Which of these players has a better case for MVP?

[amfootball]

But according to the stats, the Colts D was terrible, especially if you're using the raw stats. They were 26th in yards allowed, 21st in points allowed. Passing yards, 21st, rushing yards, 29th, 20th in interceptions, 32nd in fumbles forced. 

 

(I'm not sure how Reggie gets numbers without Luck throwing him the ball. His achievements are an extension of Luck's.)

That is why I said you have to look at the individual games to determine why the team won each game. But really every QB is judged on his ability to complete passes and not turn over the ball. I guarantee you that if Luck had anywhere near 23 TOs this year and under 55 percent completion many would be questioning if the Colts made a mistake drafting him with the first pick.

[braveheartcolt]

And I think you are being dismissive of the Colts D to step up in many of those wins and Reggie Wayne who helped Luck complete many of those third downs. Luck had his moments for sure but overall his rookie season looked like a rookie season - poor completion percentage, lots of picks and fumbles, bad decisions, many sacks from holding the ball too long, etc. For sure his second season has been much better and why do we think it is so much better? Because his first season simply wasn't.

You are just truly an embarrassment. You just CANNOT STAND anyone but Golden Boy to be good. It's becoming funny now. Poor you.  

[amfootball]

You are just truly an embarrassment. You just CANNOT STAND anyone but Golden Boy to be good. It's becoming funny now. Poor you.  

It is impossible for you to post without being insulting, isn't it? Good grief...

[braveheartcolt]

It is your constant barrage of manufactured arguments that I insult, because you are deliberately playing a game. One I shall not participate in ever again. So rest easy, no more insults from me ever again. Bye.

[amfootball]

It is your constant barrage of manufactured arguments that I insult, because you are deliberately playing a game. One I shall not participate in ever again. So rest easy, no more insults from me ever again. Bye.

Promise?

[Superman]

That is why I said you have to look at the individual games to determine why the team won each game. But really every QB is judged on his ability to complete passes and not turn over the ball. I guarantee you that if Luck had anywhere near 23 TOs this year and under 55 percent completion many would be questioning if the Colts made a mistake drafting him with the first pick.

 

To the bolded, that's not the only way you judge a quarterback. Those two things are very important. You're insisting that they trump all other analysis, practically rendering any other metric irrelevant. That's false.

 

If Luck had 23 TOs and 54% completions this season, people would be upset. Young QBs are expected to improve from year to year. People were upset last year. But him being a mistake would depend on many additional factors (including some beyond stats). Statistically speaking, Luck's rookie year is redeemed by his transcendent ability on third down --  yes, transcendent, the best in the league by some measures -- and his play with the game on the line. While many of us were dismayed with the turnovers and low completion percentage, we still knew he was special because of the way he came through in big situations (third down, and late in games).

 

But that doesn't matter to you; only completion percentage and TOs, to the exclusion of everything else.

 

What advanced metrics do is help you to look at stats and get a better idea why the game went the way it did, beyond the obvious. Metrics like TD% or INT% or adjusted yards/attempt help to put multiple stats in context with each other. You can ignore those, but your only reason for doing so appears to be so you can hold on to your overstatement that Luck's rookie season was "lousy." 

[amfootball]

To the bolded, that's not the only way you judge a quarterback. Those two things are very important. You're insisting that they trump all other analysis, practically rendering any other metric irrelevant. That's false.

 

If Luck had 23 TOs and 54% completions this season, people would be upset. Young QBs are expected to improve from year to year. People were upset last year. But him being a mistake would depend on many additional factors (including some beyond stats). Statistically speaking, Luck's rookie year is redeemed by his transcendent ability on third down --  yes, transcendent, the best in the league by some measures -- and his play with the game on the line. While many of us were dismayed with the turnovers and low completion percentage, we still knew he was special because of the way he came through in big situations (third down, and late in games).

 

But that doesn't matter to you; only completion percentage and TOs, to the exclusion of everything else.

 

What advanced metrics do is help you to look at stats and get a better idea why the game went the way it did, beyond the obvious. Metrics like TD% or INT% or adjusted yards/attempt help to put multiple stats in context with each other. You can ignore those, but your only reason for doing so appears to be so you can hold on to your overstatement that Luck's rookie season was "lousy." 

