Is Andrew the next Dan Marino

[oldunclemark]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 1:34 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

What makes him better than Stafford?  These ar my most relevant QB stats of the two-

 

QB comp-

Name         Comp. %     TD%     Int%     Yd/gm     Y/A    QB rate    Sk/yr

Luck              59.2          5.0       2.6       272.5      7.0     87.3          31

Stafford         61.5          4.4       2.5        278        7.1     86.8          30

 

Where is the mark delineating one from the other?  Team record aside, that's a team thing.  And besides, Colts record has been .500 2 years straight while Detroit seems on the rise, even without Megatron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A little cherry picking there..I dont see TDs (not TD %) or team victories....or rushing yards

Detroit 'seems to be on the rise...'last 2 years'  really?

weren't the Lions 7-9 two years ago.?   Colts have never had a losing season with Andrew...

 

Career team victories and division titles put Luck ahead of Matt Stafford, a good QB

They are not equals, to me

[2006Coltsbestever]

8 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

A little cherry picking there..I dont see TDs (not TD %) or team victories....or rushing yards

Detroit 'seems to be on the rise...'last 2 years'  really?

weren't the Lions 7-9 two years ago.?   Colts have never had a losing season with Andrew...

 

Career team victories and division titles put Luck ahead of Matt Stafford, a good QB

They are not equals, to me

Great point and that is very important because Andrew is a much better duel threat. He can take off and run with the best of them. One has to include everything when comparing stats. Just like with Cam, if you leave off his rushing numbers he isn't even a Top 10 QB.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Great point and that is very important because Andrew is a much better duel threat. He can take off and run with the best of them. One has to include everything when comparing stats. Just like with Cam, if you leave off his rushing numbers he isn't even a Top 10 QB.

To add to this I don't care for any comparison to Andrew where a QB has never won a Playoff game, like Stafford or Carr. Andrew has played on a huge stage in the Playoffs = the Title game. Yes he failed but he lost to one of the best teams of all-time and he got the Colts that far without a running game.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Andrew could be the next Dan Marino.

 

He could be the GOAT if he wins 6 SBs in a row and breaks every QB record known to man.

 

We're a long way from either.  Heck, he could wake up tomorrow realizing he has no more desire for the game and decide he wants to build stadiums, like he studied in college, rather than play in them.

 

Let's just take this one game at a time for the next decade or so, and hope that we get to enjoy watching him play for the Colts for that long.

[GoBlue12]

Maybe Grigson was channeling the Dolphins?

 

Marino + 2 smurfs,  Clayton and Duper 

 

Luck + 2 smurfs, TY and Dorsett 

 

No Super Bowls

[basketballsteve]

Or he could be John Elway, or he could be Roger Staubach, or he could be Bert Jones, or he could Roman Gabriel, or Fran Tarkenton, or Sonny Jurgensen, in other words he is an extremely good player who does his job well enough to be a part of a championship team or not but it is the team around him that is in question and will determine his ultimate success, not Andrew. It's enough to know for now, that Andrew is not Trent Dilfer, nor is he Bart Starr, or Doug Williams, nor is he Jeff George, or Art Schlichter, or Mike Pagel.

[2006Coltsbestever]

26 minutes ago, basketballsteve said:

Or he could be John Elway, or he could be Roger Staubach, or he could be Bert Jones, or he could Roman Gabriel, or Fran Tarkenton, or Sonny Jurgensen, in other words he is an extremely good player who does his job well enough to be a part of a championship team or not but it is the team around him that is in question and will determine his ultimate success, not Andrew. It's enough to know for now, that Andrew is not Trent Dilfer, nor is he Bart Starr, or Doug Williams, nor is he Jeff George, or Art Schlichter, or Mike Pagel.

Mike Pagel  Thank God he isn't like him, he sucked!

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

A little cherry picking there..I dont see TDs (not TD %) or team victories....or rushing yards

Detroit 'seems to be on the rise...'last 2 years'  really?

weren't the Lions 7-9 two years ago.?   Colts have never had a losing season with Andrew...

 

Career team victories and division titles put Luck ahead of Matt Stafford, a good QB

They are not equals, to me

 

TD % is there.

 

But as I mentioned earlier, team victories mean little.

 

I might even add Matthew Stafford would have many more victories if he QB'd for the Colts in his career rather than the Lions.  So you can't use team victories unless you can prove the Lions were a better fit for Stafford and would give him more team victories than if playing for the Colts.

[VocableLoki]

6 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

TD % is there.

 

But as I mentioned earlier, team victories mean little.

 

I might even add Matthew Stafford would have many more victories if he QB'd for the Colts in his career rather than the Lions.  So you can't use team victories unless you can prove the Lions were a better fit for Stafford and would give him more team victories than if playing for the Colts.

