Most Underrated / Overrated Colts of all time (merge)

[GoColts8818]

Not at all. Peyton Manning led this team to double figures in victories and annual playoff appearances for 12 years. He gets hurt for one year and the team goes to 2-14 and he is released. What does he do, why he goes 13-3 and leads his team to the playoffs of course. Manning was never full appreciated in Indy and had many naysayers among their spoiled fans.

 

Andrew Luck is the most overrated and overhyped NFL player of all time. He takes his 54% completion percentage and his 76.5 and 26th rated QB rating and everyone raves about how good he is. He may eventually be that good, he may not but he is certainly vastly overrated.

I disagree with the idea that Manning was not fully appreciated in Indy.  People LOVE Peyton Manning and are beyond grateful for what he did for this team and city.  It's gotten to the point you can't say anything negative about him without someone attacking you for it and people tend to discredit anyone else who was here when Manning was here and give that credit to Manning for this team winning.  That's not someone who wasn't fully appreciated. In fact, people want to build the man a statue when he is done playing and frankly I am all for that idea.  I am sorry but he was anything but not fully appreciated while he was here.  Pointing out someone wasn't perfect doesn't mean you don't appreciate them. 

 

Andrew Luck is also far from over rated.  That same team that feel to 2-14 without Manning was 10-6 the year before with Manning, the year after 2-14 Andrew Luck won 11 games with them as a rookie.  Does that mean Luck is better than Manning right now?  Of course not, but it does mean he's doing something right.  Andrew Luck is backing up the hype around him.  It's a process and you need more than one year of a sample to make a fair judgment. 

 

By the way Andrew Luck's 54% completion percentage is only two percentage points below Manning's 56% completion percentage as a rookie.  Andrew Luck is not a finished product yet so people need to stop trying to judging him like he is.  If you want to compare him to other QBs then compare him to other rookie QBs and when you do that Andrew Luck had one of the top five rookie seasons for a rookie QB all-time.  If that's not reason enough to be encouraged about what he will develop into I don't know what is. 

[Dark Superman]

Cato June was so overrated.

[BigMac]

I disagree with the idea that Manning was not fully appreciated in Indy.  People LOVE Peyton Manning and are beyond grateful for what he did for this team and city.  It's gotten to the point you can't say anything negative about him without someone attacking you for it and people tend to discredit anyone else who was here when Manning was here and give that credit to Manning for this team winning.  That's not someone who wasn't fully appreciated. In fact, people want to build the man a statue when he is done playing and frankly I am all for that idea.  I am sorry but he was anything but not fully appreciated while he was here.  Pointing out someone wasn't perfect doesn't mean you don't appreciate them. 

 

Andrew Luck is also far from over rated.  That same team that feel to 2-14 without Manning was 10-6 the year before with Manning, the year after 2-14 Andrew Luck won 11 games with them as a rookie.  Does that mean Luck is better than Manning right now?  Of course not, but it does mean he's doing something right.  Andrew Luck is backing up the hype around him.  It's a process and you need more than one year of a sample to make a fair judgment. 

 

By the way Andrew Luck's 54% completion percentage is only two percentage points below Manning's 56% completion percentage as a rookie.  Andrew Luck is not a finished product yet so people need to stop trying to judging him like he is.  If you want to compare him to other QBs then compare him to other rookie QBs and when you do that Andrew Luck had one of the top five rookie seasons for a rookie QB all-time.  If that's not reason enough to be encouraged about what he will develop into I don't know what is. 

 

Apparently you missed all of those "Suck for Luck" signs. The fans in Indy have some responsibility in his being run out of town. I call that disrespect and under appreciation.

 

Hard to see how Luck had one of the top five QB rookie seasons in NFL history when he was clearly third or perhaps even fourth among last years rookies. He threw the ball a lot. He threw it long a lot. He had a low completion percentage. That doesn't equate to a top five season all time. He may turn out to be top five of all time but he has a lot to prove before that can be said.

[Superman]

Apparently you missed all of those "Suck for Luck" signs. The fans in Indy have some responsibility in his being run out of town. I call that disrespect and under appreciation.

 

Hard to see how Luck had one of the top five QB rookie seasons in NFL history when he was clearly third or perhaps even fourth among last years rookies. He threw the ball a lot. He threw it long a lot. He had a low completion percentage. That doesn't equate to a top five season all time. He may turn out to be top five of all time but he has a lot to prove before that can be said.

