Why all the Luck hate?

[SteelCityColt]

ESPN knows what it's doing........one day they post.........Wilson is better than luck.  The next day they post.......luck is better than wilson

 

that way they give everyone a chance to disagree

 

 

I see you've read the syllabus of the Skip Bayless School of Media

[Nadine]

I see you've read the syllabus of the Skip Bayless School of Media

 

skip bayless is another popular topic.maybe not on espn but people here love to hate on him

me included

[SteelCityColt]

skip bayless is another popular topic.maybe not on espn but people here love to hate on him

me included

 

I have a particular dislike for him but I don't think he's as dumb as people believe, not even by half.

[Cynjin]

I have a particular dislike for him but I don't think he's as dumb as people believe, not even by half.

 

Skip is not dumb by a long shot.  I do not like his act but he is not dumb, heck if someone would pay me what they pay him I would would say all sorts of crazy, outlandish stuff. 

[Nadine]

I have a particular dislike for him but I don't think he's as dumb as people believe, not even by half.

sure he's intentional but I don't think all that emotion is put on.  I think he just has bizarre opinions and he capitalizes on them

[HOFClipboardHolder]

We went from Peyton to Luck, with one forgettable season in between. If I wasnt a Colts fan, I would hate Luck and the entire organization as well.

 

Most fans are nowhere near as lucky

[Superman]

I don't understand this. Andrew Luck is one of the most liked and most praised players in the league. The NFL Network guys practically had a coronation ceremony for him the other night. 

 

There might be some Luck hate coming from blowhards like Skip Bayless, and maybe some click-bait bloggers from the dark corners of the Internet. But the commentary on Luck is overwhelmingly positive.

[NewEra]

It's called jealousy...plain and simple. Keep chugging the hateraide.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Luck is MUCH BETTER than Wilson, anyone who doesn't think so is either a hater, hasn't watched Luck enough or is stupid! Not that Wilson isn't good, but Luck has a chance to be GREAT!

[buccolts]

If you are not an east or west coast team, espn does not give you much respect or coverage.

 

Cowboys

Broncos (since PM)

[buccolts]

ESPN or Collinsworth....  Might as well be reading the Seattle paper....  no organization or person hates the Colts and their success than those two...

 

Neon Deion

[BuckingColt]

I just wish Luck was more savvy with the ball. Wilson takes little chances. I'll take Luck overall, but if Luck could just stop forcing things and takeoff on his feet more often(but not too often)the comparison would be no contest.

[Malakai432]

No horror movie can compare to John Carpenters 1978 Halloween.

 

Great flick indeed, I have to agree one of the best of all time hands down. 

[Dark Superman]

Great flick indeed, I have to agree one of the best of all time hands down.

They couldn't make a decent horror movie now a days if they tried.. All this technology and the stuff they made in the 80's still has them beat.

[Malakai432]

They couldn't make a decent horror movie now a days if they tried.. All this technology and the stuff they made in the 80's still has them beat.

 

Yeah pretty much, with regards to horror movies old school traditional effects are much better.  There are some ok newer horror movies out there, I think The Conjuring was decent, Strangers was good, but yeah it's pretty much a crap genre now.  Cheap thrills, people will still go pay to see garbage like Paranormal Activity lol. 

 

There are actually some very good foreign horror movies out there like I Saw the Devil, Martyrs, Eden Lake, High Tension and Frontier(s), they're all ultra violent good foreign horror movies.

[Indygal1218]

I don't understand this. Andrew Luck is one of the most liked and most praised players in the league. The NFL Network guys practically had a coronation ceremony for him the other night. 

 

There might be some Luck hate coming from blowhards like Skip Bayless, and maybe some click-bait bloggers from the dark corners of the Internet. But the commentary on Luck is overwhelmingly positive.

 

 

Even Willie McGinest?

[CroatianColtsFan21]

I don't get it, this constant need to compare wilson and luck, to debate who is better, or who does more with less..

Unlike peyton vs brady, there should be no debate here, since luck is obviously superior in every way

Ignore the comments, don't you know the seahawks have the biggest and most football-ignorant bandwagon last couple of years? #Fact

[Dr. Guildo]

People hate what they can't have, and when things are posted on the internet(s) they go all trollerific because they can. I find sites like ESPN & Youtube comments to be unreadable.

