It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:35 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16486
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
I benched Luck on all teams this week in favor of Carr, Winston & Eli.

Luck might throw 5 TD's now!

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
#vindicated

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 2889
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
One of the things that makes me chuckle about people considering whether Newton "deserves" to be the MVP is imagining how much they'd be slobbering Luck if he was the one in that position. Given how the media rushed to anoint him as a top 3 quarterback just for making the playoffs from the worst division in football in previous seasons, I imagine he'd already be a first-ballot lock for Canton if he'd started this season 14-0.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:19 am
Posts: 1443
pizza_Place: Jack Brickhouse Toppings
ZephMarshack wrote:
One of the things that makes me chuckle about people considering whether Newton "deserves" to be the MVP is imagining how much they'd be slobbering Luck if he was the one in that position. Given how the media rushed to anoint him as a top 3 quarterback just for making the playoffs from the worst division in football in previous seasons, I imagine he'd already be a first-ballot lock for Canton if he'd started this season 14-0.

Great point actually. Never thought of it that way.

_________________
McDude wrote:
My wife said 2 things about Bernstein today:

"He sounds like a man that was never challenged to be a man."
"He gives a lot of opinions without probably having many life experiences."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Still wants Stafford after that mess today, IMU?

Luck has been playing with broken ribs since week 3.

When you get back...I'd like your updated thoughts.

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16486
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
IMU wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Still wants Stafford after that mess today, IMU?

Luck has been playing with broken ribs since week 3.

When you get back...I'd like your updated thoughts.


No one would prefer Stafford over Luck if given the choice, but Stafford has been pretty good the last 5 or 6 weeks. I think Stafford deal is up with the Lions after this year. I doubt they re-sign him.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
Scorehead wrote:
IMU wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Still wants Stafford after that mess today, IMU?

Luck has been playing with broken ribs since week 3.

When you get back...I'd like your updated thoughts.


No one would prefer Stafford over Luck if given the choice, but Stafford has been pretty good the last 5 or 6 weeks. I think Stafford deal is up with the Lions after this year. I doubt they re-sign him.

Except everyone that has watched NFL football and isn't stuck in their 2012 belief that Andrew Luck is the next Marino.

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Still wants Stafford after that mess today, IMU?

Luck has been playing with broken ribs since week 3.

When you get back...I'd like your updated thoughts.

This is clearly a lost season for Luck, but he is certainly going to be better than Stafford going forward. Who do you think will have the better QB rating/QBR between the two going forward? Barring chronic injuries, Luck will outperform Stafford over the next year, few years, and both their careers. He's simply better. You're way off base on this one.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
IMU wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Still wants Stafford after that mess today, IMU?

Luck has been playing with broken ribs since week 3.

When you get back...I'd like your updated thoughts.


No one would prefer Stafford over Luck if given the choice, but Stafford has been pretty good the last 5 or 6 weeks. I think Stafford deal is up with the Lions after this year. I doubt they re-sign him.

Except everyone that has watched NFL football and isn't stuck in their 2012 belief that Andrew Luck is the next Marino.

I'm not even sure you watch the NFL outside the Vikings and Bears, but if you do, you're the only one who does who would take Stafford over Luck going forward.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 24036
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
FavreFan wrote:
IMU wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Still wants Stafford after that mess today, IMU?

Luck has been playing with broken ribs since week 3.

When you get back...I'd like your updated thoughts.

This is clearly a lost season for Luck, but he is certainly going to be better than Stafford going forward. Who do you think will have the better QB rating/QBR between the two going forward? Barring chronic injuries, Luck will outperform Stafford over the next year, few years, and both their careers. He's simply better. You're way off base on this one.


Agreed on all counts, but I'll side with Winkel over Frank.

Stafford>Luck

_________________
312player wrote:
More weird jews..smh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
Except he has had one good season out of his four. What is the indicator that he will suddenly be better than Stafford, who has had many really good years. If we're in the business of removing injury years, Stafford has a career 88.1 rating. Luck, excluding this year, has an 86.6 rating.

Additionally, Stafford has been trending up for 4 seasons. He is suddenly going to lose it?

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 71641
Luck was well on his way

QB rating
76
87
95

Then he got hurt.

With that said, Dalton and Stafford were both as good as Luck's best this year.


Dalton seems like a career year. Stafford has shown he can be great before.

