Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

    Andrew Luck Isn’t Great -
    He may be the NFL's next great quarterback, but anyone claiming Luck is already among the best of the best hasn't been watching closely enough

    http://mmqb.si.com/2014/10/27/andrew...s-to-be-great/

    It has been repeated so many times that it’s almost taken as gospel: Andrew Luck is the NFL’s next great quarterback. Many think he’s already there. But here’s a little secret that you won’t hear: He’s not great yet.

    In fact, you could make the case that Luck makes about two or three huge mental errors each game that make you say, “What was he thinking?” For some reason, Luck gets a pass on these. If it were any other No. 1 pick, you’d hear increasing chatter about how Luck will make a big mistake if you let him.

    Sunday’s 51-34 loss to the Steelers was just the latest example. It will be glossed over because (a) The Colts wouldn’t have been competitive without Luck’s heroics, and (b) The Colts’ defense was roadkill, but Indianapolis’ first two drives ended on poor third-down passes from Luck to Hakeem Nicks. And then, trailing 14-3 early in the second quarter, Luck made what he later admitted was a “stupid” play when he stared down (a very bad habit of his) Nicks, making for William Gay’s easy pick six and a 21-3 Pittsburgh lead.

    Some will pin the blame on the Colts’ below average offensive line, but according to ProFootballFocus.com, Luck was pressured 15 times in 58 dropbacks (25.8 percent) on Sunday. That isn’t great, but it’s acceptable if you’re a pocket quarterback. For a mobile passer like Luck, that’s a normal day at the office.

    To Luck’s credit, he never stops fighting and his touchdown pass to Dwayne Allen on the next series was just superb. And Luck has many more of those superb plays than the boneheaded ones. He’s big, strong, mobile, ultracompetitive and can make throws that guys like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees can only dream about. Luck is that talented, no question. Aaron Rodgers is probably the only quarterback that approaches Luck in terms of the total talent package.

    Then you get plays like the butt safety—with the Colts down 42-34 and 12:35 to play and it didn’t look like he tripped over anything but his own feet—and it doesn’t compute. Those plays happen more with Luck than anyone wants to admit.

    Against the Broncos earlier this season, Luck threw high and incomplete on third-and-1 to halt the opening series. On the second series, he had a clean pocket and threw high to Allen and was intercepted. Down 17-0, he was sacked after 3.3 seconds (plenty of time) and the Colts wound up trailing 24-0 before losing by a respectable score of 31-24, but it wasn’t that close.

    Hosting the Eagles in Week 2, the Colts led 20-6 midway through the third quarter. Still leading 27-20 with the ball deep in Eagles territory and 5:08 left, receiver T.Y. Hilton fell down and Luck was intercepted. Luck stared down Hilton so long that the pass still might have been intercepted had Hilton kept his feet. The safety came from 10 yards behind the play to jump the route.
    Tied at 27 with 2:12 to go on third-and-5, Luck wouldn’t pull the trigger to Nicks, held the ball and was hit as he threw incomplete. The Eagles got the ball, kicked a field goal and won 30-27.

    Luck was terrific beating Jacksonville and Tennessee by a combined score of 85-34. Weeeeeeee!

    With a 3-0 lead against the Ravens, on a second-and-14, Luck held the ball, didn’t see a late linebacker blitz and was drilled as he was intercepted by Haloti Ngata. With 1:10 left in the first quarter, Luck threw deep into double coverage and was lucky not to be intercepted. Leading 13-3, Luck stared down his receiver and was nearly intercepted by Lardarius Webb. Still leading 13-3 with the ball on the Baltimore 10 and 1:11 left in the third quarter, Luck had plenty of time to throw, didn’t initially hit Ahmad Bradshaw open in the flat, ran into pressure, threw into coverage and was intercepted. The Colts wound up winning 20-13.

    Against the Texans on Thursday night football, Luck threw a tipped interception while playing with a 24-7 lead. With 10:45 remaining and leading 33-21, Luck called for the silent shotgun snap, didn’t initially get it, dropped his hand, and then center Jonotthan Harrison hit him right in the chest with the snap. Luck didn’t catch it, and J.J. Watt returned it for a touchdown. With a chance to cement the game leading 33-28 with 8:25 left on a third-and-9, Luck had Reggie Wayne wide open on a deep crossing route. Luck threw low and Wayne couldn’t make the diving catch. The Colts survived 33-28 in a game that shouldn’t have been that close.

    Despite beating the Bengals 27-0, Luck still had his lulls. On the final play of the second drive, Luck threw a hospital ball to Wayne over the middle that fell incomplete (Wayne’s ACL tear, you might remember, happened because of a poor low throw from Luck last season). On second-and-goal with 1:54 left in a scoreless first quarter, Luck got tunnel vision again and completely missed a wide-open Bradshaw in the right flat for a walk-in touchdown. And leading 10-0 with 1:14 remaining in the first half, Luck threw way wide of Coby Fleener, who didn’t have a defender within 12 yards of him.