I think it's fair to say that Andrew Luck has carried the Colts more than Stanford has the Lions though. Stafford hasn't even been the best player on his team for most of his career.

 

You think Andrew Luck could've won more with that Lions team (believe it was 2014) where Suh and co lead a very good defense and he would be throwing to Calvin Johnson? I do.

 

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, VocableLoki said:

I think it's fair to say that Andrew Luck has carried the Colts more than Stanford has the Lions though. Stafford hasn't even been the best player on his team for most of his career.

 

You think Andrew Luck could've won more with that Lions team (believe it was 2014) where Suh and co lead a very good defense and he would be throwing to Calvin Johnson? I do.

 

 

 

No, I don't think it is fair to say Luck has carried the Colts more.  Andrew was drafted #1 overall by a perennial playoff team hat had Peyton Manning as the QB.  Stafford was drafted #1 overall to guide a Lions team that went 0 - 16.  He was 2-8 in games he started in his rookie year, and threw a lot of picks learning.  But he also became the youngest QB to toss 5 TD passes in a game, doing so almost a full year younger than Dan Marino was when he threw 5.

 

The more I look, the more I see similarities, not differences. As far as seasons, if their 11 - 5 2014 season is what you refer too, I feel any team trying to get wins past 11 is very difficult... for P. Manning, T. Brady, D. Brees, A. Luck, etc..   Also, Megatron was hurt some that season.  But the biggest issue Stafford might have had was the new philosophy of Joe Lombardi at OC.  Stafford seems to gel much better under Jim Bob Cooter..  All of these things play into to it,  So no, I cannot say A. Luck under J. Lombardi scheme at Detroit would have collected more than 11 wins in 2014. 

 

Comps-

 

http://football-players.pointafter.com/compare/12698-19572/Andrew-Luck-vs-Matthew-Stafford

 

I still give my QB the edge, maybe homerism.  Maybe ceiling height, maybe intangibles... don't know, but to me they are close with A.Luck having an edge.

[VocableLoki]

17 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

No, I don't think it is fair to say Luck has carried the Colts more.  Andrew was drafted #1 overall by a perennial playoff team hat had Peyton Manning as the QB.  Stafford was drafted #1 overall to guide a Lions team that went 0 - 16.  He was 2-8 in games he started in his rookie year, and threw a lot of picks learning.  But he also became the youngest QB to toss 5 TD passes in a game, doing so almost a full year younger than Dan Marino was when he threw 5.

 

The more I look, the more I see similarities, not differences. As far as seasons, if their 11 - 5 2014 season is what you refer too, I feel any team trying to get wins past 11 is very difficult... for P. Manning, T. Brady, D. Brees, A. Luck, etc..   Also, Megatron was hurt some that season.  But the biggest issue Stafford might have had was the new philosophy of Joe Lombardi at OC.  Stafford seems to gel much better under Jim Bob Cooter..  All of these things play into to it,  So no, I cannot say A. Luck under J. Lombardi scheme at Detroit would have collected more than 11 wins in 2014. 

 

Comps-

 

http://football-players.pointafter.com/compare/12698-19572/Andrew-Luck-vs-Matthew-Stafford

 

I still give my QB the edge, maybe homerism.  Maybe ceiling height, maybe intangibles... don't know, but to me they are close with A.Luck having an edge.

Luck was drafted to a team that went 2-14 and the next three seasons they are in the playoffs. The Lions have yet to win a playoff game with Stafford.

 

You are ignoring the lions having a top 3 defense that year, and Stafford had one of the greatest receivers of his generation for the better part of his career. The coordinator isn't that relevant, Andrew isn't playing under Mike Martz, one year of Arians is the extent of his coordinating excellence. Throw in a terrible team construction and I think it's fair to say Andrew has had more on his shoulders.

 

I agree Andrew has an edge, I just don't think they're that close overall.

[ColtsBlueFL]

29 minutes ago, VocableLoki said:

Luck was drafted to a team that went 2-14 and the next three seasons they are in the playoffs. The Lions have yet to win a playoff game with Stafford.

 

You are ignoring the lions having a top 3 defense that year, and Stafford had one of the greatest receivers of his generation for the better part of his career. The coordinator isn't that relevant, Andrew isn't playing under Mike Martz, one year of Arians is the extent of his coordinating excellence. Throw in a terrible team construction and I think it's fair to say Andrew has had more on his shoulders.

 

I agree Andrew has an edge, I just don't think they're that close overall.

 

Duly noted, and still disagree.

 

To close, I counter your presentation bolded statement above with this-

 

Matthew Stafford was drafted first overall to a team that had only 12 winning seasons since 1967 and had gone 0-16 the year before.

