Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

There's still only one QB I would rather have going forward.

FavreFan wrote:

There's still only one QB I would rather have going forward.

Hmmm.....
How much farther forward are we talking?
Rodgers for sure.
Brady for the next couple seasons.
Big Ben for the next couple seasons?
Carson Palmer for the next couple seasons?
Cam?
Matt Ryan?

If we are talking for the next decade, I'd probably take Luck.
Mariota?

edit: BTW, I agree. He's playing too hurt to be effective. Coach/GM/owner are a mess. O-Line sucks.

Rodgers
Newton
Dalton
Wilson
Stafford

In no order, but all ahead of Luck. That could easily change...but as of now that is whom I'd take.

Not too long ago it was thought he was going to be the next great QB in the league.

What has happened to this guy?

Statistics.

How good do you think Luck is?

Since 2012

Luck
85.5 Rating
97 TD
52 INT

Dalton
89.9 Rating
93 TD
55 INT

Stafford
83.5 Rating
83 TD
57 INT

Not too long ago it was thought he was going to be the next great QB in the league.

What has happened to this guy?

RFDC wrote:

Not too long ago it was thought he was going to be the next great QB in the league.

What has happened to this guy?

Chuck Pagano and Pep Hamilton. Both will be gone and Luck will benefit when he no longer has to run Hamiltons pop gun offense.

he threw picks last year....15 or 16....remember seeing the stats about how his picks helped lead to deficits, thus his offensive numbers are inflated.

bigfan wrote:

he threw picks last year....15 or 16....remember seeing the stats about how his picks helped lead to deficits, thus his offensive numbers are inflated.

Not to compare the two, but that reminds me of the Jake Plummer leads the league in 4th quarter comebacks" thing we'd always hear about. They always failed to mention that Jake's teams were trailing in the 4th mainly because of his play in the three previous quarters.

Matches Malone wrote:

bigfan wrote:

he threw picks last year....15 or 16....remember seeing the stats about how his picks helped lead to deficits, thus his offensive numbers are inflated.

Not a bad take. The problem with Luck is this. He may be great or average or whatever. Just like everything in sports these days for a variety of reasons everyone that shows you a glimpse the media and then fans assume greatness and build them up. They do not all make it. See: PLummer, Kapernick, RG3 et all.

Statistics.

Luck
85.5 Rating
97 TD
52 INT

Stafford
83.5 Rating
83 TD
57 INT

Luck is still awesome. By the end of the year his numbers will look good.

I think its great that IMU is an advanced metrics guy and then posts the traditional stats when its convenient for him to do so.

No matter, pretty shitty of someone to rip on a person and there possible potential to get a job.

Author:	RFDC [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Andrew Luck
Not too long ago it was thought he was going to be the next great QB in the league. What has happened to this guy?

Author:	Gloopan Kuratz [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
He has cable.

Author:	FavreFan [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
His team is a mess, he is clearly playing hurt, and his coach and GM don't seem to know what they are doing. He has to share a lot of the blame, but I wouldn't make too much of this bad start. There's still only one QB I would rather have going forward.

Author:	spanky [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
FavreFan wrote: There's still only one QB I would rather have going forward. Hmmm..... How much farther forward are we talking? Rodgers for sure. Brady for the next couple seasons. Big Ben for the next couple seasons? Carson Palmer for the next couple seasons? Cam? Matt Ryan? If we are talking for the next decade, I'd probably take Luck. Mariota? edit: BTW, I agree. He's playing too hurt to be effective. Coach/GM/owner are a mess. O-Line sucks.

Author:	IMissMyHair [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Over rated! My story and sticking to it!

Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://chicagofanatics.com/

Andrew Luck http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=96943	Page 1 of 6

Author:	FavreFan [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
spanky wrote: FavreFan wrote: There's still only one QB I would rather have going forward. Hmmm..... How much farther forward are we talking? Rodgers for sure. Brady for the next couple seasons. Big Ben for the next couple seasons? Carson Palmer for the next couple seasons? Cam? Matt Ryan? If we are talking for the next decade, I'd probably take Luck. Mariota? edit: BTW, I agree. He's playing too hurt to be effective. Coach/GM/owner are a mess. O-Line sucks. Just in a general "Let;s re-draft the entire league for the fun of it" sense. Brady is the only other guy I would consider taking, because I think he still has 3-4 years left where he is a top 3 QB. No way am I considering taking Mariota, Matt Ryan, or Carson Palmer over him. He has significantly improved over his first three seasons, and I think that is far more indicative of his future performance than a handful of games to start a miserable season.

Author:	IMU [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Rodgers Newton Dalton Wilson Stafford In no order, but all ahead of Luck. That could easily change...but as of now that is whom I'd take.

Author:	RFDC [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
IMU wrote: Rodgers Newton Dalton Wilson Stafford In no order, but all ahead of Luck. That could easily change...but as of now that is whom I'd take. Come on man, Dalton and Stafford?????? No and HELL no

Author:	FavreFan [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
IMU wrote: Rodgers Newton Dalton Wilson Stafford In no order, but all ahead of Luck. That could easily change...but as of now that is whom I'd take. Stafford and Dalton?? In what way have these dudes shown they are better than Andrew Luck over the past 2-3+ years?

Author:	Joe Orr Road Rod [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
RFDC wrote: Not too long ago it was thought he was going to be the next great QB in the league. What has happened to this guy? I drafted him for my fantasy team.

Author:	IMU [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Statistics. How good do you think Luck is? Since 2012 Luck 85.5 Rating 97 TD 52 INT Dalton 89.9 Rating 93 TD 55 INT Stafford 83.5 Rating 83 TD 57 INT

Author:	FavreFan [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
IMU wrote: Statistics. How good do you think Luck is? Since 2012 Luck 85.5 Rating 97 TD 52 INT Dalton 89.9 Rating 93 TD 55 INT Stafford 83.5 Rating 83 TD 57 INT What do those numbers look like if you say since 2013 and not since 2012? I think Luck is very good. His statistical development so far isn't all that different from Peyton Manning's. I would look at more than just two stats though, if you want to get a more clear picture of a QB. Andy Dalton turns into Blaine Gabbert when he's pressured. When he's untouched, he is awesome. I'd rather not have a QB where every single little thing needs to be perfect for him to be successful. How has that worked out in Chicago the past 5-6 years?

Author:	pittmike [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
I don't care either way but Luck is in fact over loved.

Author:	Scorehead [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
RFDC wrote: Not too long ago it was thought he was going to be the next great QB in the league. What has happened to this guy? Chuck Pagano and Pep Hamilton. Both will be gone and Luck will benefit when he no longer has to run Hamiltons pop gun offense.

Author:	Kirkwood [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Colts GM is a dope. Pep Hamilton is the OC. Luck is careless with the ball. All while the guy in charge of the whole thing is silver-spooned pill-popping lunatic.

Page 1 of 6	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	pittmike [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Scorehead wrote: RFDC wrote: Not too long ago it was thought he was going to be the next great QB in the league. What has happened to this guy? Chuck Pagano and Pep Hamilton. Both will be gone and Luck will benefit when he no longer has to run Hamiltons pop gun offense. They said that kind of stuff about a certain Bears QB.

Author:	Terry's Peeps [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Gloopan Kuratz wrote: He has cable.

Author:	bigfan [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
he threw picks last year....15 or 16....remember seeing the stats about how his picks helped lead to deficits, thus his offensive numbers are inflated. It was a logical assumption he would take another step and get to that level of no more stupid throws. Well he went backwards...and the starts arent there for the comeback stats...making the whole thing look like a mess. Got a feeling Pep Hamilton loses out here.

