Andrew Luck Is Just Like Peyton...

[Case]

I do not understand the hype around Luck. If he had won against good Defenses and took Stanford to the National Championship, I would have no problem with him, but he has not and did not. The College scouts do not have him rank above average for football IQ. There are other QBs that are going to be lower in the draft that will just as good as Luck.

Wining a national championship in college means nothing coming to the nfl. Name a great qb in the league that won the national championship.

What scouts are you referring to? All the scouts I've seen say he has excellent football iq. Your making stuff up to try and justify your opinions.

[Ramblinwreck7]

The kicker who missed three FGs, including one which would have one the game and one in OT? Okay, I'll blame the kicker thanks

Yeah since redshirt freshman college kickers are solely blame when they miss long field goals... how about the "Legendary" Andrew Luck get a touchdown instead? Maybe he should learn to get 10 more yards to make it easier on the kicker? The blame goes both ways but you don't want to admit that now, do you?

[hawkeyes]

What??? Peyton's team. It's the Indianapolis colts

Exactly! Tired of hearing stuff like Brady has won 3 super bowls - Yes and NO - the Patriots have won 3 - he was just a member of the team!

[Ramblinwreck7]

Exactly! Tired of hearing stuff like Brady has won 3 super bowls - Yes and NO - the Patriots have won 3 - he was just a member of the team!

It is Peyton's team...

[Dan]

Yeah since redshirt freshman college kickers are solely blame when they miss long field goals... how about the "Legendary" Andrew Luck get a touchdown instead? Maybe he should learn to get 10 more yards to make it easier on the kicker? The blame goes both ways but you don't want to admit that now, do you?

Sure there was more he could do but you could say the same for any game. Why couldn't the "legendary" Peyton throw a couple more TDs in SB44? Or throw that extra few yards to get Vinatieri in field goal range against the Jets last year? Or maybe he should learn to get 10 more yards to make it easier on Vanderjagt in 2005?

[Case]

Yeah since redshirt freshman college kickers are solely blame when they miss long field goals... how about the "Legendary" Andrew Luck get a touchdown instead? Maybe he should learn to get 10 more yards to make it easier on the kicker? The blame goes both ways but you don't want to admit that now, do you?

With the lady possession of the game and all u need is 3 to win most teams are just going to okay for the 3 and luck put the kicked in a position to easily win the game. Luck did his job. Peyton choked in bowl games then the year he left I believe the vols won the bcs. Just because your team loses a college game doesn't mean u can't be good in the nfl

[Case]

It is Peyton's team...

Actually it's Jim Irsays team. Peyton is a qb in the TEAM

[Ramblinwreck7]

Sure there was more he could do but you could say the same for any game. Why couldn't the "legendary" Peyton throw a couple more TDs in SB44? Or throw that extra few yards to get Vinatieri in field goal range against the Jets last year? Or maybe he should learn to get 10 more yards to make it easier on Vanderjagt in 2005?

I'm not the one calling a college quarterback the best thing ever now am I? Most of you Luck supporters act like he will guarantee the colts success for 10-15 years? Like... what?

And Adam Vinatieri did make a field goal against the Jets..............................

[Ramblinwreck7]

Actually it's Jim Irsays team. Peyton is a qb in the TEAM

Without Peyton, what are the colts? Maybe one of the worst teams in NFL history during there time in the league. Who cares about the owner? People don't buy tickets to watch Irsay tweet something now do they? It's still Peyton's team.

[Dan]

I'm not the one calling a college quarterback the best thing ever now am I? Most of you Luck supporters act like he will guarantee the colts success for 10-15 years? Like... what?

And Adam Vinatieri did make a field goal against the Jets..............................

Could have made another field goal against Jets if Peyton got him more yards rather than failing to make first down a few times that game. If you're going to attack Luck by saying he could have done better (than 29/31..?) then don't run away as soon as you're presented with counterarguments that show Peyton Manning in a bad light. You cannot blame a quarterback for his kicker missing a game winning kick. If Luck decided to go for it rather than let his kicker take the kick and messed it up then he'd be entirely to blame.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Could have made another field goal against Jets if Peyton got him more yards rather than failing to make first down a few times that game. If you're going to attack Luck by saying he could have done better (than 29/31..?) then don't run away as soon as you're presented with counterarguments that show Peyton Manning in a bad light. You cannot blame a quarterback for his kicker missing a game winning kick. If Luck decided to go for it rather than let his kicker take the kick and messed it up then he'd be entirely to blame.