 

Luck was drafted first overall by a team that had won seven of last ten AFC South championships, was three years removed from a Super Bowl appearance and two years removed from their last division championship.

 

Ummm, yes indeed. There's quite a bit of a difference there. And...

 

"With the exception of 2013, Matthew Stafford plays in a division that's had two playoff teams in it every year since 2009, one of which won a Super Bowl recently. Andrew Luck plays in a division that hasn't had two playoff teams since his rookie year and has only one team who has ever won a Super Bowl, the Colts. If the places were switched, would Stafford have the same success as Luck has had? Would Luck have the same troubles and stigmas that Stafford has had? "

 

Its point - counterpoint... with the same conclusion in my mind... at least for now.

[VocableLoki]

20 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Duly noted, and still disagree.

 

To close, I counter your presentation bolded statement above with this-

 

Matthew Stafford was drafted first overall to a team that had only 12 winning seasons since 1967 and had gone 0-16 the year before.

 

Luck was drafted first overall by a team that had won seven of last ten AFC South championships, was three years removed from a Super Bowl appearance and two years removed from their last division championship.

 

Ummm, yes indeed. There's quite a bit of a difference there. And...

 

"With the exception of 2013, Matthew Stafford plays in a division that's had two playoff teams in it every year since 2009, one of which won a Super Bowl recently. Andrew Luck plays in a division that hasn't had two playoff teams since his rookie year and has only one team who has ever won a Super Bowl, the Colts. If the places were switched, would Stafford have the same success as Luck has had? Would Luck have the same troubles and stigmas that Stafford has had? "

 

Its point - counterpoint... with the same conclusion in my mind... at least for now.

Yes, the Colts were a much better franchise with Peyton Manning at the helm. The team had bottomed out by the time Andrew arrived, Mathis and Wayne were pretty much the only relevant players from that era. Ergo, they both stepped into bad teams.

 

Division is a fair point but Andrew is 6-2 in his career against that division, while Stafford is 3-5 against South teams. The article you are quoting your arguments from doesn't take into account running stats or supporting casts. Again, give Andrew Luck a defense that good and you would feel that team should be Super Bowl caliber, the Lions lost in the Wild Card.

[southwest1]

On March 19, 2017 at 7:19 PM, CR91 said:

 What would be your opinion of Andrew if he never brings Indy a championship?

I actually like this question CR91 & yr 6 in Chewy's NFL career is a good time to at least broach the subject. I find it funny how some fans think that just by mulling over the question you are somehow disrespecting Luck. Relax folks, let's not nail CR91 to a cross for asking a valid question as a current snapshot of his football career right here & now. 

On March 19, 2017 at 10:47 PM, crazycolt1 said:

This nonsense of what QB has a ring or doesn't have a ring is hogwash. Rings are won by teams and not QBs. Like Northern Blue said Trent Dilfer has a ring. His team won the super bowl for gods sake. Would Bradshaw have his rings had it not been for the team he was playing on? Would Montana have his? Would Brady have his if not for team play? No. If it fell on just the QB's back Dan Fouts would have a ring or two. This pointing a finger at any QB who has any super bowl rings and thinking it was done by himself is an insult to the team he played on.

Not really. Yellow HOF jackets in the category of QBs is usually cemented by shiny hardware. Okay sure, Jim Kelly may have never won a ring, but he took the Bills to 4 consecutive SB appearances for instance. Part of me hates the tag line you win as a team & lose as a team. Utter nonsense. Do you think the Browns wouldn't given anything for a playoff caliber QB? In this league, if you don't have a proven field general that can carry you when the snow falls, your club is toast yr in yr out. 

On March 20, 2017 at 6:22 AM, lollygagger8 said:

If Luck starts doing Isotoner ads, maybe you can start worrying

 

Lolly, you always make me laugh! You're the best bro. 

On March 20, 2017 at 0:26 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

Depending upon the criteria, and the way things go, he might be the next Dan Marino.  Who knows.

 

But I will tell you this, and it will really tick off some members here.  Andrew Luck is fast becoming something like the next Matthew Stafford-

 

MS-

AL-

 

Does anyone else feel the Lions are closer to being ready to compete fore the Lombardi than the Colts?

 

Matthew Stafford? Let's not go off the deep end now....Is this an analytics baseball numbers thing CBFL? 

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

I actually like this question CR91 & yr 6 in Chewy's NFL career is a good time to at least broach the subject. I find it funny how some fans think that just by mulling over the question you are somehow disrespecting Luck. Relax folks, let's not nail CR91 to a cross for asking a valid question as a current snapshot of his football career right here & now. 