"Transcendent ability on third down" Really? lol. And to the bolded - you sound like Brady fans. In the end you want a winner and guy who is good situationally even if he is not very good prior to the game being on the line. But as you always like to say, it is a team game and Luck does not get those ops without good play from his defense and offensive teammates like Wayne making plays.

 

I never said completion and TOs were the only stat or exclusive to everything else so please don't put words in my mouth but they are the most important. That can't be emphasized enough. All you have to look at is the number of games that came down to the wire last year for the Colts vs this year. Luck's better play, most importantly the decrease in TOs and increased passing percentage, is why the Colts have put away games before the final minutes of a game.

 

It is also why many here on this forum said they would prefer less passing yards from Luck this year if it means less TOs.

[dw49]

lets she what happens in year 2 of their NFL careers . . .

 

 

Pretty similar stat wise. Brady in the playoffs was a game manager while Bellichick devised 120 different ways to hold Marshal Faulk. 

 

Besides that , no one is saying Luck is better than Brady in his prime. We were (mostly in fun) comparing 2013.

[amfootball]

Pretty similar stat wise. Brady in the playoffs was a game manager while Bellichick devised 120 different ways to hold Marshal Faulk. 

 

Besides that , no one is saying Luck is better than Brady in his prime. We were (mostly in fun) comparing 2013.

 to the bolded. It will not surprise you to know that I have watched that Super Bowl thousands of times and every time I wonder why Martz just didn't hand the ball off to Faulk. He kept passing and passing and the Pats just kept mauling Faulk. It was great.

[dw49]

when the colts went 2-14, they were lead by no starting QB in 2011 . . . so prior to Luck's start as a QB his team was lead by a team that did not have a real starter at QB and he then went 11-5 . . .

 

in the year/games prior to Brady coming to be a starter the Pats, lead by a franchise QB, where 5-11 and 0-2 so a combined 5-13, with the same coaching staff, and Brady thereafter went 11-3 . . .

 

so with Luck we have 2-14 to 11-5 and with Brady we have 5-13 to 11-3, so not much of a difference when one looks at it, especially when the latter was lead previously be a franchise QB and same coaching staff . . .

 

 

Not too many teams that go 2-14 don't have major issues at QB. Kinda comes with the territory.

[Superman]

"Transcendent ability on third down" Really? lol.

 

Yes. A definition for transcendent is "better or greater than what is usual." If you weren't so dismissive of advanced stats, I'd post links showing how Luck was in the top third among all QBs on third down performance by several measures, and was the only rookie or first year starter to be ranked anywhere near that high across the board.

 

If you'd like a less glowing term, I'll say he excelled on third down. The point stands.

 

And to the bolded - you sound like Brady fans. In the end you want a winner and guy who is good situationally even if he is not very good prior to the game being on the line.

 

Umm, everyone wants someone who is good situationally, and with the game on the line. This isn't specific to Brady fans. 

 

But as you always like to say, it is a team game and Luck does not get those ops without good play from his defense and offensive teammates like Wayne making plays.

 

It absolutely is a team game. Problem is, if you exclude advanced metrics, you can't show me good play from the Colts as a team. The stats are "lousy," to use your term. Especially on defense. Unless you're willing to include advanced metrics to make your point in this regard, while you exclude them in other areas. Would be in keeping with your pattern.

 

As for Reggie Wayne, his stats are Luck's stats, and that goes for every other Colts player to catch a pass last season.

 

I never said completion and TOs were the only stat or exclusive to everything else so please don't put words in my mouth

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You've dug this hole for yourself:

http://forums.colts.com/topic/24717-which-of-these-players-has-a-better-case-for-mvp/?p=693224

 

the two most important stats of any QB is his ability to complete passes and protect the football. Luck threw at 54 percent and had 18 picks and 10 fumbles (5 lost). That is a lousy season no matter the other stats.

 

You've implied that "lousy" completion percentage and TOs are all that matter.

 

but they are the most important. That can't be emphasized enough.

 

I really don't agree. And if that were the case, it would mean that Luck IS more deserving of MVP recognition in 2013 than Brady, by virtue of fewer TOs and a nearly identical completion percentage.

