Bruce Arians: Don't rank Andrew Luck over Big Ben

[Pombi9]

There is a video as well as an article here are the main excerpt's, 

When he was told Luck likely will be ranked ahead of Big Ben he said, 

"That surprises me." "Andrew belongs on the list, but he's not at that stage yet. He's got to put a couple rings on his finger and a bunch more wins."

Full article here:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000202195/article/bruce-arians-dont-rank-andrew-luck-over-big-ben   

 

Some here still hold a grudge against Arians, for numerous reasons. I am sure this will only fuel that. While I believe he was simply answering honestly, but he is a HC now and could have easily deflected this topic had he chosen. Appears to me he went out of his way to make this argument.

What do you guys think? A couple more rings seems like a stretch to me.

[Everyone]

     I don't understand why it is only being asked if Luck should be rated higher. They need to ask "Should any rookie QB be ranked higher than Ben?"

[Derakynn]

I think this is an indication of how highly he holds Ben, and not intended to be a slight on Luck. But it does sound insulting. Especially for being his coach and all.

[alexpr]

hey hey people calm down!! He said that right now Andrew shouldn't be rated higher than Big Ben and I strongly support him. We are talking of a vet with 2 rings and a Super Bowl winning drive. Andrew just has 11 wins, Arians never said something like "Andrew will never be better than big ben, or andrew will never win 2 rings" he is just saying that right NOW andre can't be rated higher and again i totally support that statement. I believe luck will be better QB in the future, but still he has a lot to prove.

[braveheartcolt]

I thought winning Super Bowls was a team thing?

[Nobody]

hey hey people calm down!! He said that right now Andrew shouldn't be rated higher than Big Ben and I strongly support him. We are talking of a vet with 2 rings and a Super Bowl winning drive. Andrew just has 11 wins, Arians never said something like "Andrew will never be better than big ben, or andrew will never win 2 rings" he is just saying that right NOW andre can't be rated higher and again i totally support that statement. I believe luck will be better QB in the future, but still he has a lot to prove.

Yep, the two comments before yours were really crazy angry

[NewColtsFan]

Context!   We need some context here.

 

Arians was a guest on the NFL Network's weekly countdown show.

 

They reveal the latest 10 players on their top-100 list every week.  (tonight was 70-61)....   that takes an hour....

 

Then,  they do a one hour reaction show.   Arians was a guest on that show because Roethlisberger was a surprising choice at roughly number 61.   I suspect I'm off a couple, but not by much,  low-60's.    And there are 11 other QB's ranked ahead of Big Ben.

 

Arians was asked for his reaction.    His comments were much broader than just Ben and Andrew.    The Roethlisberger ranking was pretty stunning.   He's the engine of a very good Pittsburgh team.   He's won two Super Bowls.  Arians called Roethlisberger a top-5 QB.   Of course he should be higher, and of course he should be higher than Andrew Luck.   

 

By the way,   Luck would agree.    In previewing next week's show (ranking 60-51)  they said that at least one of the last year's rookie QB's was on the list...   there were bites from Wilson and Luck (which doesn't mean anything because the comments were used only as a tease)....   and Luck's bite was he doesn't think he belongs ANYWHERE on the top-100.  And, as he said it, he had his typical goofy chuckle of a laugh going....

 

In short, Arians is right about Ben and his comment was not a slam on Andrew....

[Pombi9]

Context!   We need some context here.

 

Arians was a guest on the NFL Network's weekly countdown show.

 

They reveal the latest 10 players on their top-100 list every week.  (tonight was 70-61)....   that takes an hour....

 

Then,  they do a one hour reaction show.   Arians was a guest on that show because Roethlisberger was a surprising choice at roughly number 61.   I suspect I'm off a couple, but not by much,  low-60's.    And there are 11 other QB's ranked ahead of Big Ben.

 

Arians was asked for his reaction.    His comments were much broader than just Ben and Andrew.    The Roethlisberger ranking was pretty stunning.   He's the engine of a very good Pittsburgh team.   He's won two Super Bowls.  Arians called Roethlisberger a top-5 QB.   Of course he should be higher, and of course he should be higher than Andrew Luck.   

 

By the way,   Luck would agree.    In previewing next week's show (ranking 60-51)  they said that at least one of the last year's rookie QB's was on the list...   there were bites from Wilson and Luck (which doesn't mean anything because the comments were used only as a tease)....   and Luck's bite was he doesn't think he belongs ANYWHERE on the top-100.  And, as he said it, he had his typical goofy chuckle of a laugh going....