Not really. Yellow HOF jackets in the category of QBs is usually cemented by shiny hardware. Okay sure, Jim Kelly may have never won a ring, but he took the Bills to 4 consecutive SB appearances for instance. Part of me hates the tag line you win as a team & lose as a team. Utter nonsense. Do you think the Browns wouldn't given anything for a playoff caliber QB? In this league, if you don't have a proven field general that can carry you when the snow falls, your club is toast yr in yr out. 

Lolly, you always make me laugh! You're the best bro. 

Matthew Stafford? Let's not go off the deep end now....Is this an analytics baseball numbers thing CBFL? 

 

Answer this honestly then, please. If in 2012, we swap Andrew Luck to the Lions and Matthew Stafford to the Colts.  Who has the better record since then? 

 

Before the (hypothetical) swap, stats are nearly identical.  Only wins is way off, and TD% is slightly lower (5.0 vs. 4.5), other wise.... mirror mirror.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

I actually like this question CR91 & yr 6 in Chewy's NFL career is a good time to at least broach the subject. I find it funny how some fans think that just by mulling over the question you are somehow disrespecting Luck. Relax folks, let's not nail CR91 to a cross for asking a valid question as a current snapshot of his football career right here & now. 

Not really. Yellow HOF jackets in the category of QBs is usually cemented by shiny hardware. Okay sure, Jim Kelly may have never won a ring, but he took the Bills to 4 consecutive SB appearances for instance. Part of me hates the tag line you win as a team & lose as a team. Utter nonsense. Do you think the Browns wouldn't given anything for a playoff caliber QB? In this league, if you don't have a proven field general that can carry you when the snow falls, your club is toast yr in yr out. 

Lolly, you always make me laugh! You're the best bro. 

Matthew Stafford? Let's not go off the deep end now....Is this an analytics baseball numbers thing CBFL? 

Manning's super bowl rings were won by teams and not Manning. Manning ring at Indy was won by the defense and the running game, not on Manning's shoulders.

His last ring with the Bronco's was won by the Bronco's defense in spite of Manning having one of the worst seasons in his entire career. 

Jim McMohon, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Russell Williams  Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco and Brad Johnson are just an example of QBs who have super bowl rings who a few of them were not even starters. Ben Roethlisberger has two rings after throwing 1 TD in two super bowls.

You can have five Joe Montana's on a team but without the team built around him he would have zero rings.

 

[LockeDown]

It's cliche but true.  The media, sportscasters, network producers, sports columnists all tell the public what to think.  They romantisize the games.  They want there to be a story for them to tell.  If you win, you make them tell your story.  If you lose, they make you a bum or sympathetic figure.  Fans have their own opinions, but we still are bombarded by their articles like the top 10 greatest QBs and they always use rings as the final piece.  Anybody fan who saw Marino knows he was top 3 or 5.  Brady being picked late went to a dynasty defense with the all time great coach.  Peyton and Luck being picked 1st, went to the worst teams in the league.  That's apples to oranges.

[2006Coltsbestever]

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 7:41 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Duly noted, and still disagree.

 

To close, I counter your presentation bolded statement above with this-

 

Matthew Stafford was drafted first overall to a team that had only 12 winning seasons since 1967 and had gone 0-16 the year before.

 

Luck was drafted first overall by a team that had won seven of last ten AFC South championships, was three years removed from a Super Bowl appearance and two years removed from their last division championship.

 

Ummm, yes indeed. There's quite a bit of a difference there. And...

 

"With the exception of 2013, Matthew Stafford plays in a division that's had two playoff teams in it every year since 2009, one of which won a Super Bowl recently. Andrew Luck plays in a division that hasn't had two playoff teams since his rookie year and has only one team who has ever won a Super Bowl, the Colts. If the places were switched, would Stafford have the same success as Luck has had? Would Luck have the same troubles and stigmas that Stafford has had? "

 

Its point - counterpoint... with the same conclusion in my mind... at least for now.

What the Colts did before Andrew Luck has no relevance to his success because we totally rebuilt the team coming off a 2-14 season. Yes we kept Reggie Wayne and Robert Mathis but got rid of 70% of out Roster. We weren't even close to being the team we were from 2003-2010. Yes our franchise has been much better than the Lions but the team Andrew came into stunk and he still led us to an 11-5 record. You keep disregarding wins but that is the name of the game. Why does 99% of the media and most fans label Brady the GOAT? It's because he is the ultimate winner at the QB position. Luck has had better success than Stafford in winning games. Also compare each QB's Rushing Stats which you didn't mention in the OP, Andrew is much better. You have to factor that in because that is an important part of Andrew's success much like it is Cam Newton's. Stafford is a Good QB but Andrew is definitely better all-around, I don't even think it's a debate.