 

Based on what?

[House]

Apparently you missed all of those "Suck for Luck" signs. The fans in Indy have some responsibility in his being run out of town. I call that disrespect and under appreciation.

Hard to see how Luck had one of the top five QB rookie seasons in NFL history when he was clearly third or perhaps even fourth among last years rookies. He threw the ball a lot. He threw it long a lot. He had a low completion percentage. That doesn't equate to a top five season all time. He may turn out to be top five of all time but he has a lot to prove before that can be said.

The fans literally had nothing to do with Manning's release.

I'm not sure how you make the jump from you seeing a couple "Suck for Luck" signs, to the fans running Peyton out of town.

There is zero correlation.

The only Rookie QB last year that looked as good as Andrew was RG3. So I don't see how he was "Clearly 3rd or 4th." Unless your criteria is looking pretty on the stat sheet only.

[BigMac]

Based on what?

 

His QB rating was 26th. RGII and Wilson were miles better than Luck and Cleveland's rookie QB and Tannihill were not that far behind. Tannihill is getting rave reviews for improvement in Miami and he might turn out to be the best of the five in the next couple of years.

[BigMac]

The fans literally had nothing to do with Manning's release.

I'm not sure how you make the jump from you seeing a couple "Suck for Luck" signs, to the fans running Peyton out of town.

There is zero correlation.

The only Rookie QB last year that looked as good as Andrew was RG3. So I don't see how he was "Clearly 3rd or 4th." Unless your criteria is looking pretty on the stat sheet only.

 

Wilson was also ahead of him. I think Tannihill will pass him this year unless he can improve that completion percentage and, yes, the stats tell the tale...

[BigMac]

Wilson was also ahead of him. I think Tannihill will pass him this year unless he can improve that completion percentage and, yes, the stats tell the tale...

[House]

Wilson was also ahead of him. I think Tannihill will pass him this year unless he can improve that completion percentage and, yes, the stats tell the tale...

At no point in the year did any rookie impress me as much as Luck besides Griffin. Wilson had a nice year, but his defense and run game sheltered him from a lot of the things Andrew dealt with.

Luck not only had no OLine, he had no defense and no run game. Not to mention basically one reciever with any real experience. Avery was nice, but he is a flawed WR.

Was he as pretty statistically? No. But his intangibles were off the charts. His approach, his come backs, and his poise impressed me more than anything else.

[House]

His QB rating was 26th. RGII and Wilson were miles better than Luck and Cleveland's rookie QB and Tannihill were not that far behind. Tannihill is getting rave reviews for improvement in Miami and he might turn out to be the best of the five in the next couple of years.

Weeden wasn't far behind Luck? What sport are you watching lol.

He had an okay year at best, and you couldn't even bother remembering his name that's how forgettable he is

[BOTT]

Wilson was also ahead of him. I think Tannihill will pass him this year unless he can improve that completion percentage and, yes, the stats tell the tale...

The stats tell the tale of a stubborn OC who likes to throw deep despite a pathetic Oline. Anyone with a moderate football IQ has pointed out how great Luck was despite his circumstance.

[BigMac]

At no point in the year did any rookie impress me as much as Luck besides Griffin. Wilson had a nice year, but his defense and run game sheltered him from a lot of the things Andrew dealt with.

Luck not only had no OLine, he had no defense and no run game. Not to mention basically one reciever with any real experience. Avery was nice, but he is a flawed WR.

Was he as pretty statistically? No. But his intangibles were off the charts. His approach, his come backs, and his poise impressed me more than anything else.

 

Now we are on to what Luck really led the league in, excuses....

[BigMac]

Weeden wasn't far behind Luck? What sport are you watching lol.

He had an okay year at best, and you couldn't even bother remembering his name that's how forgettable he is

 

I remember his name quite well and his stats were better than Luck's.

[House]

Now we are on to what Luck really led the league in, excuses....

Lol facts are excuses. Got it. Putting that in my "Don't want to be told anything dissenting from my own opinion" memory bank.

[House]

I remember his name quite well and his stats were better than Luck's.

You knew his name so well you called him "That QB in Cleveland."

[Dustin]

I remember his name quite well and his stats were better than Luck's.

 

No they weren't.

 

He had a 3% higher completion percentage and that's about it.

 

His passer rating was 4 points lower. He averaged less yards per attempts, a lower TD percentage, lower total TDs, a much higher INT percentage, and a lower AN/Y.

