Jump to content

How far would Indy have gotten if Andrew Luck did not retire?


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

The guy came in to an organization with a black hole at GM, below average coaching staff, and terrible OL. Team went from 2-14 to a playoff team at 11-5 year one.

He also got absolutely killed due to a lack of talent around him and a GM that kept his job because Luck carried that terrible team to the playoffs year after year.

He wasn't ever a top 3 QB, but he was right in that next tier imo. Had he been given help and not left out to dry right out of the gate...

I'm kinda sick of the narrative that the Colts are a bad franchise.  Yes, they went 2-14 but they tanked.  They had talent.  When you send out Curtis Painter and the team has checked out, it's curtains.   Luck had an okay rookie year and they went 11-5.  

 

Post Luck, they've done an outstanding job.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Joffrey said:

I'm kinda sick of the narrative that the Colts are a bad franchise.  Yes, they went 2-14 but they tanked.  They had talent.  When you send out Curtis Painter and the team has checked out, it's curtains.   Luck had an okay rookie year and they went 11-5.

 

Post Luck, they've done an outstanding job.

 

 

What does what they've done since Luck have to do with what they did while he was there?

Chris Ballard/Frank Reich were not there. They had Ryan Grigson who road the coattails to a GM of the year due to Luck and had a historically bad drafting history. They're HC was Chuck Pagano.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Malik said:

I think they had similar peaks as passers, but Deshaun has been much more consistent in his level of play season over season while being a more dynamic runner. And he's actually available to play

Except Watson can hardly ever lead his team to a winning record. He's all stats. He hardly ever elevated his teams to be successful.  Like other, better QBs can. Luck had more success in that department 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

What does what they've done since Luck have to do with what they did while he was there?

Chris Ballard/Frank Reich were not there. They had Ryan Grigson who road the coattails to a GM of the year due to Luck and had a historically bad drafting history. They're HC was Chuck Pagano.

I guess I just am done with the Luck apologists.  He was a good player but I think people exaggerate with how bad the Colts were to boost him up.  He played on some good teams and obviously they had flaws. but so did he.

 

I agree RG being GM of the year was awful.  In general, that award is dumb because it takes years to assess a GMs performance.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Joffrey said:

I guess I just am done with the Luck apologists.  He was a good player but I think people exaggerate with how bad the Colts were to boost him up.  He played on some good teams and obviously they had flaws. but so did he.

 

I agree RG being GM of the year was awful.  In general, that award is dumb because it takes years to assess a GMs performance.  

Look at those rosters dude. Especially from 2012-2015. He had Castonzo on that OL and what else? He had TY at WR and what else? They traded a 1st for Trent Richardson and had "guys" at RB. That defense was meh at best. They had Chuck Pagano at HC who was not good.

I hate the Colts. But I'm not going to deny what Luck was or the below average situation/supporting casts they saddled him with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

Look at those rosters dude. Especially from 2012-2015. He had Castonzo on that OL and what else? He had TY at WR and what else? That defense was meh at best. They had Chuck Pagano at HC who was not good.

Not about being a Luck apologist. But he was one of the best QBs in the league and saddled with a bad hand. 

They went 11-5 when he had as many scores as turnovers.  Their roster was middle of the pack.  Luck's line didn't have a lot of big names but one of the issues with him taking sacks was not getting the ball out soon enough.  I'm not gonna sit here and call them a good unit because that would be stupid.  Let's look at the 2018 team though.   Great line.  Luck didn't really take advantage of it though in the playoffs.  

 

Luck came into the league with Hilton-Wayne-Fleener-Allen and they tried to get him other weapons in Moncrief-Dorsett that didn't really pan out.   They should have used those picks on linemen for sure.  

 

No way was he a great QB to me.  At his absolute best he was on the cusp of that but most years still well behind the elite guys.  

