LOL

[The Old Crow]

From a Baltimore fans perspective , this is a pretty unfair article. The Colts have weaknesses like other teams, but I wouldn't characterize Luck as one of them. For a quarterback who has been in the pros two years, two playoff appearances , great overall record, a bunch of comebacks, this is outrageous. My guess is this guy is worried about the Colts, and convincing himself of Seattle dominance, before a game is even played. He will find out like many teams, it's tough to repeat , for a myriad of reasons.

[ell_chrisso]

Better start preparing for that top ten draft pick

[crazycolt1]

Rolling Stone is and has been a complete joke.

 

They can't even cover music well, so they should keep their nose out of sports. 

 

Whenever they give an album a good rating, it's usually garbage. If they say the album is bad, buy it. 

Truer words couldn't be said. The Rolling Stone hasn't been very good for a number of years. It is run strictly for advertisement now. The writers don't stick to the reality of what they are writing about. It's all about their opinions and any that will push money or social media.

[Drew1023]

Gotta love how two articles come out in one day. One of them completely biased saying how Luck is the next Brett Favre and the other actually using statistics and facts and attempting to more honestly assess Luck's first two years and the fans here love the article with no facts that says Luck is amazing and incredible and attack the article that provides a more honest and accurate depiction of Luck's first two years in the league using his actual statistics and facts. I realize facts and numbers are difficult for some people to accept but I'd really think at least someone could mount a tangible argument and point of view using facts other than saying, "Rolling Stones sucks."  I suppose once again I overestimated the people here.

 

All the author of the article wrote is, "Luck is a fine quarterback. Sometimes he is even a very good quarterback. But the story of his so-called arrival as a great one, let alone one of the elite, is fiction." Does anyone really want to argue that Luck is an elite quarterback in the same tier as Manning, Brady or Rodgers because if not what is your issue with this article other than its truth and factual basis. So please stop saying that the author is bashing Luck or that the Rolling Stones suck, all it does is make you sound *ic instead why don't you try to actually make a tangible case for Luck being great or this team being good outside of Luck and contend with the case the author is actually making.  I'm also curious how many people actually took the time to read the article rather than just reading the headline and jumping to make assumptions.

[ricker182]

Lol fox is the only I watch anymore, sometimes even there too opinionated for me. Thats where im getting at. Watching news I want too see facts, but thats not the way it goes anymore

That grammar.....

[Superman]

Gotta love how two articles come out in one day. One of them completely biased saying how Luck is the next Brett Favre and the other actually using statistics and facts and attempting to more honestly assess Luck's first two years and the fans here love the article with no facts that says Luck is amazing and incredible and attack the article that provides a more honest and accurate depiction of Luck's first two years in the league using his actual statistics and facts. I realize facts and numbers are difficult for some people to accept but I'd really think at least someone could mount a tangible argument and point of view using facts other than saying, "Rolling Stones sucks."  I suppose once again I overestimated the people here.

 

All the author of the article wrote is, "Luck is a fine quarterback. Sometimes he is even a very good quarterback. But the story of his so-called arrival as a great one, let alone one of the elite, is fiction." Does anyone really want to argue that Luck is an elite quarterback in the same tier as Manning, Brady or Rodgers because if not what is your issue with this article other than its truth and factual basis. So please stop saying that the author is bashing Luck or that the Rolling Stones suck, all it does is make you sound *ic instead why don't you try to actually make a tangible case for Luck being great or this team being good outside of Luck and contend with the case the author is actually making.  I'm also curious how many people actually took the time to read the article rather than just reading the headline and jumping to make assumptions.

 

I wonder how many of your 193 posts here take a personal shot at the other posters here...

[Superman]

On topic, this article is strange. Cherry picked stats, a lack of depth of knowledge about the Colts roster, and an undercurrent of disdain for Andrew Luck to begin with.

 

It's true that some, mostly in the media, have given Luck too much credit/praise too quickly. He's not the 5th best QB in the league right now, not based on what he's done so far. But that's no reason to be bearish on his future. That makes zero sense, given what he has shown.

[funktacious2]

The writer seems to get a little bitter later on, comparing Luck to Wilson, but leaving out certain key factors that really separates the two such as system, weapons, and defenses. However, I respect his opinion on the general premise which is that Luck passes the eye test, but can he produce like an elite QB? I'm sure we all have watched enough of him to think he can, but let the haters hate because they're going to anyways.