 

In short, Arians is right about Ben and his comment was not a slam on Andrew....

"There are 11 yet-to-be-named quarterbacks ahead of Roethlisberger on the countdown."

From the Aritcle :http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000202195/article/bruce-arians-dont-rank-andrew-luck-over-big-ben - Another article about essentially this same topic.

 

Perhaps another reason hes saying this.

Also I think we all understand the context in which he is saying it, that is how he answered that question, still not many Head CURRENT coaches would have said that. Knowing this headline and multiple articles would ensue.

[BOTT]

Much to do about nothing

[GOCOLTS_ROLLTIDE]

I was watching Mike&Mike yesterday morning and cowherd was on with them. .. He said he asked Bruce a question about the o line in Arizona and his reply was "it's better than indy's"which is\was true but kinda weird how he realized how bad the line was but still forced his aerial attack on a rookie franchise QB.. Now this. What's his gripe

[GOCOLTS_ROLLTIDE]

I was watching Mike&Mike yesterday morning and cowherd was on with them. .. He said he asked Bruce a question about the o line in Arizona and his reply was "it's better than indy's"which is\was true but kinda weird how he realized how bad the line was but still forced his aerial attack on a rookie franchise QB.. Now this. What's his gripe

[a06cc]

I hate The Stealers and that pretty much sums it up for me.

[GoodLuck]

Just thank the almighty that Andrew is still in 1 piece after last yr.

Did he really say that about the oline? Wow, if true

[unitaswestand]

Not sure what the issue is.  Arians is a straight shooter.  It is crazy to put players with 1 year experience over a guy who has Big Bens career.  And this is from a guy who HATES the Steelers and Big Ben.  And the Colts line last year was horrid.  The Cardinals have some talented young lineman on their team this year.  So I see nothing wrong with what he said

[Vance]

No way Luck should be ranked higher (career wise) than Ben. He has 2 rings, a 90+ QB rating, and went 14-1 his rookie year.

[Dan]

Well, it's a ranking for 2012, not their career. I mean, I still think Roethlisberger should have been higher than Luck, but it's not too outlandish to suggest otherwise, it's just that the rings/career wins has absolutely no credence.

[Gavin]

Agree with NCF, I just saw the preview and that is exactly what Luck said, and I believe he belongs on the list but Ben had 26 TD's and only 8 Int's and 3,265 yards missing 3 games, you cant factor the SB's in that conversation because the Steelers  did not even make the playoffs last year but Ben should have been higher then Andrew

[southwest1]

I thought winning Super Bowls was a team thing?

You know that is a darn good point BHC. I am sick & tired of analysts singling out QBs like they won those shiny SB rings all by themselves like the LBs, DE's safeties, cornerbacks, punters, field goal kickers, punt return specialists, kick return specialists, centers, tight ends, wide recievers, guards, nose tackles, & running backs did nothing to win a Championship or several Championships it's disrespectful & insulting. 

 

Thank you BHC for pointing out the pink elephant in the room that no one sees or rarely mentions anyway.     QBs are not a symbolic NFL Messiah that can part the Red Sea & win a  all by themselves.

 

Just ask Tom Brady i.e. 2007 & 2012...He will confirm this salient fact...

[southwest1]

If Big Ben is so fabulous as a NFL field general, why in the Hades did he lose to Aaron Rogers & the Green Bay Packers in Super Bowl XLV Bruce? Care to field that one? 

 

I love how SB loses rarely come up for seasoned veterans.   

[southwest1]

Here's what I wanna know: Why are all NFL QBs ranked against other quarterbacks & not the secondaries & defenses they actually face? Now, that bewilders me actually...

[southwest1]

Context! We need some context here.

Arians was a guest on the NFL Network's weekly countdown show.

They reveal the latest 10 players on their top-100 list every week. (tonight was 70-61).... that takes an hour....

Then, they do a one hour reaction show. Arians was a guest on that show because Roethlisberger was a surprising choice at roughly number 61. I suspect I'm off a couple, but not by much, low-60's. And there are 11 other QB's ranked ahead of Big Ben.

Arians was asked for his reaction. His comments were much broader than just Ben and Andrew. The Roethlisberger ranking was pretty stunning. He's the engine of a very good Pittsburgh team. He's won two Super Bowls. Arians called Roethlisberger a top-5 QB. Of course he should be higher, and of course he should be higher than Andrew Luck.

