Luck vs Manning first 3 years

[theanarchist]

Just want to start a conversation regarding the career start that Luck has had. It can be pointed out that the NFL has become more friendly to QB's since 1998 but there are also some other factors that I'd like to discuss.

 

Quite a few people have stated that Luck has issues with turnovers. I would argue that the lack of a good offensive line has much to do with the turnovers. I don't recall Manning taking the kind of beating that Luck takes week in and week out. I think Manning came into the team with a much better OL as a whole.

 

Luck has produced his numbers( 85 td's vs 40 ints)with the lack of a solid run game as well as an offense that has a below average offensive line. Manning had the fortunate asset of Edge James as well as Marvin Harrison in his prime during his first 3 years albeit that James didn't come along until year 2. However I believe James led the league in rushing his first 2 years in the NFL and that's a huge asset to a QB.

 

Luck did inherit some nice weapons but he came in with an aging Reggie Wayne and a handful of rookie receivers. Those receivers have done great things and they've all developed nicely together.

 

Manning played with some awful defenses, yes even worse than what we have had the last 3 years. So, I think Manning played from behind just as much as Luck has.

 

I think it's been a great fortune that the Colt have had these two to lead the team. I just wanted to throw out some comparisons since several comments have been made about Luck's career so far vs Manning and the perception of a turnover issue.

 

[James Ducheteau]

Manning also had Marshal Faulk his rookie year. 

[sfergson727]

Both Manning and Luck are future HOF QBs.  IMHO although they have different attributes, Manning being the master of knowledge and planning, Luck with a stronger arm, and competitive drive and of course a neard, they both are near equals.  I would give Manning a slight edge because Peyton always makes it look effortless, and you always knew he would bring you back in a game.  Luck has plenty of evidence he can also pull it out in the fourth quarter, but doesn't have the supporting cast or coaching to make it happen in all instances.

 

Regardless, we are very fortunate to have had them both.  

[theanarchist]

Manning also had Marshal Faulk his rookie year. 

Yep, that slipped my mind

[Valpo2004]

Luck is interesting turnover wise.  He will have streaks where he protects the football really well.  And then he has streaks where he seems to be looking for new ways to turn over the football.

 

I didn't consider Luck to have a major fumbling issue until just recently in the season where he's fumbled the ball I don't know how many times in the last 4 games.  Seems like it has to be at least 5 . . . could be more.

[wesd2890]

Luck has problems with turnovers because we ask him to throw 40+ times a game.. our lack of an oline, running game and a young and inexperienced coaching staff puts luck in awful situations.

[Fx Stryker]

Luck is turning it over because he refuses to give up on a play. Sometimes it's better just to fight another day than be Superman every play.

[AndreRison]

Some of Luck's decisions seem insane. I know he wants to make a play, but I'm holding my breath sometimes.

[ricker182]

Both Manning and Luck are future HOF QBs.  IMHO although they have different attributes, Manning being the master of knowledge and planning, Luck with a stronger arm, and competitive drive and of course a neard, they both are near equals.  I would give Manning a slight edge because Peyton always makes it look effortless, and you always knew he would bring you back in a game.  Luck has plenty of evidence he can also pull it out in the fourth quarter, but doesn't have the supporting cast or coaching to make it happen in all instances.

 

Regardless, we are very fortunate to have had them both.  

So if Luck couldn't play anymore starting today, he would be inducted into the HOF in 5 years?

[Track Guy]

Luck is interesting turnover wise.  He will have streaks where he protects the football really well.  And then he has streaks where he seems to be looking for new ways to turn over the football.

 

I didn't consider Luck to have a major fumbling issue until just recently in the season where he's fumbled the ball I don't know how many times in the last 4 games.  Seems like it has to be at least 5 . . . could be more.

Minus these past few games I wouldn't call Luck fumble prone at all. To take as many hits as he has raises your chances of fumbling and he only fumbled 6 times all last season. He almost never fumbles while rushing, when he fumbles it's usually on a sack. He should work on making his delivery faster and the front office should work bolstering the O-line.

[NewColtsFan]

So if Luck couldn't play anymore starting today, he would be inducted into the HOF in 5 years?

 

No.    That's NOT what that means.