 

There are so many statistical measures that go into judging QB play. TOs and completion % are very important, but they are no more important than adjusted yards/attempt, TD% and INT%, along with other, more involved stats (like third down performance, etc.)

The only reason you're claiming that TOs and completion percentage are the most important is because that's the only way you can hold on to this flawed (read: FALSE) argument that Luck's rookie year was statistically "lousy." I'll give you that the TOs and completion percentage were "lousy"; that doesn't undermine any of the other stats, like yardage, TDs, rushing TDs, third down conversions, etc. 

 

All you have to look at is the number of games that came down to the wire last year for the Colts vs this year. Luck's better play, most importantly the decrease in TOs and increased passing percentage, is why the Colts have put away games before the final minutes of a game.

It is also why many here on this forum said they would prefer less passing yards from Luck this year if it means less TOs.

IMO

 

That's fine. But those aren't the only to stats that Luck is improved in this year. His TD% is higher, in INT% is lower, his adjusted yards/attempt is higher, his sack% is lower, his passer rating is higher, he has more rushing yards and more yards/rushing attempt. 

 

And by the way, he's not as good on third down as he was in 2012, so it's not all better. (Many factors to consider there, and they have little to do with completion percentage and TOs.)

[amfootball]

 

Yes. A definition for transcendent is "better or greater than what is usual." If you weren't so dismissive of advanced stats, I'd post links showing how Luck was in the top third among all QBs on third down performance by several measures, and was the only rookie or first year starter to be ranked anywhere near that high across the board.

 

If you'd like a less glowing term, I'll say he excelled on third down. The point stands.

 

 

Umm, everyone wants someone who is good situationally, and with the game on the line. This isn't specific to Brady fans. 

 

 

It absolutely is a team game. Problem is, if you exclude advanced metrics, you can't show me good play from the Colts as a team. The stats are "lousy," to use your term. Especially on defense. Unless you're willing to include advanced metrics to make your point in this regard, while you exclude them in other areas. Would be in keeping with your pattern.

 

As for Reggie Wayne, his stats are Luck's stats, and that goes for every other Colts player to catch a pass last season.

 

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You've dug this hole for yourself:

http://forums.colts.com/topic/24717-which-of-these-players-has-a-better-case-for-mvp/?p=693224

 

 

You've implied that "lousy" completion percentage and TOs are all that matter.

 

 

I really don't agree. And if that were the case, it would mean that Luck IS more deserving of MVP recognition in 2013 than Brady, by virtue of fewer TOs and a nearly identical completion percentage.

 

There are so many statistical measures that go into judging QB play. TOs and completion % are very important, but they are no more important than adjusted yards/attempt, TD% and INT%, along with other, more involved stats (like third down performance, etc.)

The only reason you're claiming that TOs and completion percentage are the most important is because that's the only way you can hold on to this flawed (read: FALSE) argument that Luck's rookie year was statistically "lousy." I'll give you that the TOs and completion percentage were "lousy"; that doesn't undermine any of the other stats, like yardage, TDs, rushing TDs, third down conversions, etc. 

 

 

That's fine. But those aren't the only to stats that Luck is improved in this year. His TD% is higher, in INT% is lower, his adjusted yards/attempt is higher, his sack% is lower, his passer rating is higher, he has more rushing yards and more yards/rushing attempt. 

 

And by the way, he's not as good on third down as he was in 2012, so it's not all better. (Many factors to consider there, and they have little to do with completion percentage and TOs.)

You realize this thread is bogus, right? Neither Luck or Brady are deserving of MVP this year.

 

But back to Luck's season. You can throw in advanced metrics all you want but it does not change the fact that his inability to take care of the ball and complete passes were lousy and those are the main judging points for a QB. Every HC and GM would agree here. It does not mean he was horrible or didn't do other things well in terms of situational football or third down but like I said if he continued to have the same type of season this year as last year in regards to those TWO areas many would question if he was the guy to lead the Colts long term. And that point really can't be debated. And as I said before, this season would not be touted as much as it has been if his INTs and percentage were not so bad last year. And that has been my main point all along. The comparison of the two seasons are stark in those two main areas and like you said his third down percentage is worse this year yet no one is talking about that because he cut his TOs down by more than half and raised his completion percentage by 6 points. And in the end this is the season many were hoping he would have his rookie year. Hardly a criticism really given most QBs struggle their first season.