By the way, Luck would agree. In previewing next week's show (ranking 60-51) they said that at least one of the last year's rookie QB's was on the list... there were bites from Wilson and Luck (which doesn't mean anything because the comments were used only as a tease).... and Luck's bite was he doesn't think he belongs ANYWHERE on the top-100. And, as he said it, he had his typical goofy chuckle of a laugh going....

In short, Arians is right about Ben and his comment was not a slam on Andrew....

A nice reply & yes, I can always count on you for objectivity & context. Thank you NCF!

"He's the engine of a very good Pittsburgh team. He's won two Super Bowls." Yes, that is true, but lately Big Ben has been injured & his body is starting to breakdown. QB availability is part of any field general's legacy & resume too that only usually gets mentioned with long, consecutive starting streaks like Brett Favre or Peyton Manning. Charlie Batch has had to take over the QB reins more & more.

Okay, Luck needs to win more hardware first. Fine. But, Ben needs to stay healthy & I don't think Bruce can really be that honest in his critique of Big Ben myself. If you think a guy walks on water because you molded him, you will never see weaknesses in their game, let alone their apprentice's own physical mortality.

[TMPHBITEU]

A nice reply & yes, I can always count on you for objectivity & context. Thank you NCF!

"He's the engine of a very good Pittsburgh team. He's won two Super Bowls." Yes, that is true, but lately Big Ben has been injured & his body is starting to breakdown. QB availability is part of any field general's legacy & resume too that only usually gets mentioned with long, consecutive starting streaks like Brett Favre or Peyton Manning. Charlie Batch has had to take over the QB reins more & more.

Okay, Luck needs to win more hardware first. Fine. But, Ben needs to stay healthy & I don't think Bruce can really be that honest in his critique of Big Ben myself. If you think a guy walks on water because you molded him, you will never see weaknesses in their game, let alone their apprentice's own physical mortality.

Wouldn't the bolded paragraph similarly relate to Luck?

[southwest1]

Wouldn't the bolded paragraph similarly relate to Luck?

Technically no, because 1 NFL season (2012) doesn't come anywhere close to the time spent tutoring Big Ben in Pittsburg (2007-2011) 4 years vs 1. No real comparison tenure wise or instruction wise IMO.

Next, you will ask me about Peyton Manning (1998–2000) 2 years. Yes, Bruce played a crucial role in starting #18 in the NFL, but Peyton has had Dungy, Caldwell, & now Fox as an HC since then. Peyton is a completely different QB now.

[TMPHBITEU]

Technically no, because 1 NFL season (2012) doesn't come anywhere close to the time spent tutoring Big Ben in Pittsburg (2007-2011) 4 years vs 1. No real comparison tenure wise or instruction wise IMO.

Next, you will ask me about Peyton Manning (1998–2000) 2 years. Yes, Bruce played a crucial role in starting #18 in the NFL, but Peyton has had Dungy, Caldwell, & now Fox as an HC since then. Peyton is a completely different QB now.

Well, actually I was about to say that I believe Arians would be the perfect evaluator of the two, if anyone was to adequately compare their current level of ability.

I do appreciate your ex officio thoughts on Manning though

[james_zeigler1994]

That is where Arians is wrong because A Luck is better than Big Ben already and B Big Ben is a washed up piece of crap.

[Nadine]

There is a video as well as an article here are the main excerpt's, 

When he was told Luck likely will be ranked ahead of Big Ben he said, 

"That surprises me." "Andrew belongs on the list, but he's not at that stage yet. He's got to put a couple rings on his finger and a bunch more wins."

Full article here:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000202195/article/bruce-arians-dont-rank-andrew-luck-over-big-ben   

 

Some here still hold a grudge against Arians, for numerous reasons. I am sure this will only fuel that. While I believe he was simply answering honestly, but he is a HC now and could have easily deflected this topic had he chosen. Appears to me he went out of his way to make this argument.

What do you guys think? A couple more rings seems like a stretch to me.

 

I got nothing but love for Arians. And he is right, Andrew needs to prove himself. Not a terribly shocking thing to say

 

What they were discussing was why would the players drop their ranking of Ben so much this year. And that's a good question.

 

A bigger question for me is who has a grudge against Arians?

[Mouthfire]

There is a video as well as an article here are the main excerpt's,

When he was told Luck likely will be ranked ahead of Big Ben he said,

"That surprises me." "Andrew belongs on the list, but he's not at that stage yet. He's got to put a couple rings on his finger and a bunch more wins."