 

It means he's had three exceptionally good years to start his career and if he continues to improve at the rate, then he is he's going to have a Hall of Fame career.     He's got to play at least 10 years, if not 12 or more. 

 

But he's heading toward a HoF career.

[Jdubu]

Luck will improve on reading defenses and his throws will become better. He will also learn to just pull it down and take the sack as opposed to trying to make something happen. And I'm sure at some point, this team will have a better oline and assemble a running threat which will allow luck to look even better than he is now.

It's just amazing what the kid has done in his first ALMOST 3 seasons. All this with a oline that has been awful and nearly no running game.

[SilentHill]

Luck is turning it over because he refuses to give up on a play. Sometimes it's better just to fight another day than be Superman every play.

 

One could argue that the success he has outweighs the occasional turnover. Especially if you take tipped ball INT's out of the equation.

[SilentHill]

So if Luck couldn't play anymore starting today, he would be inducted into the HOF in 5 years?

 

He'd get my vote, he's done more with less than any other potential HOF QB that is currently playing in the NFL.

[Esquire59]

Luck is double the quality QB Manning was his first three years. Nowhere close to the quality of squads (in favor of Manning). Such an incredible future ahead for 12. He'll break every team and career record Manning has achieved. And that's no insult intended to Manning. Just such a better profile.

[Dark Superman]

Manning had a much better offensive line as well and Faulk and James.

[coltsfanatic24]

The game has changed since Mannings 1st 3 years, it was harder to throw then it is now. The defenses were great back in the late 90's early 2000's. Luck has been great but based on the eye test Manning was a superior player and just about every aspect of the game. Luck seems to have more Favre in him then Manning or Brady, he doesn't know when to just take a sack and live for another play. He tries to make the home run play everytime, which leads to fumbles and pick 6's. It's a strength to buy time and be mobile but it's also his biggest weakness because he tries to force it.

[Jules]

Nobody should really compare them and pull their hair out over it. Both are completely different guys/players from different eras.

[crazycolt1]

So if Luck couldn't play anymore starting today, he would be inducted into the HOF in 5 years?

Is that what he said? I am under the mind set he was saying playing into the future.

[crazycolt1]

The game has changed since Mannings 1st 3 years, it was harder to throw then it is now. The defenses were great back in the late 90's early 2000's. Luck has been great but based on the eye test Manning was a superior player and just about every aspect of the game. Luck seems to have more Favre in him then Manning or Brady, he doesn't know when to just take a sack and live for another play. He tries to make the home run play everytime, which leads to fumbles and pick 6's. It's a strength to buy time and be mobile but it's also his biggest weakness because he tries to force it.

If leading the NFL is a weakness I will take it every time.

[John Dee]

I don't know where to start...   Peyton and Andrew are two TOTALLY different players first...   

 

both DO not have the same amount of responsibility.       Luck has to be great for Indy to win.   Manning in his first few years just did not need to LOSE the game.    the Colt D was pretty good in 99 and 2000 mid pack.. 

 

And Manning from 99 on had the EDGE in his absolute prime running the rock...  with Harrison, Dilger, Pollard, and Pathon.   

 

Indy ran the ball really well when Peyton first arrived...      remember everyone calling him the best "play action QB in the league" ?    Luck has NO WHERE near that type of running game. 

 

Different era's different teams, and different players.. a silly comparison really.   

 

JMO...   but I'm feeling snarky at the minute..    ;)

Just want to start a conversation regarding the career start that Luck has had. It can be pointed out that the NFL has become more friendly to QB's since 1998 but there are also some other factors that I'd like to discuss.

 

Quite a few people have stated that Luck has issues with turnovers. I would argue that the lack of a good offensive line has much to do with the turnovers. I don't recall Manning taking the kind of beating that Luck takes week in and week out. I think Manning came into the team with a much better OL as a whole.

 

Luck has produced his numbers( 85 td's vs 40 ints)with the lack of a solid run game as well as an offense that has a below average offensive line. Manning had the fortunate asset of Edge James as well as Marvin Harrison in his prime during his first 3 years albeit that James didn't come along until year 2. However I believe James led the league in rushing his first 2 years in the NFL and that's a huge asset to a QB.