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

all non colts fans hate the fact we went from peyton to luck

[New Zealands #1 Colts Fan]

We went from Peyton to Luck, with one forgettable season in between. If I wasnt a Colts fan, I would hate Luck and the entire organization as well.

 

Most fans are nowhere near as lucky

 

best picture ive seen in a while, man there are some horrible names on there

[Superman]

Even Willie McGinest?

 

No, I was talking about the post game panel. Eisen, Faulk, Mooch, Irvin, Sanders. They drooled all over him.

[ColtStrong]

I don't understand this. Andrew Luck is one of the most liked and most praised players in the league. The NFL Network guys practically had a coronation ceremony for him the other night. 

 

There might be some Luck hate coming from blowhards like Skip Bayless, and maybe some click-bait bloggers from the dark corners of the Internet. But the commentary on Luck is overwhelmingly positive.

Except in the comments section of articles. Then the haters come out in droves.

[Superman]

Except in the comments section of articles. Then the haters come out in droves.

 

Yeah, I didn't think we were talking about Internet trolls...

[NewColtsFan]

People hate what they can't have, and when things are posted on the internet(s) they go all trollerific because they can.

I find sites like ESPN & Youtube comments to be unreadable.

 

Who goes to YouTube for the reading?     It's a video site.    The comments section couldn't mean less to me.   But I wouldn't stop going to YouTube because of it.

 

Same with ESPN.com.    Who cares what the fans think?    Not me.

 

I only care what good quality writers think.    What information can they share?    What insights can they reveal?    There's always lots of good information on the site.     But people here HATE on ESPN because of Skip Bayless or because they don't think the Colts get enough love....     to me,  it's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  

 

There's ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU and even ESPN Classic....   and some internet ESPN channels as well.

 

If people can't find something to watch and learn from on one of the ESPN channels,  then I think you're only hurting yourself.

[FanFromtheWasteland]

They couldn't make a decent horror movie now a days if they tried.. All this technology and the stuff they made in the 80's still has them beat.

I was 16 when that movie came out. Scared the crap out of me. When the guy fell out of the closet I jumped so hard I kicked the person in the seat in front of me in the back of the head

[TAPLOOK]

I think it's the Indy fans that there is dislike for more so than AL. AL seems like a really good guy and is obviously very talented but Indy fans and media have pushed him far ahead of him impressive accomplishments annoying some fans in and outside on Indy. It's not AL's fault. Lets see if he can win a SB and play for 15 years.

[SteelCityColt]

I think it's the Indy fans that there is dislike for more so than AL. AL seems like a really good guy and is obviously very talented but Indy fans and media have pushed him far ahead of him impressive accomplishments annoying some fans in and outside on Indy. It's not AL's fault. Lets see if he can win a SB and play for 15 years.

 

No player can win a SB by themselves... silly metric for valuing a players talent. 

[TAPLOOK]

No player can win a SB by themselves... silly metric for valuing a players talent.

There's not a single position in any sport more impactful to the team than QB. The list of greats that have won SB's is long and the list of greats who haven't is pretty short.

[Cynjin]

There's not a single position in any sport more impactful to the team than QB. The list of greats that have won SB's is long and the list of greats who haven't is pretty short.

The list of not great QBs that have won a Superbowl is fairly long too.

[lennymoore24]

I didn't read the articles, but I think I have an idea of what is said.  I think people get tired of NFL players being way over rated early in their career.  Luck is a good QB and has a great future.  But he is not an elite QB yet IMHO and often times columns talk about him like he is Peyton Manning.  Same thing with Russell Wilson, Kaep, or RGIII.  Nobody wants to hear about how great a guy is if he doesn't seem to be as great as they say.

[SteelCityColt]

The list of not great QBs that have won a Superbowl is fairly long too.

 

 

There's not a single position in any sport more impactful to the team than QB. The list of greats that have won SB's is long and the list of greats who haven't is pretty short.

 

As Cynjin says above, I think it's a fallacy to think you need a great QB to win a SB. Conversely winning a SB doesn't necessarily mean you're a great QB. 

 

Of course SBs tend to be won by better teams who tend to have better QBs but it's only a indicator (of them playing on a good team for the most part), not a reliable metric. 

 

We could get into the examples of QBs who have and haven't won the SB if you really want, but I think you get my point?

