Luck was good again

[oldunclemark]

I would like to see him go a stretch, 3 games or so, with no turnovers. If they don't turn the ball over, this team can be competitive. If they do turn the ball over, they simply don't have the talent to overcome it.

Everybody turns the ball over..Look at the NYGs..

You have to have enough of an offense to cover for mistakes

[Ohio Colt]

If you build a team around him and he stays healthy you're looking at someone that will have us as a perrenial contender every year, and every week.

[Malakai432]

No clearly I was talking about Jim Sorgi

Yes!!! He was the ultimate perfectionist!!!

I'm sorry at first I thought you where talking about Jeff George, then Michael Vick. Low and behold it turns out to be Sorgi!

[PrincetonTiger]

he had a great game.

[JustAColtsFan]

I continue to be amazed that he never seems rattled - even when he makes a poor decision. He just comes right back usually with a great throw or scrambles for extra yardage. He is always looking for a way to keep a drive alive. He is the DEAL and I for one am looking forward to watching his development:)

[BleedingBlue]

I actually had faith that he would lead us to a game winning drive.

I don't think I had that confidence in Peyton until season 3 lol.

Saved us on 3rd down with his legs too.

[gacker65]

Really? You honestly don't think he's progressed at all and looks average? Maybe I'm just a fish about to take a bite on the hook but still....

Let's tackle these one by one then, progress first. To be fair you say that the above is your opinion and your entitled to it but you don't back it up much. IMO he's progressed week on week (and I include pre-season in this). Given our well documented and discussed team building strategy of years past he doesn't have the greatest cast around him and I for one am really enjoying watching the slow maturing of someone who I think is going to be a great. But I can't bemoan you not backing up opinion and commit the very same offence myself can I? (Well I could but I'm not a politician). If you look at his game by game stats:

http://nfl.com/playe...2533031/profile

The first thing that stands out I'd say is the defences he's played have all been of a similar level talent wise, not great, but not shocking. This should give us a solid base for comparison, and of course the first thing that jumps out is the picks. Those 3 in the first game can all be attributed I'd say to a rookie making rookie decisions and suffering the consequences. But what I like is he seems to be learning from very mistake which you could argue is reflected in only the pick in the next two games (small sample size granted). His rating has improved since that first game too and I'd even argue that his low completion percentage in the 3rd was more down to people having a case of the dropsies then his actual accuracy in a few cases, other times, well a rookie making rookie throws. Maybe I've not used these stats very wisely given my inexperience with the game but hand on heart do you really think he's made NO progress?

Onto inconsistency then, and I'd say fair point. But quantify it a little, again he's a rookie, he will be inconsistent while he learns to play with big boys. It doesn't help when you don't have any anchors around you to hold onto like oo I dunno, a solid O line? A solid running game? A solid defence? Consistency is built through familiarity and repetition, it will come. Though I could argue he's been a very consistent performer in the 2 minute drills.

As for average looking?! Subjectively the majority of analysts as describing him as showing exactly why he was so lauded pre draft, in fact if it wasn't for us being 1-2, or RG3 also having a super start his performances as a rookie would be making even bigger news. If you want to look at something a bit more black and white, look at at some of the QB numbers across the league, in a fair few catorgeries he's 16th or better, does this not make him better than "average" when compared to his peers? If he carries on at the rate he's started at, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure he's on line to break the rookie passing records at the least? Is that a "average" player?

Sorry I may not have made my points well, nor maybe supplied good evidence but I hope it gives you a insight in why I don't agree with your flat statement.

I agree about Bears game and give it little weight.

The Vikes game, the O-line played a little better and gave Luck a little more time. He overthrew open receivers (i.e. screen pass) and killed as many drives as drops or runs.

The Jags game the O-line played decent and gave Luck some time (i.e. first TD pass to Hilton). Again he overthrew open receivers. That is what I mean by inconsistant

As for average, his numbers speak for themselves.

To show progress, he needs to hit the open receiver more often. Have more than 2 TD drives per game and keep INTs to a minimum.

