BringBackOrton

The road to 2000. It starts with one! It fits! Bring him back!

Answer these questions.

That's okay. Who do you think are elite, currently?

I'm sorry, I was asking about the QB's who can carry a team and thus, are elite. I worded that poorly. The Texans have been a playoff team 3/5 years since Luck was drafted.

Well maybe YOU do. I've seen several folks in this topic talk about carrying a team and how it makes QB's elite, yet Big Ben hasn't had a good playoff in 7 years, Rivers choked on the best team maybe ever, and hasn't made the playoffs in 4 years, Drew Brees hasn't made the playoffs in 4, and the corpse of Peyton Manning was the version of him who actually won another ring 9 years after his first. So I don't think you really do know. Tom Brady may honestly be the only QB who can "carry" a team currently playing.

Who fits this bill, in your opinion? How does a QB carry a team? Do they have to carry them to a Super Bowl victory? Or just a playoff run?

And yet I've asked you several times to define "elite" and define your expectations for Luck and all I get is crickets.

I compared Luck's first 5 years to 6 of the best QB's playing in the NFL this decade. And he had accomplished more in his first 5 years than 3 HoFers did. I don't know what else there is to say. You are railing against facts. The greatest QB prospect in a generation has had a better first 5 years of his career than several Hall of Fame locks. What else do you want? What expectations did you have? Clearly you are arguing with the voices in your head that said Luck was going to be league MVP and win 5 Super Bowls in his first 5 years. Can't help ya there. You realize you are taking the anti-TT crowd stance. Nobody has said this in this thread. Not once. And you called folks "hypocrites."

Rodgers didn't start his first 3 years. Why should he get the benefit of learning on the bench behind one of the greats when comparing his career to a kid forced to start at 22 who actually contributed to his team? It's like comparing TT as a first year starter 5 years out to Wilson's rookie year. Ridiculous. Besides, we are comparing from YOUR "5 years after he was drafted," remark. It's not my problem Rodgers sat for 3 years after he was drafted. If we had a time machine and went back to the day Luck was drafted, what would the predictions for his first 5 years and what the Colts would look like 5 years in be? There is no way anyone would have viewed 2017's reality as some sort of resounding success of the greatest QB prospect in a generation. And yet here we are and so many do. But compare him to Rodgers 8 years after he was drafted!

But that's the point Alpha. If Luck has the exact same career as Manning, choking in the playoffs etc etc, he'd still be an all-time great. I reject that Luck needed to have the first 5 years of a Brady or a Big Ben to be considered successful. Because Manning sure didn't. As to your point of comparing playoff games, the reason Manning has 3 playoff games compared to Luck's 6 in their first 5 years is because Manning kept losing in the playoffs. Kind of absurd to compare a 6 year player's 4th playoff game to a 2 year player's 4th playoff game, no? White flagging hard. I apologize for dunking on you over and over and over.