Your comparing Peyton Manning going up against the Jets defense... and Andrew Luck going up against Oklahoma States defense. And a redshirt freshman kicker to Adam Vinateri. You call that a counter argument? That doesn't even make since at all, your point is flawed.

[Case]

Without Peyton, what are the colts? Maybe one of the worst teams in NFL history during there time in the league. Who cares about the owner? People don't buy tickets to watch Irsay tweet something now do they? It's still Peyton's team.

Colts were the colts before pm and will be after. He has done a lot for the colts but it's not his team. It's a team

[Case]

Your comparing Peyton Manning going up against the Jets defense... and Andrew Luck going up against Oklahoma States defense. And a redshirt freshman kicker to Adam Vinateri. You call that a counter argument? That doesn't even make since at all, your point is flawed.

Exactly. Vinateri should make the kick where u think the redshirt freshmen wouldnt. Your point is flawed

[Dan]

Your comparing Peyton Manning going up against the Jets defense... and Andrew Luck going up against Oklahoma States defense. And a redshirt freshman kicker to Adam Vinateri. You call that a counter argument? That doesn't even make since at all, your point is flawed.

Stop bringing up that he's a redshirt freshman. It was a 35 yard kick, if anybody misses a 35 yard kick they are entirely to blame. I could get it in from 35 yards!

[JWF]

Stop bringing up that he's a redshirt freshman. It was a 35 yard kick, if anybody misses a 35 yard kick they are entirely to blame. I could get it in from 35 yards!

Edited*

This. College kickers are notoriously inconsistent but the fact the kid was a redshirt freshman just compounded it.

[Dan]

His point is valid though. College kickers are notoriously inconsistent but the fact the kid was a redshirt freshman just compounded it.

His point that Luck going 29/31 is more at fault than someone who missed three FGs for losing the game? Doesn't seem very valid to me.

[JWF]

His point that Luck going 29/31 is more at fault than someone who missed three FGs for losing the game? Doesn't seem very valid to me.

Yeah I agree with you. Sorry was kinda doing 2 things at once when posting and mistyped.

Fixed.

[GoColts8818]

the way he stutters during interviews, he always focuses on football and never really gets out of topic, and even the way he plays is similar to Peyton!

often times when one stutters like that it means they are trying to take that extra second to think of what they are going to say. I know you weren't trying to say it was bad thing I just wanted to confirm that because it means the person is thinking before they talk. Several pro-athletes could use that leason.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Exactly. Vinateri should make the kick where u think the redshirt freshmen wouldnt. Your point is flawed

...I don't even understand what your trying to tell me, Vinateri did make the kick...

[Bleedin Blue]

Actually, if you compare numbers, Luck has a higher completion percentage and better TD to INT ratio. Peyton has more TD's and total yards but he also played in more games.

[Ramblinwreck7]

His point that Luck going 29/31 is more at fault than someone who missed three FGs for losing the game? Doesn't seem very valid to me.

If your talking about completions, it should be 27-31. And Brandon Weeden had an equally good day as Luck against a better Stanford defense. He's a young college kicker in a pressure situation, he's probably going to struggle.

[Ramblinwreck7]

His point that Luck going 29/31 is more at fault than someone who missed three FGs for losing the game? Doesn't seem very valid to me.

That's not my point, but you can say that if you want to.

[Case]

If your talking about completions, it should be 27-31. And Brandon Weeden had an equally good day as Luck against a better Stanford defense. He's a young college kicker in a pressure situation, he's probably going to struggle.

Your screen name is starting to make a lot of sense now

[Dan]

If your talking about completions, it should be 27-31. And Brandon Weeden had an equally good day as Luck against a better Stanford defense. He's a young college kicker in a pressure situation, he's probably going to struggle.