To be frank, I was not impressed with Luck in college.

[gacker65]

Oh man my sides hurt after reading that. Thank you for a good laugh so early in my day.

Glad you got a good laugh, but ask yourself if you still laugh in a few years when we are still losing because is still trying to improve.

[ruksak]

Glad you got a good laugh, but ask yourself if you still laugh in a few years when we are still losing because is still trying to improve.

[NewColtsFan]

I am very glad that some here think Luck is as advertised and they're very happy with him so far....

I'm also very happy that some here have some 'issues' with Andrew and think he's capable of much more.

Because honestly, I think you're both right.

He has looked good -- but in spots. I also think the NFL game is still way too fast for him. To me, he's not processing what he sees fast enough yet. He will, but IMO, it likely won't happen this year. Next year it will and in year 3 even more. Be prepared for big jumps in improvement.

Some issues he's having I'm sure come from a terrible OL. Really terrible. But some are clearly coming from the speed and complexity of the game. Way too fast for him.

The Andrew Luck you're seeing now reminds me of the 2009 Andrew Luck, his first year starting at Stanford. Lots of greatness, but some stretches where he looks way too human and too pedestrian as a QB. But the next year, a quantum leap to greatness. And the year after, another leap in performance.

So, if you're happy with him so far, great. But just know there's so much more to come. And it's going to come. He just needs time, experience, a decent OL and a few weapons. THEN, he'll be as advertised and there will be a whole OMG! level to the posts here on Colts.com....

Hey, just sayin....

[gacker65]

Not being negative. Being realistic and stating my opinion.

[ruksak]

Not being negative. Being realistic and stating my opinion.

Would you at least agree that things are going well to this point, considering the total tear-down/rebuild?

[House]

Glad you got a good laugh, but ask yourself if you still laugh in a few years when we are still losing because is still trying to improve.

Unless your crystal ball has the lotto numbers I don't really care about future predictions. Because it's as easy to say we will be bad, as it is to say we will be good. So there's really no merit to it.

I was here when we were bad before, I'll still be around. Don't worry about me

[SteelCityColt]

I agree about Bears game and give it little weight.

The Vikes game, the O-line played a little better and gave Luck a little more time. He overthrew open receivers (i.e. screen pass) and killed as many drives as drops or runs.

The Jags game the O-line played decent and gave Luck some time (i.e. first TD pass to Hilton). Again he overthrew open receivers. That is what I mean by inconsistant

As for average, his numbers speak for themselves.

To show progress, he needs to hit the open receiver more often. Have more than 2 TD drives per game and keep INTs to a minimum.

To be frank, I was not impressed with Luck in college.

His numbers do indeed speak for themselves but in both positive and negative ways, yards ain't everything but sure does look like he knows how to move the football, again he's the top rookie and on track for record pace. Do you think an average QB could come into a team in major rebuild mode and perform to the level he's shown so far?

As for needing to be able to throw more than 2TDs a game, heck we all would want to see that. But is it a be all and end all measure of a QB's ability? And of course you don't want to be throwing INTs but its a expected part of the learning curve. How many did Peyton throw as a rookie? Was he average?

I'd also say as an opinion, as I can't think of a factual way to back this, that his read and escape of a pass rush is not only good for a rookie but for a established QB, could you imagine the carnage of a say a Carr behind this line?

I also don't understand how you are not impressed with his college performances? Took a team without a bowl game in 8 years to one in his first season and took them both seasons after. Holds career records in pass completion and rating in his conference and numerous QB records at a school thats known a few above average QBs on its time. I'll give you that there was a lot of hype surrounding him and that will bias people's assessment of his talents.

There is a chance of course that your perfectly right and he proves to be a bigger bust than the love child of Leaf/Russell but from what we have seen so far I think he has demonstrated he has the potential at least to be a good NFL QB and possibly great.

[gacker65]

Would you at least agree that things are going well to this point, considering the total tear-down/rebuild?

Yes, i can.