_________________
Now I don't give a fuck if you
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, goddammit
That don't mean shit to me
Fuck your ethnicity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
Except he has had one good season out of his four. What is the indicator that he will suddenly be better than Stafford, who has had many really good years. If we're in the business of removing injury years, Stafford has a career 88.1 rating. Luck, excluding this year, has an 86.6 rating.

Additionally, Stafford has been trending up for 4 seasons. He is suddenly going to lose it?

Stafford's best seasons were over four years ago. Luck's best season was last year. Luck improved significantly his 2nd and 3rd seasons, then regressed this year and also had injuries derail his season. Stafford's been a middling Cutler-esque WB for almost five years now. There's no reason to think Luck is going to be a career 85 QB rating guy his whole career, if we go by his first three seasons and project forward. There's every reason to think Stafford is that guy. Even when you cherry pick stats, they don't favor Stafford. If you take their entire body of work into account, Luck is head and shoulders above Stafford as the pick going forward. This is an awful sports debate.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
Why is Luck anointed and Dalton and Stafford are just having a single good year?

Over the first 4-5 years of their respective careers, all three of these QB's are doing better than Manning's first 5 seasons. Why is Luck a must have QB and Dalton and Stafford are not?

EDIT: Stafford is having the second best year of his career, and is only slightly away from best year if we're going by rating.

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
Why is Luck anointed and Dalton and Stafford are just having a single good year?

Over the first 4-5 years of their respective careers, all three of these QB's are doing better than Manning's first 5 seasons. Why is Luck a must have QB and Dalton and Stafford are not?

Part of it is that many of us don't just compare QB ratings, and watch the games. Anyone who's done this the past 3-4 years knows Dalton is a head case who needs everything to be going perfect to play well, and he is also someone who routinely folds in big games and when pressured. Luck, by contrast, has played inconsistent but well overalll in big games, he's one of the better QBs in the league when pressured, and he routinely makes throws Dalton is not capable of making. Stafford actually has similar abilities and poor decision making to Luck, so he's a better comp, but again, Luck can make better throws more consistently, has actually led his team to some playoff wins and regular season wins, and seemed poised to continue to improve before this season started. I have no reason to think a few injury riddled games this year are more indicative of his future performance than the first three seasons were.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
Yeah...see the thing is is that I watch the games also. And since I have statistics that back up my thoughts and you have absolutely nothing besides 'I feel that...' or 'it seems like...'

Sure, you can bring up Dalton's playoff record. Have you seen Luck's postseason statistics? Did you watch those games? Spoiler alert, he was fucking terrible.

You know who also was terrible in the playoffs to start his career? Peyton Manning...one of the Top QB's of all time.

Dalton, Luck, and Manning all had extremely similar starts to their careers. Peyton Manning is HOF, Luck is soon to be HOF, but Dalton is garbage. Makes complete sense.

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Last edited by IMU on Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
Yeah...see the thing is is that I watch the games also. And since I have statistics that back up my thoughts and you have absolutely nothing besides 'I feel that...' or 'it seems like...'

Then talk about them, like I did. Don't just copy/paste QB ratings. Also, the stats do not back you up.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 2889
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
I'm really not inclined to give Luck credit for regular season wins over Stafford due to how much better the latter's division has been. Green Bay's presence alone has made it a far tougher task to win the North, but beyond that even the Bears and Vikings at their worst weren't as bad as Jacksonville or Tennessee have been at various points of Luck's career.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 9358
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
QBR says Luck is better than both by quite a bit. Except this season, of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
ZephMarshack wrote:
I'm really not inclined to give Luck credit for regular season wins over Stafford due to how much better the latter's division has been. Green Bay's presence alone has made it a far tougher task to win the North, but beyond that even the Bears and Vikings at their worst weren't as bad as Jacksonville or Tennessee have been at various points of Luck's career.

Fair enough. Everything else is still pointing towards Luck being better in the future than Stafford or Dalton.


IMU, let's just put a wager on this since we are not going to agree. I'll take Luck, and I'll give you Stafford AND Dalton. Whoever has the best QB rating of the three over the next 16 healthy games all of them play wins the bet. Since you think Luck is the worst of the three, your odds of winning should be over 2-1.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
QBR :lol: :lol:
FavreFan wrote:
Fair enough. Everything else is still pointing towards Luck being better in the future than Stafford or Dalton.

What is "everything else?"

What is considered a healthy 16 games?

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
QBR :lol: :lol:
FavreFan wrote:
Fair enough. Everything else is still pointing towards Luck being better in the future than Stafford or Dalton.

