And Luck wishes he had a defense half as good as Wilson's and a running game half as good as RGIII's or Wilson's. Oh, and he had the worst offensive line of the three, too. I'm done arguing with you, though. I've made very good points as to why the stats don't tell the whole story for who good Luck was this year (as have others) and you're just cherry-picking whatever parts you can to try and make your point.
But he doesn't and it's not those 2 fault for having them. That's hardly a case for luck to have ROTY over RG3. If you watch luck play you will see he has many flaws like getting the ball out quicker, throws many wobbly throws, interceptions have been an issues should of had 3 this game and was pretty inaccurate this game many of the passes that he completed forced the WR to catch behind him and extend their hand 90% of the time. Ball placement wasn't all there today.
But he doesn't and it's not those 2 fault for having them. That's hardly a case for luck to have ROTY over RG3. If you watch luck play you will see he has many flaws like getting the ball out quicker, throws many wobbly throws, interceptions have been an issues should of had 3 this game and was pretty inaccurate this game many of the passes that he completed forced the WR to catch behind him and extend their hand 90% of the time. Ball placement wasn't all there today.
Seattle's got more quality depth at both WR and TE than Indy.
Tannehill? Where did he enter the discussion?
Still not a better WR core and I use tannehill as an example since you like to make surrounding cast excuses because Tannehill has a worse WR core than luck, a o line in shambles like luck, mediocre run game like luck, less of a turn over machine than luck but less TDs, more accurate in terms of CMP%, tougher schedule. Guess we can ignore that tho and say luck is in a different galaxy from him.
Last edited by BrickingStar : 01-06-2013 at 04:52 PM.
He is saying it's ridiculous on YOUR part to say Luck is not in the discussion with Wilson and RGIII. Which he is right about.
Only argument you can make is slightly better surrounding cast, and more control over offense (although that can be a positive and a negative) but neither will put him over RG3.
But he doesn't and it's not those 2 fault for having them. That's hardly a case for luck to have ROTY over RG3. If you watch luck play you will see he has many flaws like getting the ball out quicker, throws many wobbly throws, interceptions have been an issues should of had 3 this game and was pretty inaccurate this game many of the passes that he completed forced the WR to catch behind him and extend their hand 90% of the time. Ball placement wasn't all there today.
Overall, given the circumstances of how bad his line played and his recievers dropping balls, he played alright today. Not good, not great, not bad...just OK.
But overall throughout the whole year, he was the offense. He was asked to shoulder a load that is comparable to elite quarterbacks (though he did a worse job than said elite quarterbacks) and he had SEVEN game winning drives. He was the definition of clutch.
And his stats, specifically QB Rating, really do not tell an accurate story. His Total qbr is more reflective to his overall play.
Overall, given the circumstances of how bad his line played and his recievers dropping balls, he played alright today. Not good, not great, not bad...just OK.
But overall throughout the whole year, he was the offense. He was asked to shoulder a load that is comparable to elite quarterbacks (though he did a worse job than said elite quarterbacks) and he had SEVEN game winning drives. He was the definition of clutch.
And his stats, specifically QB Rating, really do not tell an accurate story. His Total qbr is more reflective to his overall play.
That's great and all but that stat is overrated many good QBs wouldn't trail those teams to begin with maybe if we were talking about non mediocre teams.
That's great and all but that stat is overrated many good QBs wouldn't trail those teams to begin with maybe if we were talking about non mediocre teams.
Still not a better WR core and I use tannehill as an example since you like to make surrounding cast excuses because Tannehill has a worse WR core than luck, a o line in shambles like luck, mediocre run game like luck, less of a turn over machine than luck but less TDs, more accurate in terms of CMP%, tougher schedule. Guess we can ignore that tho and say luck is in a different galaxy from him.
I think RG3 is pretty easily consensus ROTY by now but I prefer luck for the future and think he will have a better career but that could depend on the FO. As for Tannehill he's pretty underrated I agree he has it the worst of the Rookie QBs and he had the least starts in college with a mediocre to bad supporting cast. Only people who base their knowledge of football ESPN and pay to much attention to stats think Tannehill is a bad rookie.
How have you seen that cake schedule Other than GB who was bad all around in the beginning of the year and the texans who were in a slump and still are those are the only wins that you could possibly call impressive no one is going crazy over them Except the guy who love his **** in ESPN.
How have you seen that cake schedule Other than GB who was bad all around in the beginning of the year and the texans who were in a slump and still are those are the only wins that you could possibly call impressive no one is going crazy over them Except the guy who love his **** in ESPN. Eli's clutch doesn't make him elite either.
They went 2-14 last year, added 30 something new players to the roster, leaned heavily on five rookies and Reggie Wayne on offense behind a terrible offensive line, and still went 11-5. I don't give a shit how easy their schedule was. Given last year's record and all the new pieces and inexperienced players, any win was a good win for the Colts.
Still not a better WR core and I use tannehill as an example since you like to make surrounding cast excuses because Tannehill has a worse WR core than luck, a o line in shambles like luck, mediocre run game like luck, less of a turn over machine than luck but less TDs, more accurate in terms of CMP%, tougher schedule. Guess we can ignore that tho and say luck is in a different galaxy from him.
What are you, a child?
The only person saying that Luck isn't in the same "galaxy" as Wilson and RG3 is you.
As for Tannehill, his team won 6 games last year and 7 this year. He was surprisingly good. Seattle went from 7 wins to 11 and made the playoffs. Washington went from 5 to 10 and made the playoffs. Indy from 2 to 11 and made the playoffs.
"Surrounding cast excuses"? None. Just the realities of the makeup of the respective teams.
Re: NFL Playoffs GT: Wildcard Round
Other than GB who was bad all around in the beginning of the year and the texans who were in a slump and still are those are the only wins that you could possibly call impressive no one is going crazy over them 