[gacker65]

Unless your crystal ball has the lotto numbers I don't really care about future predictions. Because it's as easy to say we will be bad, as it is to say we will be good. So there's really no merit to it.

I was here when we were bad before, I'll still be around. Don't worry about me

So was I, but we should not make the team a SB winner until they get there. This is going to be a long rough road.

[House]

So was I, but we should not make the team a SB winner until they get there. This is going to be a long rough road.

I never crowned them a SB team.

I understand where the team is at, this ain't my first rodeo lol.

The only thing we apparently disagree on is whether Andrew has impressed and improved so far. I am floored by him, but I am more than happy to agree to disagree. I wasn't trying to take a personal dig at you earlier today. Only having a little fun in the morning

[SteelCityColt]

So was I, but we should not make the team a SB winner until they get there. This is going to be a long rough road.

That I can agree with.

I'm not suggesting Luck will be taking us to the SB anytime soon, a trip to that and having a elite QB (note not suggesting he is elite just saying far more factors involved than a good QB) don't always go hand in hand by any means. It will required building a good balanced team for long term continued success, I hope we've learnt that from losing Manning to injury for a season.

However we were talking about why you are disappointed in Luck specifically and you don't think he personally would be a long term answer. Do you not feel the slight bit positive in what he can do with a "weak" team around him?

[gacker65]

His numbers do indeed speak for themselves but in both positive and negative ways, yards ain't everything but sure does look like he knows how to move the football, again he's the top rookie and on track for record pace. Do you think an average QB could come into a team in major rebuild mode and perform to the level he's shown so far?

As for needing to be able to throw more than 2TDs a game, heck we all would want to see that. But is it a be all and end all measure of a QB's ability? And of course you don't want to be throwing INTs but its a expected part of the learning curve. How many did Peyton throw as a rookie? Was he average?

I'd also say as an opinion, as I can't think of a factual way to back this, that his read and escape of a pass rush is not only good for a rookie but for a established QB, could you imagine the carnage of a say a Carr behind this line?

I also don't understand how you are not impressed with his college performances? Took a team without a bowl game in 8 years to one in his first season and took them both seasons after. Holds career records in pass completion and rating in his conference and numerous QB records at a school thats known a few above average QBs on its time. I'll give you that there was a lot of hype surrounding him and that will bias people's assessment of his talents.

There is a chance of course that your perfectly right and he proves to be a bigger bust than the love child of Leaf/Russell but from what we have seen so far I think he has demonstrated he has the potential at least to be a good NFL QB and possibly great.

How was I not impressed, let me count the ways:

1. could not win a weak Pac12.

2. was owned by the Oregon Ducks. Lost Pac12 by losing to Duck both of his years starting.

3. Threw into coverage.

4.Lost Fiesta Bowl

5.Had trouble against good Defenses

Ask Sam Bradford or Cam Newton about having great numbers and a losing records. Come to think about it ask Jeff George.

Drafted Fleener (when we could have got an O-lineman) and picked up Whalen. IMO, shows that F.O. does not believe in his skills either.

[gacker65]

I never crowned them a SB team.

I understand where the team is at, this ain't my first rodeo lol.

The only thing we apparently disagree on is whether Andrew has impressed and improved so far. I am floored by him, but I am more than happy to agree to disagree. I wasn't trying to take a personal dig at you. Only having a little fun in the morning

I could say he was improving if he could quit overthrowing his open receivers and lead more than 2 TD drives in a game.

IMO, the rest of the team is progressing each game even if only a little each game.

[Carlos Danger]

Let us not forget that Jax consistently mauled our receivers with no PI calls for most of the game. They also made dumb mistakes in the second half, like roughing our QB and that PI on Avery. Any one of those calls could have helped ice the game, but they weren't made. Everyone says "i'm not one to blame the officials", but GB and NE weren't the only teams to have outplayed their opponent and still lose. Refs were awful... worst I'd ever seen until the prime time games.

[smittywerb]

If you build a team around him and he stays healthy you're looking at someone that will have us as a perrenial contender every year, and every week.