Is Manning the only QB considered elite that was horrible in his first few playoff starts and is that why we are comparing Luck to him instead of Brady, Rodgers, Ben, etc.? Manning is an obvious comparison because they played for the same team and he was the heir apparent to Manning's legacy on the Colts. I also think it's unfair to compare Rodgers playoff starts as a 4th year vet compared to a rookies' playoff stats, because I believe that comparison to be unfair, unless you hold it against Rodgers that he did nothing his first 3 years in the league. But let's do it! Tom Brady: First 5 years of his, 3 playoff appearances, 9-0 in the playoffs, 11:3 TD:INT. Wins 3 SuperBowls. Clearly Luck falls short of the GOAT. Not surprising. Ben Roethlisberger: 4 playoff appearances, 8-2 in the playoffs, 15:12 TD:INT. Wins 2 SuperBowls. Another HoFer that started out hotter than Luck. Aaron Rodgers: 1 playoff appearance, 0-1 in the playoffs, 4:1 TD:INT. Zero rings. So Aaron Rodgers is the first HoFer that pales in comparison to Luck in their first 5 years of their career. Let's continue. Drew Brees: 1 playoff appearance, 0-1 in the playoffs, 2:1 TD:INT. Zero rings. Another great falls to the "hype" of Luck. Phil Rivers: 3 playoff appearances, 3-3 in the playoffs, 1:1 TD:INT. Zero rings. Getting closer to the Hall of Very Good caliber player, but my god, that sounds a lot like our boy Luck! I'd like to point out the funny part of you comparing Luck to HoFer's and thinking it proves anything. Neither Brees, nor Peyton, nor Rivers, nor Rodgers were HoFers after their fifth year in the league. And yes, Luck isn't comparable to the careers they have had over 10+ years yet. But neither were they at the same point in time. You've got me though. Ben and Brady, two surefire 1st ballot HoFers had more success than Luck. Which proves absolutely nothing . My issue with the Luck fanboys is that he hasn't done anything yet that truly lifts a team. That is normally the measurement of a "great QB". Yet Luck is often showered with that moniker and has been since before his first play. The fanboys go along. Personally I prefer Flacco's results to Luck's cult. What does that mean? Define it. Pick a moment in the careers of each of the QB's I listed above and tell me when they "lifted" their team. Are you referring to rings? Do you prefer Flacco to Rivers because he had a great playoff run 4 years ago? I'm not sure what "normally," means. I certainly didn't subscribe to the rules you're following. As for the 3-3 playoff record you have to be kidding me. He has one good win in the playoffs. One. The other two involve a home win over the Bengals whose recent playoff record speaks for itself and a game he gave to the Chiefs only to have Reid hand it back. Ha ha! Taking out a page of Alpha's book I see. You complain about "comeback wins," but now there are "good wins" and I assume "bad wins." Take away Dilfer's ring, he only had bad wins to get there! And Peyton's second ring, where was his "good win?" Brady only threw 1 TD total in the 3 games where he won a ring in 2001. Zero good wins! Brutal to watch really. I assume you'd complain if the Bills shut out 3 opponents on our way to a Super Bowl win because our QB didn't have any "good wins."

I didn't say either. That's what the other poster was referring to.

In the playoffs he was not. Peyton had passer ratings of 62.3, 82, and 31.3 with a 2:1 INT to TD ratio in his first three playoff appearances. I believe that roughly averages out to a passer rating of 50.

He did it. And he hired the DC.

Kelly the champion of racial equality basically admitted that if his best buddy was an undercover Neo-Nazi, he wouldn't do anything about it besides give him some schit at poker night on Tuesdays. I'm sure minorities around the US are grateful for you taking charge on the battlefield for them. Laugh out loud funny! This topic is beautiful.