 

This, all while playing behind one of the league's 3rd best pass blocking O-line. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/01/28/ranking-the-2012-offensive-lines/4/

[Gavin]

Apparently you missed all of those "Suck for Luck" signs. The fans in Indy have some responsibility in his being run out of town. I call that disrespect and under appreciation.

 

Hard to see how Luck had one of the top five QB rookie seasons in NFL history when he was clearly third or perhaps even fourth among last years rookies. He threw the ball a lot. He threw it long a lot. He had a low completion percentage. That doesn't equate to a top five season all time. He may turn out to be top five of all time but he has a lot to prove before that can be said.

How in the world can you justify him not having a top 5 at the very least rookie QB season of all time when he threw for more yard then Manning did his rookie year, threw less ints, threw 5 MORE passes then Manning and only was off his 56.7 rookie completion percentage by 2.6 percent, That does not even factor in Lucks 5 rushing td's and the fact that he was sacked 19 more times his rookie year then Manning. He had an up down year, he was a rookie behind a O Line that I would not trust putting my 1 year old nephew behind for fear he would get killed because of the imcompetant blocking, As for fans bearing some responsibility for Manning being drove out of town, That may be true or it may not. The writing was on the wall regardless, Irsay has proven he wont let fans sway his idea for the team easily...Eh why bother your going stick with your Peyton is God mantra regardless, Peyton had a GREAT career as a Colt and always has a home in Indy but the team comes before the player, Even Manning

[Superman]

His QB rating was 26th. RGII and Wilson were miles better than Luck and Cleveland's rookie QB and Tannihill were not that far behind. Tannihill is getting rave reviews for improvement in Miami and he might turn out to be the best of the five in the next couple of years.

 

Because QB rating is the sole determining factor in who played well at quarterback...

 

You mentioned in another post that Luck led the league in "excuses." Are you going to ignore the poor offensive line play (in comparison with Griffin, especially), the poor defense (in comparison with Wilson)? The poor running game, in comparison with practically any other quarterback in the league? Do those things not matter in evaluating a quarterback? Does passer rating hold sway over them all?

 

Luck threw 27% of his passes further than 15 yards down the field, third highest in the league. The Colts gave up 41 sacks, 9th worst. Seattle and Washington used play action twice as much as the Colts, which is mostly a function of having a significant running game. The Colts called over 200 more passing plays than those two teams. That should paint a quick portrait of the differences in circumstances, in turn helping someone to appreciate why passer rating isn't the be-all/end-all. 

 

But what's really impressive about Andrew Luck is the way he played with the game on the line, and on third down. Best ever for a rookie on third down, excellent even for a veteran on third and long, 68% completion rate on game-ending drives (adjusted for spikes). 

 

His efficiency numbers need improvement, absolutely. And that's the primary reason someone can say that he wasn't head and shoulders above the other rookies. I agree with that. But you're selling him way short with this passer rating-based argument.

[GoColts8818]

Apparently you missed all of those "Suck for Luck" signs. The fans in Indy have some responsibility in his being run out of town. I call that disrespect and under appreciation.

 

Hard to see how Luck had one of the top five QB rookie seasons in NFL history when he was clearly third or perhaps even fourth among last years rookies. He threw the ball a lot. He threw it long a lot. He had a low completion percentage. That doesn't equate to a top five season all time. He may turn out to be top five of all time but he has a lot to prove before that can be said.

A lot of those people did "Suck for Luck" signs because it was the in thing to do or because they thought they would stash Luck on the bench behind Peyton Manning for a couple of years.  Look at how people reacted once they realized we were going to give up Peyton Manning to realize that people loved him. 

 

They fans have no responsibility for this.  For starters when they released Peyton most fans rallied around Peyton and were out raged that the Colts were releasing him, so they were on Peyton's "side" which again isn't something you do if you don't respect a guy.  Jim Irsay was going to cut Peyton Manning for Andrew Luck because of the situation regardless of how the fans felt about it.  Read his twitter page when the decision was made to realize that many fans let him know they didn't like this decision and Irsay still did it.  Also, as much as I like Peyton Manning and beyond thankful for what he did for my favorite team it was the right football decision to be made even if it wasn't popular which it wasn't. 