Hopefully we give him a team and don't do him like we did Peyton.

[SteelCityColt]

Drafted Fleener (when we could have got an O-lineman) and picked up Whalen. IMO, shows that F.O. does not believe in his skills either.

If the FO didn't believe in his skills then why draft him?! Charity? A bet?

The first season to not win the PAC I think is somewhat understandable as a freshman (albeit a red shirt), the next by a game and still finished with the same overall record as Oregon, and the were not exactly a million miles the last season.

Oh and if him throwing into coverage garners 67% completion rate and 0.02% chance of interception across all his passing attempts in college I think I'll take his assessment of coverage over yours.

Aside from his Duck hoodoo he didn't seem to struggle winning against other teams so he can't have had that bad a time against the better defenses.

[House]

I could say he was improving if he could quit overthrowing his open receivers and lead more than 2 TD drives in a game.

IMO, the rest of the team is progressing each game even if only a little each game.

To each his own. But every week I've seen him, I've seen progress. Using the analogy you just gave me, these things take time.

[SteelCityColt]

Ask Sam Bradford or Cam Newton about having great numbers and a losing records. Come to think about it ask Jeff George

Agreed winning and great numbers are not the same thing but the debate is you think he's a average player. Someone who puts up the numbers has to be called above average if they are outperforming their peers in measurable fields. If you have the most passing yards then you are certainly at that point an above average passer. If your numbers are higher than the average of the field you are above average. Compared to rookies at a similar stage in their career, and to the rest of the league he is showing so far in certain areas he is above average. I believe that from his numbers and from my own subjective personal feel of him as a player.

He has plenty to improve on, that is not in doubt, what I doubt is your assessment of his long viability from what we have seen from him so far. However I respect that this your own view, and although I have been forthright in my own opinion please don't take it personally, I'm a competitive debater!

[cbear]

No progress as of yet, IMO. Luck is still inconsistant and average looking.

I sort of agree with you, but he started out at a much higher performance level than I thought, that I think it isn't realistic for him to improve that noticeaby in the next two games. I think there's been some improvement, but nothing earth shattering. I think the better question to ask is, "is he doing well at this point in the season?" IMO, for his third game as a rookie playing on a bad team, absolutely.

[gacker65]

Agreed winning and great numbers are not the same thing but the debate is you think he's a average player. Someone who puts up the numbers has to be called above average if they are outperforming their peers in measurable fields. If you have the most passing yards then you are certainly at that point an above average passer. If your numbers are higher than the average of the field you are above average. Compared to rookies at a similar stage in their career, and to the rest of the league he is showing so far in certain areas he is above average. I believe that from his numbers and from my own subjective personal feel of him as a player.

He has plenty to improve on, that is not in doubt, what I doubt is your assessment of his long viability from what we have seen from him so far. However I respect that this your own view, and although I have been forthright in my own opinion please don't take it personally, I'm a competitive debater!

I based my longevity on his lack of improvement in consistancy. I do not deny that he has good numbers, but if his consistancy improves he will have even better numbers.

I do not take it personal. i like to debate as well.

[gacker65]

I sort of agree with you, but he started out at a much higher performance level than I thought, that I think it isn't realistic for him to improve that noticeaby in the next two games. I think there's been some improvement, but nothing earth shattering. I think the better question to ask is, "is he doing well at this point in the season?" IMO, for his third game as a rookie playing on a bad team, absolutely.

I agree number wise, but he has killed as many drives as the WRs, Rbs and coaching staff with his overthrowing of the receivers. That, IMO, is where he needs to improve to help improve the Offense.

[BOTT]

How was I not impressed, let me count the ways:

1. could not win a weak Pac12.

2. was owned by the Oregon Ducks. Lost Pac12 by losing to Duck both of his years starting.

3. Threw into coverage.

4.Lost Fiesta Bowl

5.Had trouble against good Defenses

Ask Sam Bradford or Cam Newton about having great numbers and a losing records. Come to think about it ask Jeff George.