Full article here:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000202195/article/bruce-arians-dont-rank-andrew-luck-over-big-ben

Some here still hold a grudge against Arians, for numerous reasons. I am sure this will only fuel that. While I believe he was simply answering honestly, but he is a HC now and could have easily deflected this topic had he chosen. Appears to me he went out of his way to make this argument.

What do you guys think? A couple more rings seems like a stretch to me.

Wow... People are really thin-skinned around here...

First, the whiny "everyone thinks RG3/WIlson is better than Luck" thread, now this one...

Arians is correct. Luck agrees. End of thread.

Not everything is a grudge or personal vendetta, people....

[HarassedOffTheSite]

When he was told Luck likely will be ranked ahead of Big Ben he said, 

"That surprises me." "Andrew belongs on the list, but he's not at that stage yet. He's got to put a couple rings on his finger and a bunch more wins."

 

He's not talking from a fan's perspective. He doesn't rank Luck on potential...he ranks him on accomplishments. And using that standard, he is definitely correct. However, he'd be lying through his teeth if he said Andrew doesnt have a greater upside than Rapelisburger ever had. Or that Andrew's football I.Q. isn't overwhelmingly higher. The fact is they (Pittsburgh) had to dumb down the playbook for Ben. The exact opposite happened with Andrew.

 

 

Some here still hold a grudge against Arians...

 

??? I was unaware of that.

 

 

...he is a HC now and could have easily deflected this topic had he chosen. Appears to me he went out of his way to make this argument.

 

Arians is a straight shooter....and from a certain legitimate perspective he gave a straight-forward answer. IMO there's nothing to see here.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

     I don't understand why it is only being asked if Luck should be rated higher. They need to ask "Should any rookie QB be ranked higher than Ben?"

 

???

 

They obviously asked him that question because he has coached both players.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

...it does sound insulting. Especially for being his coach and all.

 

That is nonsense. Answering a question honestly is not insulting.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

...he asked Bruce a question about the o line in Arizona and his reply was "it's better than indy's" which is\was true but kinda weird how he realized how bad the line was but still forced his aerial attack on a rookie franchise QB.

 

Really? That does beg the question. Good observation.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

A bigger question for me is who has a grudge against Arians?

 

Yeah, I was like wait, what?! Maybe the OP hadn't logged on since last season's week 3. ;)

[Everyone]

???

 

They obviously asked him that question because he has coached both players.

I know they asked Arians that question, I'm asking why Arians needed to be asked the damn question period. There is no reason to single out one rookie qb from a list of 3 choices that could be ranked higher than Ben.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

I know they asked Arians that question

 

So now you understand.

[Everyone]

So now you understand.

lol, do you have a disorder of some type or are you just always an anus?

[HarassedOffTheSite]

lol, do you have a disorder of some type or are you just always an anus?

 

I'm sorry. was I not bitter enough for you? Does it bother you that I did not find an axe to grind? 

 

You made a clear and unambiguous statement: "I don't understand why it is only being asked if Luck should be rated higher."

 

I gave you a clear and unambiguous response: "They obviously asked him that question because he has coached both players."

 

How it came off the rails for you is your problem. Stop hating so hard.

[Mouthfire]

I know they asked Arians that question, I'm asking why Arians needed to be asked the darn question period. There is no reason to single out one rookie qb from a list of 3 choices that could be ranked higher than Ben.

Because that's what the NFL Network does? You know, like asking people their viewpoints and what not?

[chad72]

I thought winning Super Bowls was a team thing?

 

Only if it suits the argument you are making , lol

[TKnight24]

Bruce Arians should stop lying to himself & others. The Steelers defense is what made them (and Ben) so good over the years.

We all got to see it this year. When the defense isn't healthy and at is best, the Steelers are just an average team. I've NEVER seen a game when Big Ben out dueled another QB except the Steelers vs Giants game in his rookie year. Most games the defense scored points or created good field position for Ben. In their SB loss it became clear that Big Ben isn't fit for shootouts and relies heavily on that Defense. Packers defense had him looking like a rookie QB fresh off the bench

And stop with the Ring comparison!!! It's a team effort to WIN a SB. Cause Peyton definitely didn't win that SB vs CHI for us. Defense and our run game that both suddenly came alive won the game for us

[coltsfanatic24]

Big Ben wasn't the reason the Steerlers beat the Seahawks in the superbowl, it was the defense. Big Ben has been on a top 5 defense his entire career and he wasn't the MVP for the Steerlers win over the Cardinals. I do think Ben is a top 10 QB and slighty ahead of Luck because of his experience but if your gonna bring up rings he should have been the main reason they won the superbowl and Ben wasn't.