[Drew1023]

I wonder how many of your 193 posts here take a personal shot at the other posters here...

 

It's just frustrating when in a 2 page thread not a single person actually debates the merits of the article and the facts and instead attacks the author or the news-magazine.   I understand some truths and facts are difficult to accept but if all you can do is take a shot at the magazine or the writer and completely ignore the facts... it's just a little upsetting. Especially when people like you in other threads have said that no one thinks that Luck is an elite quarterback.  That's all this author was trying to say and he used facts and statistics to back up his argument.  You know what, never mind I should just learn to accept idiocy and hypocrisy on a sports team message board.  I don't know why I try to expect more.

[Superman]

It's just frustrating when in a 2 page thread not a single person actually debates the merits of the article and the facts and instead attacks the author or the news-magazine.   I understand some truths and facts are difficult to accept but if all you can do is take a shot at the magazine or the writer and completely ignore the facts... it's just a little upsetting. Especially when people like you in other threads have said that no one thinks that Luck is an elite quarterback.  That's all this author was trying to say and he used facts and statistics to back up his argument.  You know what, never mind I should just learn to accept idiocy and hypocrisy on a sports team message board.  I don't know why I try to expect more.

 

Umm, that's NOT what I said. I said most people on this board -- who you keep insulting -- don't put Luck among the elite. Because they don't. I have always acknowledged that media put him up there, or close, and I have always argued against his ranking when I think it's too high. 

 

So where you get this "idiocy and hypocrisy" crap from, I don't know. Either you're projecting, in which case, you should stop, or you're trolling, in which case you won't be taken seriously.

[jvan1973]

It's just frustrating when in a 2 page thread not a single person actually debates the merits of the article and the facts and instead attacks the author or the news-magazine. I understand some truths and facts are difficult to accept but if all you can do is take a shot at the magazine or the writer and completely ignore the facts... it's just a little upsetting. Especially when people like you in other threads have said that no one thinks that Luck is an elite quarterback. That's all this author was trying to say and he used facts and statistics to back up his argument. You know what, never mind I should just learn to accept idiocy and hypocrisy on a sports team message board. I don't know why I try to expect more.

I think you need a hug. and perhaps a prozac

[throwing BBZ]

You say you'd take him based on his "potential" but, what difference does it make? Luck is elite, one might ask; why doesn't the stat sheet say so SilentHill?

 

Well, let me take you on a journey called the coaching staff of the Indianapolis Colts.

 

Year 1 (2012) Luck comes from the ground and pound at Stanford to the NFL, to run Bruce Arians offense, sure it took some learning, and he made some rookie gaffs, but he started to excel in that offense, and it showed down the stretch, unfortunately that offense only lasted one season.

 

Year 2 (2013) Luck goes from a system he's probably comfortable with, to go back to this ground and pound garbage, which is great when you have a QB like Joe Flacco, but i regress. This run the ball down the opponents throat mentality is the exact OPPOSITE of where the NFL is trending, and is the exact OPPOSITE of every strength of this football team. Due to injuries and poor performance by the o-line and T-Rich Luck was allowed to open up the offense down the stretch last season, run the no huddle and make other teams feel the wrath that is Andrew Luck.

 

What it all comes down to, is that Luck himself is elite, it doesn't matter what the stat sheets say, you don't have to look any further than what he has had to overcome in his first two NFL seasons just to get to the playoffs twice. This is for all intents and purposes the offense's 2nd year with this system, which hopefully has smartened up and changed for the good, and looks like Luck is going to have some serious control this season. Stay tuned and watch the elite unfold in front of your eyes, because i guarantee this season will be magical.

 

 The last 5 games of his Rookie season he had 4 games under 50% and 1 exactly 50%. Why? Teams kept their rush lane integrity and made him a pocket passer of which he showed, again this pre-season,

He is very mediocre. His whole bag is his pre-snap read and wait to throw to his read when he is open. Check down? Hitting his man quickly and in the mid-section, He was AWFUL his Rookie year.

 Based on what i have witnessed these last many decades, he will take a couple more seasons for the Elite timing to come. And not many get there. High and late is no fun for his receivers.

[JoKeR]

The author comes off as still butthurt over his Seahawks losing to our Colts and Andrew Luck.

[The Fish]

A few thoughts, and I'll try not to insult the fine people here in one swoop. I prefer to do that on an individual basis!  :highfive:

 

Off topic : I'm surprised the phrase "butthurt" isn't more controversial. Maybe my mind just goes to far with that one. I guess after getting your butt kicked, it might hurt. 