Drafted Fleener (when we could have got an O-lineman) and picked up Whalen. IMO, shows that F.O. does not believe in his skills either.

just when i think i've read it all on this site you come along and write that last line. honestly, you sound like a guy who didn't like him in college and you are going to find ways not to like him in the pros come heck or high water.

[gacker65]

just when i think i've read it all on this site you come along and write that last line. honestly, you sound like a guy who didn't like him in college and you are going to find ways not to like him in the pros come heck or high water.

If you had read my posts before the draft, you would have seen that I was not a Luck fan. I thought he was over rated and had bad points that everyone was willing to over look. I have followed the Colts and the NFL for quite of few years and I did not want to seen another Jeff George, Jamarcus Russell and others that came out of college as the next great thing.

Even with this I have been trying to be objective with my evaluation of Luck. I will be more inclined to to overlook things if he gets more consistant with his passes and get more than 2 TD drives a game.

Think about it, In the history of the NFL it has never worked successfully so why should it now, the drafting of WR/TE from same college. So there had to be another reason and that is my opinion.

[WSO]

How was I not impressed, let me count the ways:

1. could not win a weak Pac12.

2. was owned by the Oregon Ducks. Lost Pac12 by losing to Duck both of his years starting.

3. Threw into coverage.

4.Lost Fiesta Bowl

5.Had trouble against good Defenses

Ask Sam Bradford or Cam Newton about having great numbers and a losing records. Come to think about it ask Jeff George.

Drafted Fleener (when we could have got an O-lineman) and picked up Whalen. IMO, shows that F.O. does not believe in his skills either.

edited so I wont be banned

[ColtStrong]

Would you at least agree that things are going well to this point, considering the total tear-down/rebuild?

Don't bother with him. For some people, nothing is ever enough. Me, I'm happy despite a 1-2 record. But I wasn't expecting miracles to begin with.

[ColtStrong]

edited so I wont be banned

Best way to go. Just add him to ignore like me.

[JWF]

Not being negative. Being realistic and stating my opinion.

I dont know if id say youre being realisitc. Stating your opinion...ill agree with you there.

[the cardinal]

edited so I wont be banned

No, no it's Andrew's fault Jordan missed all those kicks... And that spectacular 18/23 performance in the Orange Bowl totally didn't happen. We dreamt it.

[ColtStrong]

No, no it's Andrew's fault Jordan missed all those kicks... And that spectacular 18/23 performance in the Orange Bowl totally didn't happen. We dreamt it.

It's amazing how people see things differently. But to some, Luck is already a bust. Yeah, a bust that is nominated for Rookie of the Week 2 weeks in a row. Are some people on drugs, or just haters and trouble makers? It has to be one of those.

[GoColts8818]

How was I not impressed, let me count the ways:

1. could not win a weak Pac12.

2. was owned by the Oregon Ducks. Lost Pac12 by losing to Duck both of his years starting.

3. Threw into coverage.

4.Lost Fiesta Bowl

5.Had trouble against good Defenses

Ask Sam Bradford or Cam Newton about having great numbers and a losing records. Come to think about it ask Jeff George.

Drafted Fleener (when we could have got an O-lineman) and picked up Whalen. IMO, shows that F.O. does not believe in his skills either.

1. Last time I checked it takes a team not a QB to win a conference in College football.

2. Peyton couldn't beat Florida in College he turned out okay I think.

3. Well it's not like they let WRs just run free for you to throw to them. The very good QBs can throw into coverage.

4. His team lost a Bowl game so that means he's not good? If you look at HIS performance in that Bowl game it was really good and in fact he put his team in poistion to win not once but twice and the kicker missed the kick but you are right it's his fault they lost even though he wasn't on the field for the those field goals...

5. Ummm what QB doesn't have trouble against good defenses that's why they are good defenses! I mean that's like saying a QB in the NFL isn't any good because he didn't put up 35 on the Ravens.

He's three games into his career for crying out loud. It's going to take time to rebuild and I got news for you it takes more than one player to make a winning team. So the whole argument about putting up great numbers and a losing record is kinda silly. If we still have a losing record in about three years then you have a point but if Luck is putting up great numbers and we are still losing I am going to go out on a limb here and say the problem isn't the QB.

