Trevor Lawrence has arrived

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

Luck was incredibly risky and turned the ball over a lot more than you'd want at QB. Even injury seasons, he turned the ball over at an alarming rate - he only had one season where he had less than 10 INTs (9 his 2nd year). Even in years where he missed over half the season, he was throwing 12-13 INTs. You combine that with an average of 7 fumbles a season over his careerand you have a QB who turned the ball over a LOT.

Now, I'm not saying he's not good - you took the good with the bad, no argument here. But for me, those turnovers will absolutely hold him back from the expectations put before him.

I think this is partially true, and partially perception based on how many times they had to throw the ball. Those Colts teams were nuts with how many drop backs they had.

[KingOfNewYork]

29 minutes ago, NJerseypaint said:

Luck took the worst team in the NFL to the playoffs his rookie year, then the division championship the following year, and then the conference championship after that.

 

 

Nah, totally didn't live up to the generational hype.

What the Colts did to that man is hurtful. 

[Soko]

2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

He's 35th all time in INT%, ahead of Phil Rivers, Joe Montana, Steve Young, and, ironically enough, Peyton Manning.

And behind Marcus Mariota, Teddy Bridgewater, top-5 all time Colin Kaepernick, Case Keenum, and Jason Campbell. I guess they were all right up there with Peyton Manning in terms of reading defenses and mental acuity. Yes, Peyton Manning has a higher INT% than Colin Kaepernick. Is there anyone in the universe that would say the two are remotely similar in terms of reading defenses and making good decisions?

Luck was a good, smart QB. He wasn’t near the QB-brain that he was touted as having, the likes of Brady/Manning. 

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I think this is partially true, and partially perception based on how many times they had to throw the ball. Those Colts teams were nuts with how many drop backs they had.

Let’s just all take a moment to bask in the ineptitude of the Colts and the Armageddon quarterback situation that they’re in and hope they don’t recover for at least thirty years.

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

And behind Marcus Mariota, Teddy Bridgewater, top-5 all time Colin Kaepernick, Case Keenum, and Jason Campbell. I guess they were all right up there with Peyton Manning in terms of reading defenses and mental acuity. Yes, Peyton Manning has a higher INT% than Colin Kaepernick. Is there anyone in the universe that would say the two are remotely similar in terms of reading defenses and making good decisions?

Luck was a good, smart QB. He wasn’t near the QB-brain that he was touted as having, the likes of Brady/Manning. 

Fair, that was a bad post on my part lazily quoting a stat. My real opinion is much more this:

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I think this is partially true, and partially perception based on how many times they had to throw the ball. Those Colts teams were nuts with how many drop backs they had

 

[ET80]

4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I think this is partially true, and partially perception based on how many times they had to throw the ball. Those Colts teams were nuts with how many drop backs they had.

Oh no, I get it - that's what happens when you invest a 1st in Trent Richardson and still need Ahmad Bradshaw as your starting RB.

The Colts were always built to throw a lot, build a lead and let guys like Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis attack the pocket - that philosophy never really changed from Tony Dungy to Jim Caldwell to Chuck Pagano, force a team into a shootout and let your really fast edge guys pin their ears back.

Even with that, you'd see Luck go YOLO and chuck it into double coverage, or forgo a slide or a drop on a sack and fumbling the ball away. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

4 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Oh no, I get it - that's what happens when you invest a 1st in Trent Richardson and still need Ahmad Bradshaw as your starting RB.

The Colts were always built to throw a lot, build a lead and let guys like Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis attack the pocket - that philosophy never really changed from Tony Dungy to Jim Caldwell to Chuck Pagano, force a team into a shootout and let your really fast edge guys pin their ears back.

Even with that, you'd see Luck go YOLO and chuck it into double coverage, or forgo a slide or a drop on a sack and fumbling the ball away. 

Fair. If I'm mildly disagreeing with a Texans/Pats fan about this, that's about as close as it's gonna get.

[NJerseypaint]

3 hours ago, ET80 said:

The "worst team in the NFL" was a divisional winner with Peyton Manning the year before they went 2-14. Two years before that, they were 14-2 and lost to New Orleans in the Super Bowl.