    Go back to the playoff loss to the Patriots last year. On the third play of the game, Luck stared down LaVon Brazill, cornerback Alfonzo Dennard jumped the route and returned it to the 2-yard line to set up a Patriots touchdown. Down 21-12 before halftime, Luck threw behind fullback Stanley Havili and it went off his shoulder for an interception. Down 36-22 with 12:55 remaining, Luck threw a mindless interception into triple coverage, pulled in by linebacker Jamie Collins.

    In the eventual playoff win over the Chiefs, the Colts were down 24-7 at home when Luck was nearly intercepted in the red zone on a third-down pass to Brazill. Trailing 31-10 with 33 seconds left before halftime, Luck was intercepted when he stared down Hilton. And on Luck’s first pass of the second half, he stared down Donald Brown and was intercepted.

    Of course, Luck threw for 443 yards and four touchdowns as he rallied the Colts from a 38-10 deficit to win 45-44, so not many remember the three interceptions that put Indianapolis in that hole. Luck is certainly one of those quarterbacks who plays his best when the odds are at their worst. That’s a testament to his potential greatness. There’s no question that it’s there. You can find multiple examples of it in every game. Luck makes a handful of breathtaking throws every week.

    But until he performs better and smarter, especially early in games and against top opponents, no one should be anointing him a great anything quite yet. This is his third year in the league, and he has started 40 games. Instead of saying how great Luck is, people should be asking why he hasn’t been better. If the Colts are to take the next step this season, he needs to be.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

    Not sure if it deserved it's own thread but I thought the idea of the article was interesting. You don't see too many articles about Andrew that are negative in nature.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

      They are basing this article off of three bad plays from Sunday where Andrew still threw for 400 yards and still had a solid game. I will not even read this trash
      Smothered Chicken!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

        Hater nation. Pick apart his few bad plays. You know it's garbage when they basically say "sure he's really really good at like everything, but he overthrew a guy once."
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

          As great as Peyton Manning is, you can still cherry pick missed throws/reads if you look at every play of the game. It is virtually impossible to play this position perfectly.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

            Same as I've said before. He's damn good, but still suffers from the occasional brain-fart. Of course, I've been told that's not a valid criticism. At least I can take some comfort in reading this and seeing that a person that makes their living writing about football has a similar opinion. But I digress .............

            I see nothing wrong with the article. And as soon as Luck realizes a few of his flaws, he'll correct them and be a better QB for it. It's just part of the process.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

              Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
              Same as I've said before. He's damn good, but still suffers from the occasional brain-fart. Of course, I've been told that's not a valid criticism.
              It's a valid criticism, it's just a criticism that applies to every QB that plays the game, which is why pointing it out doesn't invalidate the idea that Luck is one of the best in the game.

              Basically it would be like saying, "Well Hitter A swings at one, two, three bad pitches every game so therefore he's not one of the best hitters." Um.... every hitter in baseball swings at bad pitches.
              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                I stopped reading at "Andrew Luck Isn't Great."

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                  Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                  Same as I've said before. He's damn good, but still suffers from the occasional brain-fart. Of course, I've been told that's not a valid criticism. At least I can take some comfort in reading this and seeing that a person that makes their living writing about football has a similar opinion. But I digress .............

                  I see nothing wrong with the article. And as soon as Luck realizes a few of his flaws, he'll correct them and be a better QB for it. It's just part of the process.
                  The first interception was just a bad read of the coverage. The second was him trying to get a quick score down by 10 late. The safety I agree was a mental mishap, but you cannot say this article is justified off of really one really big mental mishap. Either way, it would have been a safety because he tripped on the offensive lineman's foot. Luck is still young and yes makes mistakes, but all QBs make mistakes. He still makes great decisions the majority of the time and the physical tools of a great NFL QB. This loss was due to the injuries and the atrocious covering job of the Colts secondary.
                  Smothered Chicken!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                    Luck reminds me a lot of a Peyton/Favre hybrid.

                    One reason Luck tends to throw a lot of tipped interceptions is because almost every pass is a rocket. If the receiver doesn't catch it it's going to pop up in the air. Once he learns to vary the velocity on his throws he'll be unstoppable.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                      He's great for a 25 year old. Like, absolutely incredible.

                      Luck 2014: 64.8%, 6.3 TD%, 2.6 INT%, 99.2 QB rating, 341.4 YPG, 7.51 ANY/A
                      Manning 2001: 62.7%, 4.8 TD%, 4.2 INT%, 84.1 QB rating, 258.2 YPG, 5.88 ANY/A
                      Brady 2002: 62.1%, 4.7 TD%, 2.3 INT%, 85.7 QB rating, 235.3 YPG, 5.54 ANY/A
                      Rodgers 2008: 63.6%, 5.2 TD%, 2.4 INT%, 93.8 QB rating, 252.4 YPG, 6.64 ANY/A
                      Favre 1994: 62.4%, 5.7 TD%, 2.4 INT%, 90.7 QB rating, 242.6 YPG, 6.08 ANY/A
                      Rivers 2006: 61.7%, 4.8 TD%, 2.0 INT%, 92.0 QB rating, 211.8 YPG, 6.73 ANY/A

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                        The funny thing is after the years of watching Peyton there were many throws where you just wonder what in the world did Manning see. I guarantee you that you could look at guys like Peyton, Tom, Drew, or Aaron and find throws where you think why did they do that or just bonehead plays. If you look at any great QB under the microscope like this article did you are going to find flaws because no QB is perfect.

