If Luck was just a tad more conservative, he might have got this team to the SB

[BrentMc11]

Now I have a headache.

If ya take a couple of these, you don't have to call me in the morning

 

[Blackhawk4]

At least got them to denver. Think about that. A check down here and there instead of forcing the ball into a tight spot, and he would have taken this limited team to a super bowl or at the least an AFC title gm.

More hypotheticals, because of course.

[King Colt]

Luck is not a problem for this team, his line is and the defense goes well with ham on rye bread.

[FirePepHamilton]

How about this team stinks without Luck carrying it, stick Andy Dalton at QB and you win 3 or 4 games.

 

This team wouldn't even sniff the playoffs unless Luck goes gunslinger, can't run the ball, can't stop a nosebleed on defense and can't protect the QB, the defense against KC was an embaressment and it was a miracle Andrew was able to win that game.

[Defjamz26]

Or maybe Pagano and Grigson should live up to their promise of "We want to run the ball, and be able to stop the run". Neither of those things happened in the Patriots game. When you have as little help as Luck has, everything is put on him, and all of his mistakes are magnified. You want to know why Wilson has such nice stats? He doesn't have to do any of the heavy lifting.

[Jason_]

We didn't lose to New England because Luck wasn't conservative enough...

We lost to NE because our defense gave up more than 250 yards rushing. That's not an Andrew Luck issue.

If you think Denver lost badly in the Super Bowl, you had better Thank God that the Colts weren't in the game, because Indy would've lost much worse!!

It would not have been pretty.

We're a good team. And in the regular season, we can beat almost anyone as we proved this year.

But the playoffs are a completely different story. And we've got a lot to do to get better.

Since you're a new member, welcome to the family! Hope you enjoy the website!

 

We lost to the Pats for a variety of reasons and yes, Luck was one of them.  He played a poor game.  That happens to all QB's, especially young ones.  

 

I've seen it mentioned a few times so far, but my thoughts on the Luck NE int in the first is as follows:

 

In the end the fault is Lucks. QBs get the blame regardless, but I remember thinking at the time, that, that is not the play call you make in that situation. Not sure who called it, be it Pep or Chuck, but you dont call for a short slant, to a back-up WR, at that position on the field (away no less), that early in the game. We were asking for trouble, and we got it...We had run a total of 2 plays up to that point, our WR had not had a chance to set up DBs with any sort of moves, or hesitations etc. They were clearly in press man, with no safety over the top....This is where it gets tricky. Yes Luck should not have thrown that ball, heck it looked like Hilton had worked his way open over the middle with a go route, this is where I wonder if the staff has given Luck the ability to check out of plays, b/c this was a play that NEEDED checked out of. Again, the fault is on Luck in this instance. But I cant help but think he wasn't given the option to not fail. 

 

Why would Chuck be doing any playcalling for the offense?  I don't think there was any problem with that playcall.  Luck should've scanned the field more (not staring down any one WR) and found the open man instead of just throwing the ball to his first read.  Typical young QB mistake that I'm sure he'll learn from, but the problem wasn't the playcall, it was the execution.

[IndyTrav]

We lost to the Pats for a variety of reasons and yes, Luck was one of them.  He played a poor game.  That happens to all QB's, especially young ones.  

 

 

Why would Chuck be doing any playcalling for the offense?  I don't think there was any problem with that playcall.  Luck should've scanned the field more (not staring down any one WR) and found the open man instead of just throwing the ball to his first read.  Typical young QB mistake that I'm sure he'll learn from, but the problem wasn't the playcall, it was the execution.

 

I agree, as I said the fault is Lucks. 

 

I just question the route selection. You dont have your no name 1st read WR run a short slant across the DBs face at that position on the field, that early in the game, wihtout having set up any sort of rhythm.....Had it been TY or Reggie, I'd perhaps be in agreement, someone who I trust to get a nice release or be able to fight a DB for position.....But a semi decent veteran DB is going to do exactly what they did against a player of that caliber. Rough him up, and jump in front of it....

 

Again, totally Lucks fault. Just my thought on the actual play call. 

[Superman]

More hypotheticals, because of course.

 

Seriously. It's not that hard to figure out that if our second year QB had played better, the team might have gone further in the playoffs. That's not rocket science. It's also not terribly surprising that our second year QB made some mistakes in the playoffs.

[Superman]

I agree, as I said the fault is Lucks. 

 

I just question the route selection. You dont have your no name 1st read WR run a short slant across the DBs face at that position on the field, that early in the game, wihtout having set up any sort of rhythm.....Had it been TY or Reggie, I'd perhaps be in agreement, someone who I trust to get a nice release or be able to fight a DB for position.....But a semi decent veteran DB is going to do exactly what they did against a player of that caliber. Rough him up, and jump in front of it....

 

Again, totally Lucks fault. Just my thought on the actual play call. 

 

Every route doesn't work every time. I agree that Luck shouldn't have thrown it, but you run slants all game long, and eventually you bust one over the top on a sluggo. I'm not sure what the other routes were on that play, but Luck should have come off of that read right away and gone somewhere else, even taking a sack if necessary. That wasn't the throw to make, for sure.