[southwest1]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Manning's super bowl rings were won by teams and not Manning. Manning ring at Indy was won by the defense and the running game, not on Manning's shoulders.

His last ring with the Bronco's was won by the Bronco's defense in spite of Manning having one of the worst seasons in his entire career. 

Jim McMohon, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Russell Williams  Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco and Brad Johnson are just an example of QBs who have super bowl rings who a few of them were not even starters. Ben Roethlisberger has two rings after throwing 1 TD in two super bowls.

You can have five Joe Montana's on a team but without the team built around him he would have zero rings.

 

Up until Jerome Bettis won his Ring at Ford Field in 1995 against Mike Holmgren's Seahawks, you could probably make a valid argument that a quality TE, FB, WR, & gunner with speed was required to get a good return on special teams CC1, but now from about 1999 with Kurt Warner's greatest show on turf thru 2016, the game of football has become ariel torpedoes in my humble opinion & backs like Levon Bell in Pittsburgh are more valued for his hands & crisp route cuts then short goal line touchdowns in my estimation CC1.

 

The great neutralizer is a solid defense which allows QBs more opportunities to score points on a shorter field. 

 

My point is this: An elite QB with a high powered arm has a better shot at winning a ring with a mediocre offense as long as the defense is a smothering one. Today's game isn't dependent on a high caliber arsenal around your QB, but a D that stops their opponent on 3rd down consistently. 

[VocableLoki]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Answer this honestly then, please. If in 2012, we swap Andrew Luck to the Lions and Matthew Stafford to the Colts.  Who has the better record since then? 

 

Before the (hypothetical) swap, stats are nearly identical.  Only wins is way off, and TD% is slightly lower (5.0 vs. 4.5), other wise.... mirror mirror.

 

Again, the Lions had one of the greatest receivers of his generation, a better running game than the Colts had, better offensive line and a MUCH better defense between 2012-16. I simply don't see how the argument can be made that Luck wouldn't be able to win more games with a better team around him. 

 

Their volume passing statistics are similar, yes, but Luck has had to carry a more significant burden offensively and hasn't had as good of supporting cast for his career. Not to mention one of the more baffling attempts at roster construction around a franchise player in recent memory. 

 

A few other stats worth points out:

 

654 Stafford Rushing Yards 59.2 QBR average

 

Luck 1442 Rushing Yards  66 QBR average

 

And their QBR's may even be further apart, as Luck's 2015 season pulls his down and Stafford's 2016 is a big jump from previous numbers. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, VocableLoki said:

Again, the Lions had one of the greatest receivers of his generation, a better running game than the Colts had, better offensive line and a MUCH better defense between 2012-16. I simply don't see how the argument can be made that Luck wouldn't be able to win more games with a better team around him. 

 

Their volume passing statistics are similar, yes, but Luck has had to carry a more significant burden offensively and hasn't had as good of supporting cast for his career. Not to mention one of the more baffling attempts at roster construction around a franchise player in recent memory. 

 

A few other stats worth points out:

 

654 Stafford Rushing Yards 59.2 QBR average

 

Luck 1442 Rushing Yards  66 QBR average

 

And their QBR's may even be further apart, as Luck's 2015 season pulls his down and Stafford's 2016 is a big jump from previous numbers. 

Thanks for Posting the rushing numbers. I wasn't sure what they were but I knew it wasn't close and that is a huge part of the game in todays game.

[southwest1]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Answer this honestly then, please. If in 2012, we swap Andrew Luck to the Lions and Matthew Stafford to the Colts.  Who has the better record since then? 

 

Before the (hypothetical) swap, stats are nearly identical.  Only wins is way off, and TD% is slightly lower (5.0 vs. 4.5), other wise.... mirror mirror.

Mirror mirror what? Has Matthew Stafford played in a conference championship game in his career yet? How many division titles have his Lions won since he become the starter vs Luck in that same timeframe? 

 

I hate stats because they are a arbitrary weed out criteria system that only tells a tiny insignificant picture of a QB's clout & legacy.  

[southwest1]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Manning's super bowl rings were won by teams and not Manning. Manning ring at Indy was won by the defense and the running game, not on Manning's shoulders.

His last ring with the Bronco's was won by the Bronco's defense in spite of Manning having one of the worst seasons in his entire career. 

Jim McMohon, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Russell Williams  Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco and Brad Johnson are just an example of QBs who have super bowl rings who a few of them were not even starters. Ben Roethlisberger has two rings after throwing 1 TD in two super bowls.

You can have five Joe Montana's on a team but without the team built around him he would have zero rings.