The word "but" comes up in any conversation that isn't "X is awesome," "No! X is terrible!" Peyton Manning is one of the best QB's to ever play the game. But he lost an awful lot in the playoffs. It's an admission of the other viewpoint being based on a certain point of merit. Not an indictment on my argument or whatever the hell you're implying. The part I'm most curious about is where you say Luck has "already" better than Manning. That seems to implying the trend has to continue. It doesn't. Anyway, I'm assuming the trend is going to continue. Because, ya know, before the injury, the trend was a trend? You're right though, Luck could break a bone in his foot tomorrow and never play again. That's certainly possible. I don't think this whole conversation is about Luck in all honesty. Part of it is, but part of it about how the QB position has become so overwhelming to the sport. I'm not a fan of that and it certainly isn't Luck's fault. He is a symptom, not the disease. Everyone thinks "oh just get a top QB and you're all set"....that leads to having to pay a large portion of your salary cap to your "best QB prospect in decades" which leads to a weaker supporting cast. It is true that the Colts roster isn't what it could be if Luck hadn't sucked their cap dry. But if the Colts hadn't paid him that, another team would have. And you can't blame him for taking it. He hasn't made up for the roster gaps that his bloated salary created. He hasn't achieved Brady's star status so he can't tell the ref what to call like Brady does. If he made less would he win more? Would he develop more? It's impossible to tell for sure, but it couldn't hurt. Yes, you need a good QB and a team around them to win a Super Bowl. The dirty little secret is that not all good QB's win Super Bowls. That's really all this is about. You think that if Luck truly lived up to the "hype" he would've won a ring by now. So does Alpha. But the bottom line is that nothing EVER guarantees you winning a Super Bowl. A good QB increases your chances. Not having a good QB makes your chances very small. As Gunner said upthread, the Colts have 10 years of Luck to try to build around him, catch a few breaks and win one or two or three or zero. There's been dozens of good QB's who never win. HoF QB's who never win. The hype surrounding Luck was not that he was going to bring 6 straight championships to the Colts. It was that he was a QB prospect who was as close to a sure thing of being a good QB out of the box as there ever has been. That didn't mean he was gonna be Brady 2.0 in his rookie year. That didn't mean he was gonna be beating 36 year old Peyton Manning head to head his first start. It meant that the Colts would be walking away from a great QB with as good as a replacement as you could get, and thus they would have a 20+ year window of being SB contenders almost every year. If they kept Peyton, they might have won another ring during Luck's first 2 or 3 seasons. I certainly think they would have had a better chance. But again, that's not what Luck was supposed to be. Maybe the media got away with it, maybe some fans started thinking it, but I, an admitted Luck fan, never EVER expected him to win a Super Bowl in his first 3 years.

Bills and non-Bills. Bills: Overrated: Kevon Seymour. Honestly what has this kid done? A 6th round pick, played a couple games in 2016 and was a non-factor. Didn't even play decently. And he can't beat out Wright or Gaines? Not sure why he's looked at like anything but a camp body. Underrated: Hodges. He's a good football player. I think he's gonna be a good contributor this year. Non-Bills: Overrated: Malcolm Butler. He's a good CB, but I have 5-8 guys I take over him at least. That play in the Super Bowl was a nice feather in his cap, but it didn't propel him to the near-mythical level of respect he now gets. Underrated: Andrew Luck. Don't @ me.

I know I'm just getting fooled by your crayonz schtick, but I'll give it a shot You're skipping things that are absurd? A comeback win is more difficult? Not all comebacks wins involve crappy 1Q play. That is true. It is also true that not all comeback wins involve 4Q heroics either. A comeback win may or may not be more difficult depending on what happens and how but that is meaningless. Your argument didn't imply it was more difficult, it implied it was more important. That is truly absurd. If the Bills get the lead in every game this year and go 15-1 will you gripe about not having any comeback wins? It's just so dumb. You're welcome to analyse the comeback wins of all the aforementioned QB's and sort them between which ones involved heroics and which were self-imposed. That'd be interesting. I'm quite happy to assume that "bad 4th Q comebacks" all come out in the wash in this discussion. We aren't comparing Brady and Rodgers here, but the second tier of guys, guys who, for the most part, I feel have "sucky" first quarters at an equal rate. I think that's reasonable. And difficulty and importance go hand in hand when talking about QB ability. A W is a W, no doubt. But a QB who wins a 42-35 point shootout to get a win is different from a QB who manages the game and wins 13-10. And the bottomline is a QB who can do "more difficult" things, is better than a QB who can't. To answer your question, no. In a league where "all you need is a QB' and he is the greatest QB prospect in generations, he has been a playoff turnover machine in the every other year he has managed to squeak by in one of the worst division in the history of football. Peyton Manning made the playoffs at an equal rate in the same time frame, and had a 2:1 INT to TD ratio in the postseason in that span. With no wins. Does that mean Luck doesn't turn the ball over too much? Of course not. I think he too frequently throws bad passes with the idea he can make that throw. That's a trait that doesn't mean he won't be successful, Plenty of "gunslingers" have been good and bad across the NFL landscape. You have your Fitzpatricks and your Favres. But I don't disagree his TO's are his biggest problem. Can I ask you a question? It's about stocks. There is a phrase I can't remember even though I hear it a lot. I remember most of it. It goes like this: Past __________ doesn't guarantee future _____________. Can you fill in the blanks? He isn't outdistancing anything until he outdistances it. Is he horrible? Of course not. Could he improve? Of course. Does he need to improve in order to outdistance the career of Manning? I'd say yes. You think he is just fine now from the looks of it. Is that because the press told you to think it? The converse of that phrase is true. Past failures don't guarantee future failures. He does need to improve to have a HoF career like Peyton I agree. Peyton had to improve as well. But at this point in their respective careers, he's already better. The numbers bear that out. As I said before, you would've been doing this same song and dance with Peyton back in 2002. He turned out just fine. I'd say I'm comfortable thinking Luck is right on track. That doesn't mean I think he's the "greatest" or "perfect" or a "lock for the HoF." I don't expect 5th year QB's to be better than the peak of top 3 QB's careers in NFL history. I find that a ridiculous standard.