Let's not pretend that Colts team didn't have a glaring hole at one position. Tell me how a team does when they go from Manning to... *checks notes* Curtis Painter. Because that's exactly what happened.

Sure, Luck made an AFCCG, but followed that up with back to back 8-8 seasons and never took that next proverbial step forward.

I'm reading this as he basically stepped in as a rookie QB and became Peyton Manning by year 3.

 

The reality is QBs don't even get close to doing what he did coming into the league in today's NFL. Patty M is probably the only other QB since Luck to start and instantly be a top 5 QB and he sat a year with a HOF HC. Luck had a DC as HC who was able to must a top 10 defense twice in his whole career, and was thrown into the fire day 1.

Honestly, had it not been for him facing Brady twice in the playoffs to start his career, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

On topic, now I can understand why people are calling TL a disappointment. Anything short of an SB out the gate, and he's overrated. Let's just toss out that he's 23 and already commanding an offense every Sunday all the while looking like an NFL QB and not just a game manager.

[Malfatron]

He did pretty good and beat the raiders and they are 3-6

 

[Soko]

15 minutes ago, NJerseypaint said:

Patty M is probably the only other QB since Luck to start and instantly be a top 5 QB and he sat a year with a HOF HC. 

Implying that Luck was? Instantly?

Edited November 8, 2022 by Yin-Yang

[KhanYouDigIt]

1 hour ago, Malfatron said:

He did pretty good and beat the raiders and they are 3-6

 

Thank you Malf.

[KhanYouDigIt]

 

 

[ET80]

5 hours ago, NJerseypaint said:

I'm reading this as he basically stepped in as a rookie QB and became Peyton Manning by year 3.

But we illustrated that he didn't reach where Manning reached - ever, not just by year 3. The Colts were perineal Super Bowl contenders under Manning, not just a playoff team.

5 hours ago, NJerseypaint said:

The reality is QBs don't even get close to doing what he did coming into the league in today's NFL. Patty M is probably the only other QB since Luck to start and instantly be a top 5 QB and he sat a year with a HOF HC. Luck had a DC as HC who was able to must a top 10 defense twice in his whole career, and was thrown into the fire day 1.

Are you talking about Luck... or Russell Wilson, who actually checks these marks you're creating? Because Wilson would be closer to immediate top 5 over Luck. 

One thing I have to clarify - at no point in his career was Andrew Luck a top 5 QB. Ever. He had a pretty big list of QBs ahead of him, he was closer to the bottom half of top 10 in that discussion - only people who romanticize his career would find a reason to put him in the top 5. Off the top of my head: Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Brees, Roethlensberger, Rivers, Wilson,  were objectively better and guys like Romo, Ryan, Stafford and Palmer were debatably as good as Luck in that timeframe.

Thinking otherwise is overly relying on a few 4th quarter comebacks in big moments. Luck was good, but nowhere as good as you make him out to be.

[Charles]

13 hours ago, ET80 said:

But that's sort of my point on Luck v Lawrence - would you say Luck's supporting cast (Reggie Wayne, TY Hilton, Coby Fleener) is better than Lawrence's (Zay Jones, Christian Kirk, Evan Engram)? 

If Luck is "generational" under this context, why can't Lawrence be there under this context?

Just to clarify,  I don't think Luck lived up to the hype.   Came close, but never quite overcame the final hurdle.

[Daniel]

Eh, Luck may not have been top 5, but it’s hard to break into the top 5 when Manning, Brady, Brees, and prime Rodgers are guaranteed 4 of the 5 slots.

 I do think Luck would have been in the top 5 discussion if he wasn’t carrying an incompetent franchise. He was the most pressured and most sacked QB almost every year he played. And the Colts took like 4 years of his career before they finally fixed the OL to give him some protection.

I know it’s romanticizing a bit, but we didn’t see what Luck could have done with a GM that wasn’t a huge ******* idiot. And he got a horrible Colts team to the playoffs as a rookie. Then they got one round further every year. In his fifth year, I do think he was considered a top 5 QB. Hell, even his last year he got the Colts into the playoffs after they started 1-5.

I do think Luck lived up to the hype, because he did deliver on the field pretty immediately and in a big way. He was just stuck on a ****ty franchise, and we all know the franchise and how it’s run has as much to do with how a player develops as their actual talent does.