 

Fourth of last year's rookie QBs really?  Now you are just sounding like someone who just can't stand that the Colts released Peyton Manning and wants Andrew Luck to fail because he's the guy who is replacing Peyton.  Any objective look at numbers last year would tell you Luck was at worst the third best rookie QB out there last year and you could argue he was the best or second depending on how you wanted to look at things. 

 

New flash, last year's QB class of Wilson, Luck, and RG3 was REALLY good.  Like the best rookie QB class to come into the NFL ever good.  All three of them rank in the top five rookie QB season of all-time along with Manning's and Cam Newton's from the year before. 

 

Honestly sit back and look at these numbers:

 

57% completion percentage, 26 TDs, 28 INTs, Rating of 71.2 for 233 yards a game with 22 sacks

 

54% completion percentage, 23 TDs, 18 INTs, Rating of 76.5 for 273 yards a game with 41 sacks

 

Are either set that much better than the others?  Also add in the fact Andrew ran for five TDs and about 15 yards a game and Luck's numbers are on par with if not slightly better than Peyton's as a rookie.  Factor in Luck got sacked almost twice as much as Manning did as a rookie and yeah there is a reason why fans are so excited about what Andrew Luck can grow into.  That's not disrespecting Peyton Manning, it's accepting that he's gone and embracing what's here.  It's a part of sports.  When Peyton is done playing I am sure you are going to once again to see ground swell of support from the fans for the Colts to honor Peyton Manning in anyway the Colts can think of including his number being officially retired, being put in the ring of honor, and maybe even a statue being built for him.  Those aren't things you do for a guy if you don't appreciate him. 

[BigMac]

You knew his name so well you called him "That QB in Cleveland."

 

And that means I didn't know his name? Odd..... 

[BigMac]

Because QB rating is the sole determining factor in who played well at quarterback...

 

You mentioned in another post that Luck led the league in "excuses." Are you going to ignore the poor offensive line play (in comparison with Griffin, especially), the poor defense (in comparison with Wilson)? The poor running game, in comparison with practically any other quarterback in the league? Do those things not matter in evaluating a quarterback? Does passer rating hold sway over them all?

 

Luck threw 27% of his passes further than 15 yards down the field, third highest in the league. The Colts gave up 41 sacks, 9th worst. Seattle and Washington used play action twice as much as the Colts, which is mostly a function of having a significant running game. The Colts called over 200 more passing plays than those two teams. That should paint a quick portrait of the differences in circumstances, in turn helping someone to appreciate why passer rating isn't the be-all/end-all. 

 

But what's really impressive about Andrew Luck is the way he played with the game on the line, and on third down. Best ever for a rookie on third down, excellent even for a veteran on third and long, 68% completion rate on game-ending drives (adjusted for spikes). 

 

His efficiency numbers need improvement, absolutely. And that's the primary reason someone can say that he wasn't head and shoulders above the other rookies. I agree with that. But you're selling him way short with this passer rating-based argument.

 

More excuses.....

[GoColts8818]

More excuses.....

just because facts don't back up what you want to be true does not make them excuses.

[Gavin]

More excuses.....

Basically its a waste of time because your still boohooing because Irsay chose the potential for many more years of success rather then role the dice on not knowing how healthy Manning was at the time and ignore the fact that Luck was arguably as good or better then Manning was his rookie year once you factor in all the numbers , and  dont care nearly as much about the team as you do about one player

[Dustin]

BigMac sounds a lot like OlBlu

[House]

And that means I didn't know his name? Odd.....

You listed every name, but his but sure why not lol.

Typically people use "That guy/girl" to indicate an individual they don't know/know the name of. But I guess common sense is odd.....

[House]

BigMac sounds a lot like OlBlu

Oh noes.

[Gavin]

You listed every name, but his but sure why not lol.

Typically people use "That guy/girl" to indicate an individual they don't know/know the name of. But I guess common sense is odd.....

your wasting your time, He is not willing to listen to reason, He has his agenda and that is Manning is God and Luck sucks and thats his story and he is sticking to it, Andrew Luck could have had 30 td's and he still would have sucked, Why? Because he is not Manning

[House]

your wasting your time, He is not willing to listen to reason, He has his agenda and that is Manning is God and Luck sucks and thats his story and he is sticking to it, Andrew Luck could have had 30 td's and he still would have sucked, Why? Because he is not Manning

Oh I know lol. The classic signs of Post traumatic Peytonism disorder are very clear.

[BigMac]

You listed every name, but his but sure why not lol.

