6 that Peyton started his dominance and won a Playoff game. That was in 2003. Peyton wasn't really deemed Great until 2003, then the run we had from 2003-2009 as a team was legendary. From 2003-2009 we won 12 or more games and won a SB, from 1998-2002 Peyton had only 1 season with 12 or more wins and no Playoff wins. Luck in his first 5 seasons has 3 Playoff wins, ok people say wins are a team thing. Luck also statistically had a 40 TD passing season in his first 5 seasons, Peyton didn't have one until season 7 = 2004 where he threw 49.

[Colts1324]

52 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Manning is the King, but Luck had the better rookie season.  The record alone is the best argument.  Luck and an overachieving Colts won 11 games his rookie season, while Manning and an underachieving Colts won 3.

Yes. We were projected to win 3-5 games during Luck's rookie season. We end up winning 11. Luck also was the most hit and hurried QB in the league. And dropped back the  730 times(3rd most times in league history), leading to the high number of his interceptions. He also had a rookie RB, two rookie Tight Ends, a rookie RB, and a rookie receiver all starting on offense. It was incredible what we did that year if you think about it. 

[Colts1324]

47 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Actually if you compare their first 5 seasons, Luck would go down as the better QB in history. It wasn't until season 6 that Peyton started his dominance and won a Playoff game. That was in 2003. Peyton wasn't really deemed Great until 2003, then the run we had from 2003-2009 as a team was legendary. From 2003-2009 we won 12 or more games and won a SB, from 1998-2002 Peyton had only 1 season with 12 or more wins and no Playoff wins. Luck in his first 5 seasons has 3 Playoff wins, ok people say wins are a team thing. Luck also statistically had a 40 TD passing season in his first 5 seasons, Peyton didn't have one until season 7 = 2004 where he threw 49.

Thanks for the good analysis. I used this to help prove my point to them even further. I think a lot of people don't realize that it took Peyton a while to become the great QB he was. Luck has a chance to become just as incredible. We will see what happens in the next 9-10 years! 

[Colts1324]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Special Teams

Actually, Peyton had Mike Vanderjact and Chris Gardocki. Both of whom had good seasons. Mike had a much better season than AV.

 

                        1998 season:

Vanderjact: 31-31 on PAT's. 27-31 on Field Goal attempts(87.1 percent). Long: 53 yards

 Gardocki: Average: 45.3. Inside 20: 23

                         2012 season:

Vinatieri: 26 of 33 on FGA(78.8 percent). Long: 53 yards. 37 of 37 on PAT's. 

McCafee: Average 48.2 yards. Inside 20: 26 

 

I would say the special teams was arguable even better or about the same during the 1998 season. The Colts were terrible at stopping returns during the 2012 season as well. 

[RockThatBlue]

24 minutes ago, Colts1324 said:

Yes. We were projected to win 3-5 games during Luck's rookie season. We end up winning 11. Luck also was the most hit and hurried QB in the league. And dropped back the  730 times(3rd most times in league history), leading to the high number of his interceptions. He also had a rookie RB, two rookie Tight Ends, a rookie RB, and a rookie receiver all starting on offense. It was incredible what we did that year if you think about it. 

Pretty amazing we won 11 games in Lucks rookie year. That team had very little talent. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

45 minutes ago, Colts1324 said:

Thanks for the good analysis. I used this to help prove my point to them even further. I think a lot of people don't realize that it took Peyton a while to become the great QB he was. Luck has a chance to become just as incredible. We will see what happens in the next 9-10 years! 

Yeah I went a little off topic but wanted to prove your point even more. Problem is, now days a lot of people don't have patience. Those who don't have patience just think a rookie QB can come in and win the SB within in his first 2 or 3 years. It doesn't work like that when you are the #1 pick because you get drafted by crap teams. Some QB's have done it early but they weren't #1 picks and went to teams that had already good to great defenses and good to great coaches like Brady with BB and their Defense + Adam, Ben walked right into a team that was solid on Defense, so did Wilson. If Luck doesn't win a SB by year 8 or at least reach one I will be a little worried then. I give it 3 more seasons = season 6, 7, then 8. It took Peyton 9 seasons to reach one and win.

[oldunclemark]

5 hours ago, RockThatBlue said:

Luck had the better rookie year, IMO.

No question....

 

The trick is to compare Year 2.

[Colts1324]

31 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

No question....

 

The trick is to compare Year 2.

New thread  

[Colts1324]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah I went a little off topic but wanted to prove your point even more. Problem is, now days a lot of people don't have patience. Those who don't have patience just think a rookie QB can come in and win the SB within in his first 2 or 3 years. It doesn't work like that when you are the #1 pick because you get drafted by crap teams. Some QB's have done it early but they weren't #1 picks and went to teams that had already good to great defenses and good to great coaches like Brady with BB and their Defense + Adam, Ben walked right into a team that was solid on Defense, so did Wilson. If Luck doesn't win a SB by year 8 or at least reach one I will be a little worried then. I give it 3 more seasons = season 6, 7, then 8. It took Peyton 9 seasons to reach one and win.

To be honest, I really believe Peyton and the Colts underachieved. We had a three HOFers leading this teams in Bill Pollian, Tony Dungy, and Peyton Manning. We had Edge, Harrison, Wayne, Bob Sanders, Freeney and Mathis on the Edge, as well as Clark, Stokely, Brackett. Great kickers. And a heck of a QB coach/OC in Tom Moore. We should have had 3 SB's. 

 

But you are 100% correct about it taking 4+ years to win a SB. When you draft a QB, you usually are going to have both, a terrible defense and a terrible offense. People use Russel Wilson as an example for it only taking 2 years to win a SB. But he was put in a great situation. Luck will get his turn. 

[Valpo2004]

17 hours ago, Colts1324 said:

To be honest, I really believe Peyton and the Colts underachieved. We had a three HOFers leading this teams in Bill Pollian, Tony Dungy, and Peyton Manning. We had Edge, Harrison, Wayne, Bob Sanders, Freeney and Mathis on the Edge, as well as Clark, Stokely, Brackett. Great kickers. And a heck of a QB coach/OC in Tom Moore. We should have had 3 SB's. 

 

But you are 100% correct about it taking 4+ years to win a SB. When you draft a QB, you usually are going to have both, a terrible defense and a terrible offense. People use Russel Wilson as an example for it only taking 2 years to win a SB. But he was put in a great situation. Luck will get his turn. 

 

This. . . 

 

I believe Luck is still the only QB who went #1 overall to make the playoffs his rookie year.  

[Colts1324]

17 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

This. . . 

 

I believe Luck is still the only QB who went #1 overall to make the playoffs his rookie year.  

Yeah. He was actually not only the first QB drafted No. 1 overall to make the playoffs, but the first to have a winning season!