 

Luck did inherit some nice weapons but he came in with an aging Reggie Wayne and a handful of rookie receivers. Those receivers have done great things and they've all developed nicely together.

 

Manning played with some awful defenses, yes even worse than what we have had the last 3 years. So, I think Manning played from behind just as much as Luck has.

 

I think it's been a great fortune that the Colt have had these two to lead the team. I just wanted to throw out some comparisons since several comments have been made about Luck's career so far vs Manning and the perception of a turnover issue.

[John Dee]

you are insane...   

 

And I am meaning it in a polite way..  no insult intended...         just stating truth..  

 

The game has changed since Mannings 1st 3 years, it was harder to throw then it is now. The defenses were great back in the late 90's early 2000's. Luck has been great but based on the eye test Manning was a superior player and just about every aspect of the game. Luck seems to have more Favre in him then Manning or Brady, he doesn't know when to just take a sack and live for another play. He tries to make the home run play everytime, which leads to fumbles and pick 6's. It's a strength to buy time and be mobile but it's also his biggest weakness because he tries to force it.

[braveheartcolt]

The game has changed since Mannings 1st 3 years, it was harder to throw then it is now. The defenses were great back in the late 90's early 2000's. Luck has been great but based on the eye test Manning was a superior player and just about every aspect of the game. Luck seems to have more Favre in him then Manning or Brady, he doesn't know when to just take a sack and live for another play. He tries to make the home run play everytime, which leads to fumbles and pick 6's. It's a strength to buy time and be mobile but it's also his biggest weakness because he tries to force it.

So you can actually remember Peyton's first 3 seasons, dissect them, compare them to the last 3 years of Mr Luck's, and can come up with that? Good job.

Or are you thinking about Peyton's full body of work?

The rules today certainly help QB play, but the physical presence of defenders now kind of equalises it. Perhaps. Who knows. Who cares. We are !ucky to have had both.

[Larry Horseman]

The game has changed since Mannings 1st 3 years, it was harder to throw then it is now. The defenses were great back in the late 90's early 2000's. Luck has been great but based on the eye test Manning was a superior player and just about every aspect of the game. Luck seems to have more Favre in him then Manning or Brady, he doesn't know when to just take a sack and live for another play. He tries to make the home run play everytime, which leads to fumbles and pick 6's. It's a strength to buy time and be mobile but it's also his biggest weakness because he tries to force it.

 

You either didn't watch PM his first three years or the prime of his career erased those memories. I could drop some stats that show Luck has more total TDs and fewer turnovers than PM in his first three years, but I don't really buy into the comparison argument anyways. They are both great. Both showed signs of greatness in their first three years. We are one of the luckiest franchises in the league to have back to back QBs of this quality: Montana to Young, Farve to Rodgers, Manning to Luck. 

[ricker182]

Is that what he said? I am under the mind set he was saying playing into the future.

He said he is a HOF QB. That's what that means. If he got hurt Sunday and couldn't play anymore, he most definitely isn't a HOF'er.  

He's in year three and people are already putting him there.  He COULD regress. He could get better. 

 

I'm a huge Luck fan, but I'm tired of people saying he's already one of the best ever.

[Superman]

Luck is turning it over because he refuses to give up on a play. Sometimes it's better just to fight another day than be Superman every play.

Can't be me every play...

On topic, yes. He doesn't have a fumbling problem. He has a ball security problem, and it's about decision making, not ability. Kurt Warner had a fumbling problem. That's entirely different.

[crazycolt1]

He said he is a HOF QB. That's what that means. If he got hurt Sunday and couldn't play anymore, he most definitely isn't a HOF'er.  

He's in year three and people are already putting him there.  He COULD regress. He could get better. 

 

I'm a huge Luck fan, but I'm tired of people saying he's already one of the best ever.

In his 3rd year he is one of the best ever. He has broken just about every record a new starting QB could possibly break. What more could he do to make you realize that?

[Happy2BeHere]

One could argue that the success he has outweighs the occasional turnover. Especially if you take tipped ball INT's out of the equation.

 

A lot of those "tipped INT's" are lucks fault. He's throwing the ball that is nearly tough to catch for ANY WR....