Typically people use "That guy/girl" to indicate an individual they don't know/know the name of. But I guess common sense is odd.....

 

Laziness, I didn't want to bother looking up how it was spelled.....

[House]

Laziness, I didn't want to bother looking up how it was spelled.....

Definitely a hard name to spell.

[BOTT]

"Me still butt hurt over Peyton leaving, me hate Luck."

[Jules]

BigMac sounds a lot like OlBlu

 

:yes:

[xMarvin88x]

This is the worst list ever. Peyton is overrated? Bob Sanders won us a Superbowl. Marvin and Reggie are left off the underrated list... Hell Edge was underrated too.

[Gramz]

BigMac sounds a lot like OlBlu

you mean this guy...  :36dancing:     sorry, couldn't resist....  

[MAC]

you mean this guy...  :36dancing:     sorry, couldn't resist....  

Nooooooooooooo

 

I was ALMOST ready to not get :sick: when seeing that. Back to the starting line.

[T Y Goodbye]

I always thought that Jeff herrod was vastly underrated

 

 

    Def Interceptions Fumbles Tackles     Year Age Tm * No. G GS Sk Int Yds TD Lng PD FF Fmb FR Yds TD Tkl Ast Sfty AV 1988 22 IND   54 16 0 1.0                     22 0   1 1989 23 IND LILB 54 15 14 2.0           2 0 0 0 0 154 0   7 1990 24 IND LILB 54 13 13 4.0 1 12 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 155 0   6 1991 25 IND RILB 54 14 14 2.5 1 25 0 25 0 0 0 3 0 0 160 0   5 1992 26 IND RILB 54 16 16 2.0 1 4 0 4 0           138 0   8 1993 27 IND RLB 54 14 14 2.0 1 29 0 29 0 0 0 1 0 1 142 0   6 1994 28 IND MLB 54 15 15 1.0           1 0 0 0 0 99 39   7 1995 29 IND MLB 54 16 16             2 0 0 0 0 82 42   8 1996 30 IND MLB 54 14 14   1 68 1 68 0           53 19   6 1997 31 PHI lb 54 10 2                       6 1   1 1998 32 IND mlb 54 10 7                       31 13   2 Career         153 125 14.5 5 138 1 68 0 6 0 4 0 1 1042 114   57

[colts_100nascar17fan]

I agree 100% Jeff Herrod, he was pro bowl material!

I always thought that Jeff herrod was vastly underrated

Def Interceptions Fumbles Tackles Year Age Tm * No. G GS Sk Int Yds TD Lng PD FF Fmb FR Yds TD Tkl Ast Sfty AV 1988 22 IND 54 16 0 1.0 22 0 1 1989 23 IND LILB 54 15 14 2.0 2 0 0 0 0 154 0 7 1990 24 IND LILB 54 13 13 4.0 1 12 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 155 0 6 1991 25 IND RILB 54 14 14 2.5 1 25 0 25 0 0 0 3 0 0 160 0 5 1992 26 IND RILB 54 16 16 2.0 1 4 0 4 0 138 0 8 1993 27 IND RLB 54 14 14 2.0 1 29 0 29 0 0 0 1 0 1 142 0 6 1994 28 IND MLB 54 15 15 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 99 39 7 1995 29 IND MLB 54 16 16 2 0 0 0 0 82 42 8 1996 30 IND MLB 54 14 14 1 68 1 68 0 53 19 6 1997 31 PHI lb 54 10 2 6 1 1 1998 32 IND mlb 54 10 7 31 13 2 Career 153 125 14.5 5 138 1 68 0 6 0 4 0 1 1042 114 57

[colts_100nascar17fan]

Too the * that says Luck is overrated n manning was run out of town: It made sense to go after Luck,much younger with huge upside and instant pro bowl caliber play and will only get greater n greater which will lead to one of the all time greats barring injury! All that considered the next several drafts have below average qbs n no johnny football would not been the answer. The best move was now with luck not b stuck scrambling for a good qb,duh

Edited July 5, 2013 by Nadine
masked profanity

[colts_100nascar17fan]

Jeff herrod by far most underrated,prolly one of most underrated alltime. Was a probowl caliber player with stats to back it up, would loved to see them/him in super bowl in 95/96 season!

[jvan1973]

peyton's contribution to the game is not in question. its his ability to win games when they matter most. when you go one and done 9 times, there is something wrong

last time i checked Peyton didn't play defense. Football is a team game