I wonder if a certain top five pick eight catch 186 yard receiver had anything to do with Weeden's numbers? And yeah 27, sorry, I was going off memory which was slightly off

[Ramblinwreck7]

I wonder if a certain top five pick eight catch 186 yard receiver had anything to do with Weeden's numbers? And yeah 27, sorry, I was going off memory which was slightly off

But what about Stanford? There running game was good, the play action opened up the wide open deep ball to the Stanford WR. Both teams are good, they have there advantages in different areas though like O-line, WR, and defense.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Your screen name is starting to make a lot of sense now

I guess you don't like the truth...?

[Dan]

But what about Stanford? There running game was good, the play action opened up the wide open deep ball to the Stanford WR. Both teams are good, they have there advantages in different areas though like O-line, WR, and defense.

Yeah for sure but the fact is, undeniably, it is much easier to get yards throwing to Blackmon than any of the scrubs Luck has to contend with. Colts have always been good on play action so Luck will be able to exploit that there.

And I'm not even denying Weeden is good - if he was younger he'd be a great pick, but he's 28.

[Dustin]

This thread is starting to make Luck look like the anti-Tebow. When a kicker makes a 60 yarder to win the game, then Tebow is the "the best QB ever". But when Stanford's kicker misses three chip shots, then Luck is a bust.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Yeah for sure but the fact is, undeniably, it is much easier to get yards throwing to Blackmon than any of the scrubs Luck has to contend with. Colts have always been good on play action so Luck will be able to exploit that there.

And I'm not even denying Weeden is good - if he was younger he'd be a great pick, but he's 28.

I know what you mean with Brandon Weeden and Justin Blackmon, but isn't it is easier when you can throw to a wide open guy off of playaction like Stanfords 1st touchdown pass?

And it's been a while since the colts have been good in playaction, they haven't had a good running game in a while, it was pretty good this year though.

[Dan]

I know what you mean with Brandon Weeden and Justin Blackmon, but isn't it is easier when you can throw to a wide open guy off of playaction like Stanfords 1st touchdown pass?

And it's been a while since the colts have been good in playaction, they haven't had a good running game in a while, it was pretty good this year though.

It was mainly good this year because nobody expected us to let our QBs pass the ball

It is easier but not all his passes are like that, several are clever short ones to set a receiver into space for yards after etc. A lot about the short passing game is underrated

[oldunclemark]

when is the first exhibition game next August>>???

the return of Manning AND the debut of Luck...

Tickets on sale at a place near you!! . Dont miss it!!! :dancing:

[GoColts8818]

when is the first exhibition game next August>>???

the return of Manning AND the debut of Luck...

Tickets on sale at a place near you!! . Dont miss it!!! :dancing:

Watch they will send us to Seattle or something...

[Bleedin Blue]

But what about Stanford? There running game was good, the play action opened up the wide open deep ball to the Stanford WR. Both teams are good, they have there advantages in different areas though like O-line, WR, and defense.

Dude...the slowest receiver on Oklahoma's squad would easily be the fastest receiver on Stanford's receiving squad. It's not even close. Luck was hitting receivers in stride in windows about 1 yard wide. Weeden had windows big enough to fit a Lincoln town car through. Sideways! And the yards comparison is ridiculous. Blackmon did all that himself against an outmatched secondary.

[Flash7]

In the Bowl game against Oklahoma State, Luck made all of the types of throws that you would look for in a highly skilled QB. You cannot deny that he threw the ball deep, mid range and short range, all with accuracy. You also cannot deny that he made a lot of calls at the line to set up the best possible run against the defense that he saw. If you argue that Stanford has a great running game, you're also making a point that Luck can call a heck of a game at the line.

Luck does not have the "wow" factor that RGIII has because he's mostly a pocket passer. He's very accurate and gets rid of the ball fast. There's nothing flashy about that. The thing with Luck is that there isn't anything that he doesn't do well. We saw him change plays at the line of scrimmage, look off safeties to make passes in tight windows down the sideline, let the defensive pressure come within a few feet of him before throwing the ball to free up and set-up the screen play, and scramble to gain first downs when necessary. He has great fundamentals and a solid throwing motion. His arm is not weak and is actually above average. This will be proven at the combine, if he participates.

I've made this comparison before, but Andrew Luck reminds me of the football version of Tim Duncan, AKA "The Big Fundamental." He's not flashy but does everything extremely well.