 

Your post is a valid one CC1. I get where you coming from & I will concede that no QB can win any Championship in isolation. Very true. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Winning SB's is definitely a team thing but normally you need an Elite QB to win multiple SB's. You may get lucky and win 1 like Dilfer or Johnson or Hostetler, crap happens but really other than Jim Plunkett every QB that has won more than 1 has been Elite. Peyton wasn't Elite in winning his last one but he was for most of his career.

[southwest1]

Is Andrew the next Dan Marino? 

 

Well, I haven't seen Andrew Luck in any Nutrisystem for Men TV commercials yet CR91. Does that clear things up? 

 

Sorry man, just goofing around pal. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Winning SB's is definitely a team thing but normally you need an Elite QB to win multiple SB's. You may get lucky and win 1 like Dilfer or Johnson or Hostetler, crap happens but really other than Jim Plunkett every QB that has won more than 1 has been Elite. Peyton wasn't Elite in winning his last one but he was for most of his career.

A little off topic but for fun to follow this up, here are the QB's that have won multiple SB's as a starter:

Brady 5 = Elite

Montana 4 = Elite

Bradshaw 4 = Elite

Aikman 3 = Elite

Peyton 2 = Elite

Elway 2 = Elite

Staubach 2 = Elite

Starr 2 = Elite

Big Ben 2 = Elite

Griese 2 = Elite

Eli 2 = Elite, you have to say he's Elite. He had 2 game winning drives vs the Pats

Plunkett 2 = NOT Elite but he was Good.

-11 of the 12 multiple SB winners have been Elite as a whole when you take their full career's into account.

 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

A little off topic but for fun to follow this up, here are the QB's that have won multiple SB's as a starter:

Brady 5 = Elite

Montana 4 = Elite

Bradshaw 4 = Elite

Aikman 3 = Elite

Peyton 2 = Elite

Elway 2 = Elite

Staubach 2 = Elite

Starr 2 = Elite

Big Ben 2 = Elite

Griese 2 = Elite

Eli 2 = Elite, you have to say he's Elite. He had 2 game winning drives vs the Pats

Plunkett 2 = NOT Elite but he was Good.

-11 of the 12 multiple SB winners have been Elite as a whole when you take their full career's into account.

 

I get exactly what you are saying but what made these QBs elite?  Could it be by playing on elite teams? Just saying.

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Again, the Lions had one of the greatest receivers of his generation, a better running game than the Colts had, better offensive line and a MUCH better defense between 2012-16.

 

The volume passing statistics are similar...

 

So you are saying Stafford MADE the Lions bad, when based upon the above, they should have won many more games than the Colts did i that time frame.  OK, got it.

 

So the deduced corollary is, if Luck was QB of the Lions instead, he would already have a SB trophy or two in his trophy case and not the dismal record Matthew Stafford has posted.  Right?

 

Stafford is closer to Luck than people will admit, and I predicted this backlash in the OP.

 

Your position is duly noted, though.  But I stand on my assessments.

[ColtsBlueFL]

9 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Mirror mirror what? Has Matthew Stafford played in a conference championship game in his career yet? How many division titles have his Lions won since he become the starter vs Luck in that same timeframe? 

 

I hate stats because they are a arbitrary weed out criteria system that only tells a tiny insignificant picture of a QB's clout & legacy.  

 

Who was Stafford's division competition?  {Packers, Vikings, Bears}

Who was Andrew Lucks division competition?  {Texans, Titans, Jaguars}

 

Now, In the same time frame-

 

How many playoffs, conference championships, and Super Bowls does the Colts AFC South opponents have?

How many playoffs, conference championships, and Super Bowls does the Lions NFC North opponents have?

 

I hate arbitrary milestones without qualifications, as the ease of the path to the destination isn't always the same for all teams.

[VocableLoki]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

So you are saying Stafford MADE the Lions bad, when based upon the above, they should have won many more games than the Colts did i that time frame.  OK, got it.

 

So the deduced corollary is, if Luck was QB of the Lions instead, he would already have a SB trophy or two in his trophy case and not the dismal record Matthew Stafford has posted.  Right?

 

Stafford is closer to Luck than people will admit, and I predicted this backlash in the OP.

 

Your position is duly noted, though.  But I stand on my assessments.

 

First, I am not sure why you are quoting a different poster to comment on my argument.

 

No, that is not what I am arguing. Stafford did not make the Lions worse but my bolded argument is true. The Lions had a better team around him. 

 

Again, no. I have not suggested that Andrew would have won a "SB trophy or two," I just pointed out that Andrew Luck would have had a better team around him from 2012-16, so it stands to reason that he would have a chance of greater success if you put him on a better team.