 

BTW, here is a cool tid bit on Wilson, "Russell Wilson is pretty good. His 52 touchdown passes are tied with Peyton Manning for second most by a quarterback in his first two seasons. The leader? Dan Marino (68)."

 

I think Wilson's progression from year one to year two has been as impressive as Luck's maybe moreso.

[braveheartcolt]

Yes. A definition for transcendent is "better or greater than what is usual." If you weren't so dismissive of advanced stats, I'd post links showing how Luck was in the top third among all QBs on third down performance by several measures, and was the only rookie or first year starter to be ranked anywhere near that high across the board.

If you'd like a less glowing term, I'll say he excelled on third down. The point stands.

Umm, everyone wants someone who is good situationally, and with the game on the line. This isn't specific to Brady fans.

It absolutely is a team game. Problem is, if you exclude advanced metrics, you can't show me good play from the Colts as a team. The stats are "lousy," to use your term. Especially on defense. Unless you're willing to include advanced metrics to make your point in this regard, while you exclude them in other areas. Would be in keeping with your pattern.

As for Reggie Wayne, his stats are Luck's stats, and that goes for every other Colts player to catch a pass last season.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You've dug this hole for yourself:

http://forums.colts.com/topic/24717-which-of-these-players-has-a-better-case-for-mvp/?p=693224

You've implied that "lousy" completion percentage and TOs are all that matter.

I really don't agree. And if that were the case, it would mean that Luck IS more deserving of MVP recognition in 2013 than Brady, by virtue of fewer TOs and a nearly identical completion percentage.

There are so many statistical measures that go into judging QB play. TOs and completion % are very important, but they are no more important than adjusted yards/attempt, TD% and INT%, along with other, more involved stats (like third down performance, etc.)

The only reason you're claiming that TOs and completion percentage are the most important is because that's the only way you can hold on to this flawed (read: FALSE) argument that Luck's rookie year was statistically "lousy." I'll give you that the TOs and completion percentage were "lousy"; that doesn't undermine any of the other stats, like yardage, TDs, rushing TDs, third down conversions, etc.

That's fine. But those aren't the only to stats that Luck is improved in this year. His TD% is higher, in INT% is lower, his adjusted yards/attempt is higher, his sack% is lower, his passer rating is higher, he has more rushing yards and more yards/rushing attempt.

And by the way, he's not as good on third down as he was in 2012, so it's not all better. (Many factors to consider there, and they have little to do with completion percentage and TOs.)

I salute youi sir. That is how to construct a proper argument. It will be glossed over as usual though.

Happy New Year my man.

[Superman]

You realize this thread is bogus, right? Neither Luck or Brady are deserving of MVP this year.

 

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about "more deserving" or "has a better case." 

 

But back to Luck's season. You can throw in advanced metrics all you want but it does not change the fact that his inability to take care of the ball and complete passes were lousy and those are the main judging points for a QB. Every HC and GM would agree here. It does not mean he was horrible or didn't do other things well in terms of situational football or third down but like I said if he continued to have the same type of season this year as last year in regards to those TWO areas many would question if he was the guy to lead the Colts long term. And that point really can't be debated. And as I said before, this season would not be touted as much as it has been if his INTs and percentage were not so bad last year. And that has been my main point all along. The comparison of the two seasons are stark in those two main areas and like you said his third down percentage is worse this year yet no one is talking about that because he cut his TOs down by more than half and raised his completion percentage by 6 points. And in the end this is the season many were hoping he would have his rookie year. Hardly a criticism really given most QBs struggle their first season.

 

 

 

I disagree with the bolded. I think it's absurd to consider those two factors as any more important than the others. You don't ignore them just because the others might be good, but you also don't ignore all the others because those two aren't what you'd like them to be. Not unless you're an absolutist, which you tend to be whenever it suits your argument.

[amfootball]

I salute youi sir. That is how to construct a proper argument. It will be glossed over as usual though.

Happy New Year my man.