[Happy2BeHere]

Can't be me every play...

On topic, yes. He doesn't have a fumbling problem. He has a ball security problem, and it's about decision making, not ability. Kurt Warner had a fumbling problem. That's entirely different.

 

You can't be him "any play" Teasing...maybe not ?

 

But seriously...your definitely right. He CAN and WILL hold the ball...it's definitely almost all on decision making. Just trying to get out of the grasp or fling it out is causing most of them. That is definitely something he can improve. I love that Manning takes the sack when he knows he toast. Once Luck gets that figured out the fumbling of the ball will decrease by probably 80%.

[sfergson727]

So if Luck couldn't play anymore starting today, he would be inducted into the HOF in 5 years?

Don't be an *, you know what I meant.

[ColtStrong]

This thread amuses me.

[Fx Stryker]

Manning had a much better offensive line as well and Faulk and James.

 

Let's not exaggerate things. Glenn and Meadows were just entering the league. Tarik certainly wasn't the '03-'06 player. Meadows was just about average the whole time.

 

And the middle was terrible early on. McKinney and Moore were no better than what we have now, and the Colts had three different centers from '98-'00. And Jeff was a cast off, and didn't become "elite" until years later.

 

I understand we were fortunate to have great lines in the last "decade," but honestly that was only '03-'07. Don't paint a broad stroke over the whole decade because of a five elite seasons.

[SilentHill]

A lot of those "tipped INT's" are lucks fault. He's throwing the ball that is nearly tough to catch for ANY WR....

 

I wouldn't say "a lot" maybe two or three were actually tipped in the literal sense off the finger tips.

 

The rest the WR's had both hands on the ball, maybe he throws with too much zip on those short routes over the middle, but i'm not going to knock him for that.

[crazycolt1]

Let's not exaggerate things. Glenn and Meadows were just entering the league. Tarik certainly wasn't the '03-'06 player. Meadows was just about average the whole time.

 

And the middle was terrible early on. McKinney and Moore were no better than what we have now, and the Colts had three different centers from '98-'00. And Jeff was a cast off, and didn't become "elite" until years later.

 

I understand we were fortunate to have great lines in the last "decade," but honestly that was only '03-'07. Don't paint a broad stroke over the whole decade because of a five elite seasons.

I seem to remember that Mannings first 2 seasons were night and day. Year 1- 3-13, year 2-13-3. So it really didn't take long for Manning to be elite. If you are going to omit some of those years at least you could do is get them correct? JMO.

[Dark Superman]

I seem to remember that Mannings first 2 seasons were night and day. Year 1- 3-13, year 2-13-3. So it really didn't take long for Manning to be elite. If you are going to omit some of those years at least you could do is get them correct? JMO.

An elite quarterback who struggles in the playoffs..

I could only imagine how many rings he would of had as a Colt if we actually built a defense around him.

[ricker182]

Don't be an *, you know what I meant.

I do know what you meant and you're completely wrong. He isn't a HOF'er. 

How could you possibly say that less than three years into his career?

[ricker182]

In his 3rd year he is one of the best ever. He has broken just about every record a new starting QB could possibly break. What more could he do to make you realize that?

He hasn't even played 3 full seasons. Why don't you let him play 10+ years before saying he's one of the best ever.  

Does he have even close to the career numbers Manning or Brady or Breed have?

[sfergson727]

I do know what you meant and you're completely wrong. He isn't a HOF'er. 

How could you possibly say that less than three years into his career?

If he keeps at his current pace, he will be.  That is what I meant.  Any further questions?  I think most folks capable of thought understood clearly what I meant, I will remember to dumb it down for you next time.

[ricker182]

If he keeps at his current pace, he will be.  That is what I meant.  Any further questions?  I think most folks capable of thought understood clearly what I meant, I will remember to dumb it down for you next time.

Nice job being civil and resorting to name calling. 

That's a huge if.  

You act as if good QB's don't ever have bad seasons. 

IDK why you have to call him a HOF'er anyway. Just let him play out the rest of his career and enjoy it. Then decide if YOU think he's a HOF'er after it's all said and done.

[oldunclemark]

How come nobody ever compares Luck and Brady?