 

I don't understand why are stretching reasonable points out to unreasonable extremes. Yes, Stafford and Luck have similar passing statistics and yes Stafford plays in a division with the Packers but there is more nuance to being a good quarterback than that. I addressed the fact that Stafford is 3-5 against the AFC South and Luck is 6-2 against the NFC North, it's also been argued more than a few times in this thread that Stafford had a better team and Luck produced more for the offense on the whole. 

 

In terms of PFF focus rankings, Stafford has been 21st, 11th, 18th, 21st and 7th from, 2012-2016 (in order)

 

Luck has been 13th, 9th, 5th, 37th, and 4th in the same time span.

 

I think once you get into deeper statistics, there is a significant difference between the two. 

 

I think Stafford is a very good quarterback, I just don't think passing statistics alone put him and Andrew on the same level. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

So you are saying Stafford MADE the Lions bad, when based upon the above, they should have won many more games than the Colts did i that time frame.  OK, got it.

 

So the deduced corollary is, if Luck was QB of the Lions instead, he would already have a SB trophy or two in his trophy case and not the dismal record Matthew Stafford has posted.  Right?

 

Stafford is closer to Luck than people will admit, and I predicted this backlash in the OP.

 

Your position is duly noted, though.  But I stand on my assessments.

I actually wasn't the one who said that, that was Vocab's Post. Not sure why it has me quoting that. Please Scroll up and see you replied to the wrong person.

[NFLfan]

1 hour ago, VocableLoki said:

First, I am not sure why you are quoting a different poster to comment on my argument.

 

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I actually wasn't the one who said that, that was Vocab's Post. Not sure why it has me quoting that. Please Scroll up and see you replied to the wrong person.

 

I don't think he did that purposely. I have seen that happen at other times, including once with me. It's some kind of computer glitch. 

 

As for the original question, it is too early for Luck to be Marino as in "No Super Bowl Championships". Luck has at least 10 more years to bring a SB to Indy. 

 

As for the Stafford comparison, I don't see why that should upset anyone. It is not like being compared to Tim Couch or Sam Bradford. Stafford this year did play a lot like Luck has, bringing his team from behind several times as Luck has done.  While I prefer Luck over Stafford, I would take Stafford on my own team any day. 

[VocableLoki]

16 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

I don't think he did that purposely. I have seen that happen at other times, including once with me. It's some kind of computer glitch. 

 

As for the original question, it is too early for Luck to be Marino as in "No Super Bowl Championships". Luck has at least 10 more years to bring a SB to Indy. 

 

As for the Stafford comparison, I don't see why that should upset anyone. It is not like being compared to Tim Couch or Sam Bradford. Stafford this year did play a lot like Luck has, bringing his team from behind several times as Luck has done.  While I prefer Luck over Stafford, I would take Stafford on my own team any day. 

Sure, I wrote the first sentence harsher than I should have.

[ColtsBlueFL]

13 hours ago, VocableLoki said:

A few other stats worth points out:

 

654 Stafford Rushing Yards 59.2 QBR average

 

Luck 1442 Rushing Yards  66 QBR average

 

So, what does that mean? 

 

2860 Cam Newton Rushing Yards 60.5 QBR average (34 rushing TD's to Luck's 14 and Stafford's 11 )  !!!

 

While luck was mostly throwing just over 4000 yds/year, Stafford was near or over 5000 yards a couple of times.  Lets add passing yards to rushing yards for each of the 3 players per season, then total those., Only then will we see a broader picture. 

 

And yes, I still prefer Luck over Stafford by a margin but it's not enormous at this time.  Though I do not see an enormous difference, but I do see differences), However, I would take Stafford over many NFL QB's currently being trotted out as starters.

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, VocableLoki said:

First, I am not sure why you are quoting a different poster to comment on my argument.

 

No, that is not what I am arguing. Stafford did not make the Lions worse but my bolded argument is true. The Lions had a better team around him. 

 

Again, no. I have not suggested that Andrew would have won a "SB trophy or two," I just pointed out that Andrew Luck would have had a better team around him from 2012-16, so it stands to reason that he would have a chance of greater success if you put him on a better team.

 

I don't understand why are stretching reasonable points out to unreasonable extremes. Yes, Stafford and Luck have similar passing statistics and yes Stafford plays in a division with the Packers but there is more nuance to being a good quarterback than that. I addressed the fact that Stafford is 3-5 against the AFC South and Luck is 6-2 against the NFC North, it's also been argued more than a few times in this thread that Stafford had a better team and Luck produced more for the offense on the whole. 

 

In terms of PFF focus rankings, Stafford has been 21st, 11th, 18th, 21st and 7th from, 2012-2016 (in order)

 

Luck has been 13th, 9th, 5th, 37th, and 4th in the same time span.