Glad you read it and think so. I hope you took notes too so you can do the same instead of slinging insults ...

[Superman]

I salute youi sir. That is how to construct a proper argument. It will be glossed over as usual though.

Happy New Year my man.

 

Very likely.

[amfootball]

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about "more deserving" or "has a better case." 

 

 

I disagree with the bolded. I think it's absurd to consider those two factors as any more important than the others. You don't ignore them just because the others might be good, but you also don't ignore all the others because those two aren't what you'd like them to be. Not unless you're an absolutist, which you tend to be whenever it suits your argument.

Do you think GMs and HCs look at all the areas of a QB the same and don't pay more attention to completion percentage and TO's? One of the main reasons Brady was even noticed by the Pats personnel in 2000 prior to the draft was because he didn't turn over the ball a lot. That was said on the Brady Six show.

[Superman]

Do you think GMs and HCs look at all the areas of a QB the same and don't pay more attention to completion percentage and TO's? 

 

I believe GMs and coaches consider all the variables on a case by case basis. I don't think any of them have rules about what metrics are more important than others, because situations differ, one to the next.

 

I believe personnel people understand that a player who attempts 500 passes is likely to have more TDs and INTs than someone who attempts just 300 passes, which is why TD% and INT% are important; they provide context. I believe personnel people balance things like interceptions and completions with what they know about the nature of the pass attempts. If one QB attempts a lot of short passes and has a higher completion percentage and lower interceptions, vs a QB who throws the ball downfield more, but has a lower completion percentage and higher interceptions, then I believe personnel people consider adjusted yards/attempt in order to put the difference in perspective.

 

I get the feeling that answer isn't absolute enough for you.

 

One of the main reasons Brady was even noticed by the Pats personnel in 2000 prior to the draft was because he didn't turn over the ball a lot. That was said on the Brady Six show.

 

 

Ha. Your primary frame of reference shouldn't be Tom Brady. He hardly turned the ball over and had a decent completion percentage, but he was a 6th round pick because of the other things he didn't do such a good job of in college, like throwing for TDs and yardage (Chad Pennington's adjusted yards/attempt and TD% blew Brady's out of the water, but he threw twice as many INTs as Brady in 1999). He proves my point.

 

Completion percentage and TOs are important. They don't trump everything else. Good personnel people don't fixate on one or two metrics, to the positive or to the negative. That's narrow-minded and exclusive. 

[Dustin]

Luck and Brady finish the season with the same completion and TD %.

Luck finishes with a lower INT % and less turnovers.

[amfootball]

I believe GMs and coaches consider all the variables on a case by case basis. I don't think any of them have rules about what metrics are more important than others, because situations differ, one to the next.

 

I believe personnel people understand that a player who attempts 500 passes is likely to have more TDs and INTs than someone who attempts just 300 passes, which is why TD% and INT% are important; they provide context. I believe personnel people balance things like interceptions and completions with what they know about the nature of the pass attempts. If one QB attempts a lot of short passes and has a higher completion percentage and lower interceptions, vs a QB who throws the ball downfield more, but has a lower completion percentage and higher interceptions, then I believe personnel people consider adjusted yards/attempt in order to put the difference in perspective.

 

I get the feeling that answer isn't absolute enough for you.

 

 

Ha. Your primary frame of reference shouldn't be Tom Brady. He hardly turned the ball over and had a decent completion percentage, but he was a 6th round pick because of the other things he didn't do such a good job of in college, like throwing for TDs and yardage (Chad Pennington's adjusted yards/attempt and TD% blew Brady's out of the water, but he threw twice as many INTs as Brady in 1999). He proves my point.

 

Completion percentage and TOs are important. They don't trump everything else. Good personnel people don't fixate on one or two metrics, to the positive or to the negative. That's narrow-minded and exclusive. 

Come on now Brady was picked sixth because he was a bean pole and the Michigan coach jobbed him. lol. And Brady is the best example of why you should pick a guy based on low INTs and completion percentage.

 

Clearly we won't agree on this so I will extend the olive branch and throw you my two favorite emoticons. -  

[amfootball]

Luck and Brady finish the season with the same completion and TD %.