[TAPLOOK]

As above really, I think it's a fallacy to think you need a great QB to win a SB. Conversely winning a SB doesn't necessarily mean you're a great QB. 

 

Of course SBs tend to be won by better teams who tend to have better QBs but it's only a indicator (of them playing on a good team for the most part), not a reliable metric. 

 

We could get into the examples of QBs who have and haven't won the SB if you really want, but I think you get my point?

We agree that a teams chances increase very substantially with a great QB.

[SteelCityColt]

We agree that a teams chances increase very substantially with a great QB.

 

Most certainly, but winning a SB isn't a always the best way to measure that. 

 

If you're talking about a QB increasing a teams chances substantially then then the best evidence of that would be over a number of games not just winning a SB. Even then I think the impact a good QB has on a W-L record can get overstated. 

[Blue Horseshoe]

What Luck hate?  I have never seen a player get more excuses and more press hype in 45 years of watching football.  Every time something goes right it is all Luck carrying the worst team in the history of football despite itself and every time something goes wrong it is the worst team in the history of football ruining Luck's perfect play.

 

The way some of the press talks they are going to completely skip the Hall of Fame for him and just put him in the Hall of Andrew Luck.

 

I actually like the guy and think he is developing into a very good quarterback but I see absolutely no evidence of any "Luck hate".

[Cynjin]

As above really, I think it's a fallacy to think you need a great QB to win a SB. Conversely winning a SB doesn't necessarily mean you're a great QB. 

 

Of course SBs tend to be won by better teams who tend to have better QBs but it's only a indicator (of them playing on a good team for the most part), not a reliable metric. 

 

We could get into the examples of QBs who have and haven't won the SB if you really want, but I think you get my point?

I'm not sure I understand why you quoted my post with that response. If anything my post would bolster your argument that just because a QB has a Superbowl victory to his name does not mean that he is a great QB.

[SteelCityColt]

I'm not sure I understand why you quoted my post with that response. If anything my post would bolster your argument that just because a QB has a Superbowl victory to his name does not mean that he is a great QB.

 

Sorry I was quoting it as i thought you'd made a good point, hence the "As above" to start. Sorry if that didn't come across to well! 

 

Edited to hopefully make that clearer for other viewers

[Cynjin]

Sorry I was quoting it as i thought you'd made a good point, hence the "As above" to start. Sorry if that didn't come across to well! 

 

Edited to hopefully make that clearer for other viewers

No biggie, it very well have been me being dense.

[Jim H.]

There is no Luck hate. Just because someone doesn't believe he is the greatest young QB there is, doesn't mean it is hate. Usually Luck is regarded as the best young QB in the NFL. Only the minority believe differently.

Ooops.

[Superman]

As Cynjin says above, I think it's a fallacy to think you need a great QB to win a SB. Conversely winning a SB doesn't necessarily mean you're a great QB. 

 

Of course SBs tend to be won by better teams who tend to have better QBs but it's only a indicator (of them playing on a good team for the most part), not a reliable metric. 

 

We could get into the examples of QBs who have and haven't won the SB if you really want, but I think you get my point?

 

Maybe you don't need a great or even very good QB. But you do need good quarterback play, even if it's just for a couple games in January. I don't think Flacco is that good, but he was excellent in the postseason in 2012. He won't be remembered as one of the greats, but he gave the Ravens everything they needed to get to and win the Super Bowl.

 

And if you don't have good QB play, you better have a GREAT defense, like one of the best defenses of all time (2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2006 Bears, etc.)

 

Overall, your odds only improve the better your QB is/plays.

[SteelCityColt]

Maybe you don't need a great or even very good QB. But you do need good quarterback play, even if it's just for a couple games in January. I don't think Flacco is that good, but he was excellent in the postseason in 2012. He won't be remembered as one of the greats, but he gave the Ravens everything they needed to get to and win the Super Bowl.

 

And if you don't have good QB play, you better have a GREAT defense, like one of the best defenses of all time (2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2006 Bears, etc.)

 

Overall, your odds only improve the better your QB is/plays.

 

I most certainly agree, I was more trying to get at why SB wins shouldn't be used as a way of measuring QB play, especially in isolation. Flacco I think is a great example, he has the arm talent to play lights out but not the consistency of a true great. Yet he had a good run in Jan and won a SB, does that automatically elevate him?