 

I think once you get into deeper statistics, there is a significant difference between the two. 

 

I think Stafford is a very good quarterback, I just don't think passing statistics alone put him and Andrew on the same level. 

 

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I actually wasn't the one who said that, that was Vocab's Post. Not sure why it has me quoting that. Please Scroll up and see you replied to the wrong person.

 

Sometimes there are glitches.  I (and other mods) clean up double/duplicate posts a lot around here, those are glitches too. Sorry for confusion it causes.

[2006Coltsbestever]

20 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

Sometimes there are glitches.  I (and other mods) clean up double/duplicate posts a lot around here, those are glitches too. Sorry for confusion it causes.

No big deal. I just wasn't sure why it happened.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

 

 

I don't think he did that purposely. I have seen that happen at other times, including once with me. It's some kind of computer glitch. 

 

As for the original question, it is too early for Luck to be Marino as in "No Super Bowl Championships". Luck has at least 10 more years to bring a SB to Indy. 

 

As for the Stafford comparison, I don't see why that should upset anyone. It is not like being compared to Tim Couch or Sam Bradford. Stafford this year did play a lot like Luck has, bringing his team from behind several times as Luck has done.  While I prefer Luck over Stafford, I would take Stafford on my own team any day. 

I don't think anyone is upset, at least I am not with the comparison but I just don't think it's as close as CBFL thinks it is. Stafford is Good but Luck is better, JMO. Just throw Wins and Stats out the window and go by the eye test. By my test I see Luck more like Big Ben or Cam, big strong guys that make big plays out of nothing. Also Stafford isn't a duel threat like Luck is, Luck can run much like Cam does. If I had a Top 10 QB list just heading into next season, Stafford may not even be on it, it would be close. You have Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, Brees, Cam, Wilson, Ryan, Eli, and Luck. That is 9 QB's I just named that are all better than Stafford. Maybe Stafford would be #10, is Stafford better than Rivers? As of now I would even take Luck over Cam, Wilson, Ryan, and Eli heading into next season. I would say only Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, and Brees are actually better than Luck. I don't think Ryan is getting back to the SB, I see the Falcons struggling (coming back down to earth) much like the Panthers this past season. I didn't even mention Carr but he suffered a bad leg injury and has never even played in a Playoff game yet.

[VocableLoki]

14 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

So, what does that mean? 

 

2860 Cam Newton Rushing Yards 60.5 QBR average (34 rushing TD's to Luck's 14 and Stafford's 11 )  !!!

 

While luck was mostly throwing just over 4000 yds/year, Stafford was near or over 5000 yards a couple of times.  Lets add passing yards to rushing yards for each of the 3 players per season, then total those., Only then will we see a broader picture. 

 

And yes, I still prefer Luck over Stafford by a margin but it's not enormous at this time.  Though I do not see an enormous difference, but I do see differences), However, I would take Stafford over many NFL QB's currently being trotted out as starters.

1

 

The point is that he has value as a runner, something Stafford doesn't. I also provided other stats and arguments backing up my point that I believe Luck is a significantly more valuable player. 

 

It's also worth noting that comparing the two from 2012-16 doesn't account for the fact that Stafford has three years of experience over that frame and more time to develop. Luck is a better player from a shorter sample.

 

To clarify: yes, I believe that Stafford is a very good quarterback, certainly top 15. What I take issue with, and what the article you quoted earlier specifically posits, is the idea that Luck and Stafford are the same, yet Luck is merely "perceived" to be better. From a brief statistical analysis, yes they have similar stats, Luck's overall value just runs deeper. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, VocableLoki said:

 

The point is that he has value as a runner, something Stafford doesn't. I also provided other stats and arguments backing up my point that I believe Luck is a significantly more valuable player. 

 

It's also worth noting that comparing the two from 2012-16 doesn't account for the fact that Stafford has three years of experience over that frame and more time to develop. Luck is a better player from a shorter sample.

 

To clarify: yes, I believe that Stafford is a very good quarterback, certainly top 15. What I take issue with, and what the article you quoted earlier specifically posits, is the idea that Luck and Stafford are the same, yet Luck is merely "perceived" to be better. From a brief statistical analysis, yes they have similar stats, Luck's overall value just runs deeper. 

like I posted above, Stafford may barely make my Top 10 list, which is still darn good but to me Luck is on the cusp of Top 5.

[ColtsBlueFL]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Stats out the window and go by the eye test.

 

OK, I did that too-

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000700667/article/stafford-outduels-luck-in-lions-late-win-over-colts

 

And-

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000769426/article/qb-index-tom-brady-owns-no-1-in-yearend-rankings

 

This is close to how feel about the two   ^^^