 

Anyway, I think Andrew Luck is as good as advertised, but he's growing and there's some other guys who are further along than him. 

 

How good would you be after doing something (regular and post season) 35 times? 

 

This article is par for the course when looking at biased analysis. It's not totally wrong, but it's circumstantial to the point where it's not apples to apples, so to speak.

[SilentHill]

 The last 5 games of his Rookie season he had 4 games under 50% and 1 exactly 50%. Why? Teams kept their rush lane integrity and made him a pocket passer of which he showed, again this pre-season,

He is very mediocre. His whole bag is his pre-snap read and wait to throw to his read when he is open. Check down? Hitting his man quickly and in the mid-section, He was AWFUL his Rookie year.

 Based on what i have witnessed these last many decades, he will take a couple more seasons for the Elite timing to come. And not many get there. High and late is no fun for his receivers.

 

I don't think anyone expected elite levels of play in his first season.

 

The Fact is, Luck put this team on his back under a new offensive system and carried them to the playoffs, not once but twice. This year, we will see the real thing happening.

[southwest1]

Rolling Stone is and has been a complete joke.

 

They can't even cover music well, so they should keep their nose out of sports. 

 

Whenever they give an album a good rating, it's usually garbage. If they say the album is bad, buy it. 

 

 

Truer words couldn't be said. The Rolling Stone hasn't been very good for a number of years. It is run strictly for advertisement now. The writers don't stick to the reality of what they are writing about. It's all about their opinions and any that will push money or social media.

Well said CC1. Rolling Stone is all commercialized nonsense now. Being slammed by RS is a badge of honor to me. LOL! 

 

Lollygagger is right on the money too. They are in no position to critique athletes or musicians. This magazine wouldn't know a kick caboose band if it bit them on the backdoor & transformed the music industry for the next 30 years. 

[crazycolt1]

A few thoughts, and I'll try not to insult the fine people here in one swoop. I prefer to do that on an individual basis!  :highfive:

 

Off topic : I'm surprised the phrase "butthurt" isn't more controversial. Maybe my mind just goes to far with that one. I guess after getting your butt kicked, it might hurt. 

 

Anyway, I think Andrew Luck is as good as advertised, but he's growing and there's some other guys who are further along than him. 

 

How good would you be after doing something (regular and post season) 35 times? 

 

This article is par for the course when looking at biased analysis. It's not totally wrong, but it's circumstantial to the point where it's not apples to apples, so to speak.

Very well stated. The article does what I call cherry pick their stats. I think the stat thing has been hashed and over hashed too many times right here in this forum. You can look at stats and skew them any way you want. Luck may not have great stats but as has been said he passes the eye test. Favre lived his whole career in that category. Bottom line is Luck is a winner and his personality is likeable by most.

[southwest1]

On topic, this article is strange. Cherry picked stats, a lack of depth of knowledge about the Colts roster, and an undercurrent of disdain for Andrew Luck to begin with.

 

It's true that some, mostly in the media, have given Luck too much credit/praise too quickly. He's not the 5th best QB in the league right now, not based on what he's done so far. But that's no reason to be bearish on his future. That makes zero sense, given what he has shown.

Precisely Superman, his career is still in it's infancy as a starting QB. It's more than a bit premature to put the nail in Luck's coffin yet.

 

Good writers are supposed flexible with their overall thesis not become a slave to validating that perspective at any cost. I get the sense from this author that he was determined to tear down Luck without balancing his POV with what Luck does well. Was there any mention of his ability to forget interceptions almost immediately or how he doesn't chew out linemen every time he gets sacked? Nope. 

[southwest1]

Didn't someone in this thread say earlier that the writer of this article is a Seahawks fan or maybe he covers them annually? Why is he writing about the Colts anyway? He's free to do so sure, but shouldn't he worry about the Hawks in the Pacific NW as opposed to little old Indiana who crushed them last season? 

 

People in glass houses should never throw rocks. I'm just saying take a deep look in you own backyard before you spread your own negativity elsewhere. 

[coltsfanmilyman]

Agreed . Its hard for me too even watch alot of fox anymore. Sometimes even Facebook pages are more reliable and have more facts. What a shame

I will say this though, when people look to tmz to get their news, I just my head and think dear lord what has happened to society! We rely on paparazzi now for news