As for the last point if the front office didn't believe in his skills they wouldn't have drafted him they would have drafted RG3 and frankly if they didn't believe in him they probably wouldn't have cut Peyton Manning for him. It's one thing to have an opinion about something it's another to be flat out wrong about something and just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks. You are doing the later here with that comment.

[ruksak]

How was I not impressed, let me count the ways:

1. could not win a weak Pac12.

2. was owned by the Oregon Ducks. Lost Pac12 by losing to Duck both of his years starting.

3. Threw into coverage.

4.Lost Fiesta Bowl

5.Had trouble against good Defenses

Ask Sam Bradford or Cam Newton about having great numbers and a losing records. Come to think about it ask Jeff George.

Drafted Fleener (when we could have got an O-lineman) and picked up Whalen. IMO, shows that F.O. does not believe in his skills either.

Our last QB, that Peyton guy, had some issues winning the "big games" in college as well. You may have a point, as that Peyton guy failed here so badly that we sent him off to play for some hick mountain town.

[NewColtsFan]

How was I not impressed, let me count the ways:

1. could not win a weak Pac12.

2. was owned by the Oregon Ducks. Lost Pac12 by losing to Duck both of his years starting.

3. Threw into coverage.

4.Lost Fiesta Bowl

5.Had trouble against good Defenses

Ask Sam Bradford or Cam Newton about having great numbers and a losing records. Come to think about it ask Jeff George.

Drafted Fleener (when we could have got an O-lineman) and picked up Whalen. IMO, shows that F.O. does not believe in his skills either.

OK....

Somebody shoot up a signal flare.... I think I've got a candidate for Worst Post of the Year and I don't want it to go un-noticed.

Holy Guacamole....

I appreciate that we're all entitled to our own opinions and that we're all going to disagree with one another from time to time... and I'm quite sure I've made a stinker or two (or three) since I've joined.... hey, we all do....

But at least attempt to use logic and common sense and try not to contradict yourself inside your own post..... Wow.

Never drink and post.

Hopefully I don't get a warning point for this.... but Momma Mia that was a train wreck..!!

Yikes!! :slaphead:

[SteelCityColt]

If you had read my posts before the draft, you would have seen that I was not a Luck fan. I thought he was over rated and had bad points that everyone was willing to over look. I have followed the Colts and the NFL for quite of few years and I did not want to seen another Jeff George, Jamarcus Russell and others that came out of college as the next great thing.

Even with this I have been trying to be objective with my evaluation of Luck. I will be more inclined to to overlook things if he gets more consistant with his passes and get more than 2 TD drives a game.

Think about it, In the history of the NFL it has never worked successfully so why should it now, the drafting of WR/TE from same college. So there had to be another reason and that is my opinion.

What is the obsession with the 2TD mark per game? It's not a requirement to win a game you know. Seriously take a quick look at what proven QBs have as TDs/game on average throughout there careers. Unless you mean non-passing TDs as well, in which case the outcome is somewhat out his hands both figuratively and literally.

Regarding WR/TE/QB Combos from college I think this will get skewed somewhat that if they have been a productive unit in college it's unlikely a team will be in a position to draft them unless they've reached for at least one player. You also have to bear in mind that TE as a position have evolved greatly in recent times so there isn't as much of a sample to compare back against. I'm fairly sure there was article about this about the time Fleener was drafted but I can't seem to find the stat breakdown it gave. If you seriously think a FO drafted someone with their 2nd pick to compensate for lack of talent in their first pick you're from another planet. Fleener was a projected first rounder, and we had a need at TE. The history with Luck was in their eyes just icing on top I'm sure.

Like I've said before your opinion is yours and I respect it, but you seem to ignore people when they present you with factual evidence to back and support their points and move onto another vein of attack, again made up of subjective opinion. I've not seen anything you've put that gives me a factual reason to believe or agree with the statements you have made.