What is "everything else?"

What is considered a healthy 16 games?

QBR is widely considered superior to QB rating. Very few analysts are still using rating over QBR.

We just have to go with the next 16 games all three play in and finish. Let's say if they dont make it to the 2nd half it gets disqualified as not a healthy game.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34491
Location: Isle of Lucy
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Scorehead wrote:
IMU wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Still wants Stafford after that mess today, IMU?

Luck has been playing with broken ribs since week 3.

When you get back...I'd like your updated thoughts.


No one would prefer Stafford over Luck if given the choice, but Stafford has been pretty good the last 5 or 6 weeks. I think Stafford deal is up with the Lions after this year. I doubt they re-sign him.


Stafford is signed through 2017.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Have a good time all the time, that's my philosophy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
Only ESPN uses QBR, and only because they invented it. QBR is far more criticized than even MLB's WAR is.

Look up the term "QBR" on Google. Half the Top 10 results are articles bashing the hell out of it. CBS doesn't even acknowledge is at a statistic on their NFL site. Of course, NFL does not either.

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
Only ESPN uses QBR, and only because they invented it. QBR is far more criticized than even MLB's WAR is.

Most other sites like Football Outsiders will use their own stat like DYAR and DVOA, but also like QBR. They don't usually analyze QB rating. QBR is much more analogous with DVOA and DYAR than QB rating. If you want to compare it to baseball, you're basically judging batters by batting average and RBIs and thats it.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
Results are what matters. Passer rating judges things that happen. Passes completed, passes attempted, touchdowns, interceptions, etc. Actual, valid statistics.

QBR "analyzes" (what is the formula? What is factored in? Please Dilfer, let us know) and tries to compare one incompletion to another? Sure, both Tyrod and Cousins missed their receiver....but Tyrod was under more pressure so his throw was harder and therefore we'll count it as a completion. What? The? Fuck?

Passer rating is more like OPS.

QBR is like WAR...if the statisticians behind bWAR and fWAR were way more secretive about the formula... and they tried to judge one pop-up flyout as better than another pop-up flyout.

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
Results are what matters. Passer rating judges things that happen. Passes completed, passes attempted, touchdowns, interceptions, etc. Actual, valid statistics.

QBR "analyzes" (what is the formula? What is factored in? Please Dilfer, let us know) and tries to compare one incompletion to another? Sure, both Tyrod and Cousins missed their receiver....but Tyrod was under more pressure so his throw was harder and therefore we'll count it as a completion. What? The? Fuck?

Passer rating is more like OPS.

QBR is like WAR...if the statisticians behind bWAR and fWAR were way more secretive about the formula... and they tried to judge one pop-up flyout as better than another pop-up flyout.

You sound like one of those 80 year old baseball fans lamenting these new metrics. Of course not all incompletions and completions are equal. There's definitely value in adding context to the numbers. When you dont have that context, you get dopes like you suggesting Dalton is the next Peyton Manning, even though he couldn't throw 40 TDs in a season if his entire family's life depended on it.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 19886
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Marino's in Wood Dale / Gino's East
But you're trusting....who?.... to tell you which completions and which incompletions are better than others? And that entity refuses to disclose any information as to how they come up with these ratings. And then you have Charlie Batch going 12-17 with 3 TD and 2 INT and he has a 99.9 out of 100 QBR for that game? 12-17 with 3 TD and 2 INT is the best game ever?

When you sort WAR and OPS, it makes sense.

When you sort passer rating and then you sort QBR and you put them side by side...passer rating makes way more sense. The statistics and the 'eye test' put passer rating's list way closer to the top QB's than QBR does.

_________________
Trade Schwarber.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 54627
Location: To the left of my post
There are major questions about Luck after this year. I was a strong believer but you have to wonder if he just isn't going to ever get there.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Andrew Luck
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43950
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
IMU wrote:
But you're trusting....who?.... to tell you which completions and which incompletions are better than others? And that entity refuses to disclose any information as to how they come up with these ratings. And then you have Charlie Batch going 12-17 with 3 TD and 2 INT and he has a 99.9 out of 100 QBR for that game? 12-17 with 3 TD and 2 INT is the best game ever?

When you sort WAR and OPS, it makes sense.

When you sort passer rating and then you sort QBR and you put them side by side...passer rating makes way more sense. The statistics and the 'eye test' put passer rating's list way closer to the top QB's than QBR does.

Once again I disagree with pretty much all of this.

So.... about that wager?

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group