 

Edited by King Joffrey
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, King Joffrey said:

They went 11-5 when he had as many scores as turnovers.  Their roster was middle of the pack.  Luck's line didn't have a lot of big names but one of the issues with him taking sacks was not getting the ball out soon enough.  I'm not gonna sit here and call them a good unit because that would be stupid.  Let's look at the 2018 team though.   Great line.  Luck didn't really take advantage of it though in the playoffs.  

 

Luck came into the league with Hilton-Wayne-Fleener-Allen and they tried to get him other weapons in Moncrief-Dorsett that didn't really pan out.   They should have used those picks on linemen for sure.  

 

No way was he a great QB to me.  At his absolute best he was on the cusp of that but most years still well behind the elite guys.  

 

Did you see the laundry list of injuries he had early in his career because of that OL? The guys body was breaking down. Why do you think he retired early?

If we're "stanning" for Coby Fleener, a 34 year old Reggie Wayne, Phillip Dorsett, Donte Moncrief, etc. and saying their OL "didn't have names but were solid"...what are we even doing here? What he got out of that cast as a young player was impressive as hell. He brought a below average team to a consistent contender right out of the gate. I'm not sure what we're expecting QBs to do, but they're not miracle workers. They do need talent to have deep playoff runs/win SBs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, KingOfNewYork said:

You hate him so much is almost embarrassing. We get it you love Russ but sheesh. 

imagine thinking he was the best QB in the NFL in 2018 when he finished the season with a 23:7 td/int ratio lol like give me a break. I'm just still sick and goddamn tired of how overrated Andrew Luck was and apparently still is. The guy had a ton of potential, but even when fully healthy was nothing more than a borderline top-5 QB with massive turnover issues and a very awful playoff resume.

I don't hate Andrew Luck, contrary to popular belief. I hate the narrative surrounding him as a player because it's entirely surviving based upon fiction and what people wanted Luck to be rather than what Luck actually was.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Malik said:

I think they had similar peaks as passers, but Deshaun has been much more consistent in his level of play season over season while being a more dynamic runner. And he's actually available to play

Watson definitely had a better start to his career than Luck. I’ll give you that. But at their peaks you could argue Luck was better. Injuries took its toll obviously so we don’t know what we would’ve seen with Luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2021 at 6:57 PM, SalvadorsDeli said:

Um... no?

This has always made me laugh regarding Luck. He seems a pretty great guy, he was capable of utter magic, and he was quite possibly the best QB in the league to watch from a neutrals perspective.. but that's because he was also capable of so one incredibly bad stuff at any given moment, a bit like post 90s Brett Favre. 

Dude had 15 interceptions the year previous, and his second in the league was his only one in single digits (where he still had 9). Passer eating is far from definitive, but to claim a guy who never cracked 100 (nor 8.0ypa, and onky 1 season above 64% accuracy) was the best in the league is incredibly inaccurate. 

Luck vs. Romo is a great example of how pre NFL and general media hype can make two very similar level players be judged in very, very different ways. Luck at his highest point was at best a fringe top 5 QB. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wyld Stallyns said:

The OP said “arguably the best QB” meaning it’s up for debate. Not definitively like your suggesting. 

I think the point people are trying to make is that it's not up for debate as he was never close to being the best QB in the league. Not even arguably. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pandrew87 said:

Except Watson can hardly ever lead his team to a winning record. He's all stats. He hardly ever elevated his teams to be successful.  Like other, better QBs can. Luck had more success in that department 

What? Watson has played 4 seasons. His rookie year he was 3-3 as a starter before he was injured (the team finished 4-12. The next 2 seasons the Texans had a winning record and then this year they were awful. That virtually identical to Luck's first 4 seasons as far as winning goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Wyld Stallyns said:

The OP said “arguably the best QB” meaning it’s up for debate. Not definitively like your suggesting. 

 

20 minutes ago, MagicMT said:

I think the point people are trying to make is that it's not up for debate as he was never close to being the best QB in the league. Not even arguably. 

^^ This. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...