Now, I'm not saying that we have to draft Luck, but if we do, I can definitely see why.

[Ramblinwreck7]

In the Bowl game against Oklahoma State, Luck made all of the types of throws that you would look for in a highly skilled QB. You cannot deny that he threw the ball deep, mid range and short range, all with accuracy. You also cannot deny that he made a lot of calls at the line to set up the best possible run against the defense that he saw. If you argue that Stanford has a great running game, you're also making a point that Luck can call a heck of a game at the line.

Luck does not have the "wow" factor that RGIII has because he's mostly a pocket passer. He's very accurate and gets rid of the ball fast. There's nothing flashy about that. The thing with Luck is that there isn't anything that he doesn't do well. We saw him change plays at the line of scrimmage, look off safeties to make passes in tight windows down the sideline, let the defensive pressure come within a few feet of him before throwing the ball to free up and set-up the screen play, and scramble to gain first downs when necessary. He has great fundamentals and a solid throwing motion. His arm is not weak and is actually above average. This will be proven at the combine, if he participates.

I've made this comparison before, but Andrew Luck reminds me of the football version of Tim Duncan, AKA "The Big Fundamental." He's not flashy but does everything extremely well.

Now, I'm not saying that we have to draft Luck, but if we do, I can definitely see why.

I would attribute Stanford's great running game to their excellent O-line, 1st round prospects like LT Jonathan Martin and G David Decastro, and great performance by running back Stephan Taylor, not to Andrew Luck's supposable play calling. I thought that was obvious though...

And no one is disputing that Andrew Luck looked very good in the bowl game against Oklahoma State.

[Restored]

In the Bowl game against Oklahoma State, Luck made all of the types of throws that you would look for in a highly skilled QB. You cannot deny that he threw the ball deep, mid range and short range, all with accuracy. You also cannot deny that he made a lot of calls at the line to set up the best possible run against the defense that he saw. If you argue that Stanford has a great running game, you're also making a point that Luck can call a heck of a game at the line.

Luck does not have the "wow" factor that RGIII has because he's mostly a pocket passer. He's very accurate and gets rid of the ball fast. There's nothing flashy about that. The thing with Luck is that there isn't anything that he doesn't do well. We saw him change plays at the line of scrimmage, look off safeties to make passes in tight windows down the sideline, let the defensive pressure come within a few feet of him before throwing the ball to free up and set-up the screen play, and scramble to gain first downs when necessary. He has great fundamentals and a solid throwing motion. His arm is not weak and is actually above average. This will be proven at the combine, if he participates.

I've made this comparison before, but Andrew Luck reminds me of the football version of Tim Duncan, AKA "The Big Fundamental." He's not flashy but does everything extremely well.

Now, I'm not saying that we have to draft Luck, but if we do, I can definitely see why.

Fundamentals are often what seperate good players from great players in their ablity to implement and use them consistently. Luck is fundamental.

[Flash7]

I would attribute Stanford's great running game to their excellent O-line, 1st round prospects like LT Jonathan Martin and G David Decastro, and great performance by running back Stephan Taylor, not to Andrew Luck's supposable play calling. I thought that was obvious though...

And no one is disputing that Andrew Luck looked very good in the bowl game against Oklahoma State.

I am not arguing that Stanford doesn't have a great O-line, or a very good running back in Stephan Taylor. My argument was in addition to this, he also makes calls at the line to the best possible run play.

Your argument negates that Luck can read a defense and call a run play designed to attack that defense's weakness. Instead, it has nothing at all to do with him and only Stanford's O-line and runninbacks. My argument states that they all play a factor, including Luck's ability to call plays against the defense.

[CCH]

I'm just going to pay attention to what Mark Barron does and maybe Morris Claiborne. Not really interested in this year's game. It should be Oklahoma State vs LSU.

[Ramblinwreck7]

I'm just going to pay attention to what Mark Barron does and maybe Morris Claiborne. Not really interested in this year's game. It should be Oklahoma State vs LSU.

I want to draft both of those guys.

[coltsfaninwrongcity]

Look everyone all I have to say about this whole sistuations one Manning is good no matter what, and secondly we do not need to get rid of peyton let luck learn from him and the either trade manning or put him as qb coach