Luck finishes with a lower INT % and less turnovers.

We already established that Luck was the MVP of this two person race. Still I'll take the QB with the better record

and bye.

[Superman]

Come on now Brady was picked sixth because he was a bean pole and the Michigan coach jobbed him. lol. And Brady is the best example of why you should pick a guy based on low INTs and completion percentage.

 

Clearly we won't agree on this so I will extend the olive branch and throw you my two favorite emoticons. -  

 

So, just pick a college QB with low INTs and a decent completion percentage (yes, "decent," not terribly impressive), and he'll turn into Tom Brady. It's even better if he's skinny. Got it.

 

/sarcasm

[amfootball]

So, just pick a college QB with low INTs and a decent completion percentage (yes, "decent," not terribly impressive), and he'll turn into Tom Brady. It's even better if he's skinny. Got it.

 

/sarcasm

You forgot the dimple chin. ;)

[Superman]

You forgot the dimple chin. ;)

 

[amfootball]

Awesome clip. I will steal that for my six year old who loves cats. Ha.

[Superman]

Awesome clip. I will steal that for my six year old who loves cats. Ha.

 

The Internet was designed either by or for cat lovers, or both. Just google "cat gifs" and settle in.

[amfootball]

The Internet was designed either by or for cat lovers, or both. Just google "cat gifs" and settle in.

No kidding? I will google now. I would have figured more dog lovers out there.

[Fx Stryker]

So, just pick a college QB with low INTs and a decent completion percentage (yes, "decent," not terribly impressive), and he'll turn into Tom Brady. It's even better if he's skinny. Got it.

/sarcasm

Tim Couch anyone, and Brady's college stats in completion percentage and INT are one of the worst amongst current quarterbacks.

[MR. Blueblood]

 

Yes. A definition for transcendent is "better or greater than what is usual." If you weren't so dismissive of advanced stats, I'd post links showing how Luck was in the top third among all QBs on third down performance by several measures, and was the only rookie or first year starter to be ranked anywhere near that high across the board.

 

If you'd like a less glowing term, I'll say he excelled on third down. The point stands.

 

 

Umm, everyone wants someone who is good situationally, and with the game on the line. This isn't specific to Brady fans. 

 

 

It absolutely is a team game. Problem is, if you exclude advanced metrics, you can't show me good play from the Colts as a team. The stats are "lousy," to use your term. Especially on defense. Unless you're willing to include advanced metrics to make your point in this regard, while you exclude them in other areas. Would be in keeping with your pattern.

 

As for Reggie Wayne, his stats are Luck's stats, and that goes for every other Colts player to catch a pass last season.

 

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You've dug this hole for yourself:

http://forums.colts.com/topic/24717-which-of-these-players-has-a-better-case-for-mvp/?p=693224

 

 

You've implied that "lousy" completion percentage and TOs are all that matter.

 

 

I really don't agree. And if that were the case, it would mean that Luck IS more deserving of MVP recognition in 2013 than Brady, by virtue of fewer TOs and a nearly identical completion percentage.

 

There are so many statistical measures that go into judging QB play. TOs and completion % are very important, but they are no more important than adjusted yards/attempt, TD% and INT%, along with other, more involved stats (like third down performance, etc.)

The only reason you're claiming that TOs and completion percentage are the most important is because that's the only way you can hold on to this flawed (read: FALSE) argument that Luck's rookie year was statistically "lousy." I'll give you that the TOs and completion percentage were "lousy"; that doesn't undermine any of the other stats, like yardage, TDs, rushing TDs, third down conversions, etc. 

 

 

That's fine. But those aren't the only to stats that Luck is improved in this year. His TD% is higher, in INT% is lower, his adjusted yards/attempt is higher, his sack% is lower, his passer rating is higher, he has more rushing yards and more yards/rushing attempt. 

 

And by the way, he's not as good on third down as he was in 2012, so it's not all better. (Many factors to consider there, and they have little to do with completion percentage and TOs.)

If there was an MVP of this thread you would win on just this post alone.  Job well done sir.  It may be "glossed over", but it will only be by those who insist that QB#1 had a "lousy season" because of these one or two things they only look at tells them so. 

 

Edited in order not to misquote another poster