                        I love how the writer just scoffs at the line protection in the Steelers game because he is "mobile." So because Luck is mobile he negates the fact that he was under pressure all day long in the pocket and really did not have room to escape? The guy was getting the hell beat out of him because he was staying in the pocket to deliver the passes.

                        Now of course Luck is not above criticism because some of the issues pointed out are a valid concern, but the fact he has done what he has done with some of these flaws and as such a young age is a testament to how good he is and how good he will be.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                          Leading the league in TDs and Yards in his 3rd season with minimal help from the offensive line and a meh running game as well. I would have to think that the writer was just looking for click bait because the assertion he is making is absolutely absurd.
                          #LanceEffect

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                            I think the article has a bad premise, but brings up some good points. Luck does have some flaws that even national people tend to gloss over in their race to make him the next Hall of Fame QB. But that doesn't mean he already isn't great, or that he has the tools to get even better.

                            For example, here are some of Luck's flaws:

                            Accuracy: Luck has only average to above average accuracy. This year is easily his best year in terms of completion percentage, and yet he ranks 15th in completion percentage. To compare him to some other QB's that he's usually matched up with, Brees is 1st, Manning is 2nd, Roethlisberger is 3rd, Rivers is 4th, Rodgers is 6th, and Brady is 16th. While this is partially influenced by how much the Colts like to go down the field (more on that in his strengths) it's also influenced the other way by the fact that the Colts easily have a top 10 receiving core and maybe a top 5. Wayne has some of the best hands in the league, Hilton has shown he can catch passes thrown behind him, Allen is good at that, etc.

                            Taking chances: Luck is 25th in the league in INT rate this year. INT rate is a little bit variable from year to year, and Luck was obviously a lot better at it last year so time will tell how his numbers will stabilize, but it's definitely something he's worse at than most of the other great QB's. Again for comparison, Brady is 2nd, Roethlisberger is 4th, Rodgers is 5th, Manning is 6th, Rivers is 10th, and Brees is 21st.

                            Not being able to take some easier throws: This is something that would be hard to prove without stats that I don't have (like the average time before release, which I'm sure is out there). But I think it's generally agreed that Luck holds on to the ball longer that most other QB's. Definitely more than players like Manning, Rivers, and Brady who run a lot of shorter routes and use their accuracy to move down the field. This doesn't do the offensive line any favors, and it also causes lots of longer throws that produce big plays but also more drive stops and turnovers.

                            Luck's strengths

                            Either the best or 2nd best (behind Roethlisberger) at shaking off tacklers and making a play. Luck is simply amazing at it. Big, strong, able to complete passes with people hanging all over him. He does have a tendency to throw it away when he's almost on the ground. You can decide whether that part is a strength or a weakness. It's a bigtime risky play, but sacks are drive killers so it might be a strength.

                            Ability to run: Luck is always a threat with his legs, and is big and powerful when he does that. That changes the coverage more than most realize. And he tends to only bring it out when he really needs it in order to stay healthy, which means he's even more powerful in key situations.

                            Arm strength: Both in throwing way down the field and throwing the intermediate ball with zip, Luck can fit plays into tight windows with ease. And the fact that he is always extending plays makes him super dangerous on those type of plays.

                            I think the Peyton/Favre cross is a pretty good one, and I'd throw in Big Ben as a third one. Luck is a top 5 QB right now who could easily win the MVP. But in the days of hyper efficiency and needing to preserve possessions, he needs to learn how to become much more efficient like the elite QB's are. And that's something we have seen with maturity in all the top QB's. They change their style of play as they age to focus more on moving the chains and just picking you apart. There's no reason to think he won't get there, and he's already ridiculously good being somewhat of a gunslinger right now.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Andrew Luck Isn’t Great - SI's MMQB Article

                              Andrew Luck throws interceptions so he's not great.....even though he got hit on what seemed like 80% of his drop backs. Let's ignore that. Or the fact that while his pick 6 was pretty awful the fact that Nicks didn't even try to come back for the ball was almost as bad.

                              Let's ignore the fact that his first three years numbers are probably going to end up superior to Peyton in every category, including the interceptions people love to nail Luck for.

                              Let's ignore the fact that Luck got playoff win number 1 in his second season whereas it took Peyton 4 trips to the playoffs and 6 NFL regular seasons before he snagged a playoff win.

                              Let's ignore all of that just so we can get some page hits. This is the biggest problem with journalists. They have always been sensational, but now in a world driven by page clicks they choose to be even more sensational. This goes on the Andrew Luck garbage heap right next to the Texans writer who spent the first half of last season claiming that Matt Schaub was better than Luck.


                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X