A comeback win is more difficult. And not all comeback wins are a result of "playing crappy in the 1st quarter," but you know that. Skipping argument to absurdity. Skipping argument to absurdity. What is 2017's reality? Can I ask you a question? What if you were paying attention on year 5 of Peyton Manning's career? I'll paint you a picture. Year 5 of Peyton's career. 44-36 as a starter. 3 winning seasons. 138 TD's to 100 INT's. 3 playoff appearances. 0-3 in the postseason. Here's 5 years of Andrew Luck. 43-27 as a starter. 4 winning seasons. 132 TD's to 68 INT's. 3 playoff appearances. 3-3 in the postseason. Basically, slow your roll dude. He's quite clearly outdistancing the career of one of the best QB's of all time. You would've been murdering Peyton and calling him "not a complete bust." And you'd look just as silly as you do now.

They both went 8-7 you dolt. At least Alpha tries to be accurate. You're horrible at this. Although, maybe I take it back.

You're cherry picking, that's why. You can't say you'd take Winston over Luck because of potential, Cam over Luck because he went to a Super Bowl once, and Rivers over Luck because experience. It makes no sense. Luck has more potential than Cam and Rivers. He has more experience than Winston. And he's gone further in the playoffs than Winston and Rivers. What you're REALLY doing is taking one thing that in your mind those QB's have over Luck, and claiming that the other factors (which you had just argued in favor of for another QB) don't matter. Then you say they do matter in another circumstance, because they fit your argument that X QB is better than Luck. It's an argument accurately summed up as "all over the place."

Yep. If you argue that you don't like Luck because he has a bloated contract and hasn't proven he can carry a team, and then say you'd take Phillip Rivers over Luck because he's "done it longer," you're just making things up as you go along. And I'm a person who feels Rivers is criminally underrated. But that dude hasn't made the postseason since 2013. And he kinda choked with one of the most talented teams in NFL history versus the Jets.

Luckily, that's exactly what you have to disprove to follow the Scientific Method, Tasker wins.

What did Cousins finish third in? Mariota had a worse passer rating, a worse QBR, less comebacks, less gamewinning drives, less yards and 5 less TD's. So that's that. Winston had a worse passer rating, a worse QBR, less comebacks, less gamewinning drives, less yards, and 4 less TD's. So there's that. He's clearly better than them both. I like them both, Winston more than Mariota. But he's clearly better. I "run back" to 3 years ago because it's relevant. You handwave Cam being absolutely awful last year and "run back" to two years ago to take him over Luck. I was talking about the injuries in 2015. Not 2016. We know the context. It's still insane. A good QB with potential >> a middling talent team with no QB. Draft assets to take a QB with a 25% chance at best to even be as good as Luck currently. Bizzaro. How can we say Luck can't "carry" a team? What does that mean? How do you define "carry?"