Author:	Matches Malone [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
bigfan wrote: he threw picks last year....15 or 16....remember seeing the stats about how his picks helped lead to deficits, thus his offensive numbers are inflated. Not to compare the two, but that reminds me of the Jake Plummer leads the league in 4th quarter comebacks" thing we'd always hear about. They always failed to mention that Jake's teams were trailing in the 4th mainly because of his play in the three previous quarters.

Author:	pittmike [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Matches Malone wrote: bigfan wrote: he threw picks last year....15 or 16....remember seeing the stats about how his picks helped lead to deficits, thus his offensive numbers are inflated. Not to compare the two, but that reminds me of the Jake Plummer leads the league in 4th quarter comebacks" thing we'd always hear about. They always failed to mention that Jake's teams were trailing in the 4th mainly because of his play in the three previous quarters. Not a bad take. The problem with Luck is this. He may be great or average or whatever. Just like everything in sports these days for a variety of reasons everyone that shows you a glimpse the media and then fans assume greatness and build them up. They do not all make it. See: PLummer, Kapernick, RG3 et all.

Author:	FavreFan [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
pittmike wrote: Matches Malone wrote: bigfan wrote: he threw picks last year....15 or 16....remember seeing the stats about how his picks helped lead to deficits, thus his offensive numbers are inflated. Not to compare the two, but that reminds me of the Jake Plummer leads the league in 4th quarter comebacks" thing we'd always hear about. They always failed to mention that Jake's teams were trailing in the 4th mainly because of his play in the three previous quarters. Not a bad take. The problem with Luck is this. He may be great or average or whatever. Just like everything in sports these days for a variety of reasons everyone that shows you a glimpse the media and then fans assume greatness and build them up. They do not all make it. See: PLummer, Kapernick, RG3 et all. Andrew Luck's career up til now does not resemble Plummer, Kaepernick, or RG3's at all. The closest historical comparison is Peyton Manning. Peyton Manning also had a poor rookie year, a great sophomore and 3rd year, and struggled in his 4th season. When people talk about Andrew Luck being great, this isn't 2012 anymore. They aren't projecting anything. He's shown he is a very good NFL QB, one of the best in the league.

Author:	newper [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
IMU wrote: Statistics. Luck 85.5 Rating 97 TD 52 INT Stafford 83.5 Rating 83 TD 57 INT Just to be clear, you are saying statistics validates you taking Stafford over Luck, and then you back your point by showing that Stafford has a worse QB rating then Luck, that Stafford throws fewer TDs and that Stafford throws more INTs.

Author:	IMU [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
I was fair and only chose the years all 3 were in the league together. So that omits Stafford's 2 best years. The 2012-2015 statistics are meant to display that there was absolutely no foundation to 'lol' at Dalton and Stafford over Luck. Any view of Luck being a really good QB is still heavily based on 'potential'...not real world results.

Author:	rogers park bryan [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Luck is still awesome. By the end of the year his numbers will look good.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
I think its great that IMU is an advanced metrics guy and then posts the traditional stats when its convenient for him to do so.

Author:	bigfan [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
rogers park bryan wrote: Luck is still awesome. By the end of the year his numbers will look good. 11 TD and 9 INT right now... You have predicted a pretty impressive finish... LAst year he was 40 and 16..... Dont think he approaches the 40 and he surpsses the 16 INT... Thus, no good of a year.

Author:	IMU [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Frank Coztansa wrote: I think its great that IMU is an advanced metrics guy and then posts the traditional stats when its convenient for him to do so. I think it is great that someone of your limited skill in written communication can find gainful employment after two years of being out of the game. However, what the hell is an 'advanced metric guy.' All metrics and statistics get lumped into the same category...metrics and statistics. Maybe them seem advanced to you as you're not sure how they're calculated.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Who was out of the game for two years? It certainly was not me.

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
No matter, pretty shitty of someone to rip on a person and there possible potential to get a job.

Author:	Brick [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Andrew Luck
Hawg Ass wrote: No matter, pretty shitty of someone to rip on a person and there possible potential to get a job. Yup. Lots of unfairness being thrown at Andrew Luck here.