Royale with Cheese Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 I was mixing it up with when he lost to the Jags and Texans this past year. Sorry. You remember, the games where he missed bunny passes on 4th and short in crunch time. Spin it however you want. He is seen as a demigod in the sports press and a lot of people just go along with that like the people in "The Emperor's New Clothes" or North Korean citizens do with Kim Jung Un. People think Un shot an 18 in a round of golf and think Luck has produced marvelous results. Neither are true. It doesn't mean he is a bad QB. It just means he has been granted a lot of excuses. Maybe some of them are valid. Pardon me for allowing the possibility that possibly....potentially....God forbid...he is not the greatest QB ever and a guaranteed ticket to glory. You really need to change your username to Hyperbole.
GunnerBill Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 Yet you and many call them excuses when anyone suggests any of the same things affect Tyrod Taylor. Bad line, poor weapons, bad defense, bad coaches/GM, etc. Yet Taylor has an exceptionally better track record of protecting the ball and is similar or better in many key QB statistics outside of yardage totals. For the record, I am not comparing TT to Luck who is clearly a better passer than TT, just find it interesting how its always an "excuse" in Buffalo no matter who the QB is, but they are valid reasons when defending another teams QB every single time. Luck gets a pass on all his mistakes every time while people here label the same or similar factors here as just excuses. I am sorry they are simply NOTHING alike. If you in a month of Sundays think there is a single person employed by an NFL team who would take Tyrod as their QB over Luck even when the contracts are taken into account you are stark raving mad.
4merper4mer Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 I am sorry they are simply NOTHING alike. If you in a month of Sundays think there is a single person employed by an NFL team who would take Tyrod as their QB over Luck even when the contracts are taken into account you are stark raving mad.
JohnC Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 My point was, what you call a valid reason for Luck, you call an excuse for TT. It can be a negative to one QB, and not a negative to another. If its a valid reason for Luck, then its a valid reason for TT, end of story. I actually expect Peterman to start at some point this year, so lets not confuse where I stand on TT. My entire stance was that he was NOT our biggest problem, nor had he earned the confidence to be the starter moving forward. I remained optimistic that with less than 2 years of starts under his belt, that he still had the potential to improve on what was not that bad of a 2 year stretch that is often over exaggerated by the negative TT people. At the end of the day, I have said at every step of the way, that TT MUST show up and improve in order to continue to be the Bills starter both next year and throughout this season. I actually very much like some of the potential I have seen in Peterman, but I also know he isnt ready. I think Peterman will get the nod sometime around week 10, possibly later, to start this year barring these factors: 1. An injury to TT makes this happen sooner. 2. The Bills are in the playoff hunt and TT is playing solid or better. 3. The Bills are not in the playoff hunt, but TT is playing great and earned the right to finish the season as the starter. 4. The Bills have 1 or No wins going into the bye week, and the offense is the main issue so they turn to the rookier earlier than hoped and it gives Peterman the extra week on the Bye to get a lot of first team reps. Personally, this OL is atrocious and I fear the lack of rapport with the wideouts, the bad protection, etc is going to lead to stiff decline in the offense from last year and that TT has very little chance of finishing the year as the starter anymore. But, from a development stand point on Peterman, I think its more than likely Peterman is held off the field until at least week 10 to give the kid the best chance to succeed and show the team what he has got to end the season. I'm not going expend energy dissecting the strength and weaknesses of the current starting qb for Buffalo. In short by making the point that you believe Peterman will replace TT as a starter before the season is over is a testament to what you actually believe his prospects are as a starting qb in this league. TT is a fine fellow, But he has unfixable limitations that not only all organizations are aware of but also are well known to the staff in which he currently plays for. Mentioning Luck in the same sentence as TT and trying to make some ludicrous comparisons between the two is a very far fetched position to hang on to. You can cite all the stats you want to when comparing the two qbs. There is no GM or HC in this league, including the staff for the team he now plays for, who would not only prefer Luck but also would give up most of their draft currency to acquire Luck, injured or not. TT has absolutely little value on the open market as evident by his availability this past offseason.
GoBills808 Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 The whole 'Andrew Luck isn't that great' argument is old hat put forth by the stat geeks and the casual football observer crowd. It's easily disproven, more often than not, Sundays between September and January. Unsurprisingly it's the same crowd that think Taylor makes a reasonable comparison. You really need to change your username to Hyperbole. The guy is a troll. I haven't seen anything substantive from him beyond casual bon mots and hyperbole. Not much there to work with.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 I am sorry they are simply NOTHING alike. If you in a month of Sundays think there is a single person employed by an NFL team who would take Tyrod as their QB over Luck even when the contracts are taken into account you are stark raving mad. Why am I not surprised you didn't read what I wrote. I literally word for word specifically stated I am not comparing them. Word for Word, in the very post you responded to, and even referenced Luck the superior passer. But of course, I knew someone absolutely obsessed Tyrod basher would try and pretend there was a comparison. THE ONLY comparison I made is that the same "reasons" be given to VALIDATE all the Luck short comings, turnovers, etc are also similar factors that have worked abasing Taylor where you and others like you call them excuses. IT CANT BE A VALID REASON FOR ONE AND JUST AN EXCUSE FOR ANOTHER. It doesn't work that way. I'm not going expend energy dissecting the strength and weaknesses of the current starting qb for Buffalo. In short by making the point that you believe Peterman will replace TT as a starter before the season is over is a testament to what you actually believe his prospects are as a starting qb in this league. TT is a fine fellow, But he has unfixable limitations that not only all organizations are aware of but also are well known to the staff in which he currently plays for. Mentioning Luck in the same sentence as TT and trying to make some ludicrous comparisons between the two is a very far fetched position to hang on to. You can cite all the stats you want to when comparing the two qbs. There is no GM or HC in this league, including the staff for the team he now plays for, who would not only prefer Luck but also would give up most of their draft currency to acquire Luck, injured or not. TT has absolutely little value on the open market as evident by his availability this past offseason. Please show me where I compared them? Especially since I specifically stated I am not comparing them and called Luck the obvious superior passer...something you already referenced. Some of you just can't help yourself and no matter what just feel the need to twist something to say something I not only didn't do or say, but very clearly pointed out that I wasn't comparing them.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 The whole 'Andrew Luck isn't that great' argument is old hat put forth by the stat geeks and the casual football observer crowd. It's easily disproven, more often than not, Sundays between September and January. Unsurprisingly it's the same crowd that think Taylor makes a reasonable comparison. The guy is a troll. I haven't seen anything substantive from him beyond casual bon mots and hyperbole. Not much there to work with. NOBODY compared Taylor to Luck...This is a board full of people who can't comprehend basic english. When someone states its NOT a comparison, and Luck is the superior passer...thats EXACTLY what those words mean. GEEZUS CHRIST, this board is impossible to converse with. Everyone is OBSESSED with pretending someone said something they didn't to somehow further their argument. THE ONLY DAMN THING I SAID was that its ironic that what is an excuse for TT is somehow valid defense of Luck. You are the hypocritical ones, and you refuse to acknowledge it. If having bad protection is an excuse when talking about TT, then guess what, its also just an excuse when talking about Luck too. If having a bad defense is just an excuse for TT, then its also just an excuse for Luck too. If having a bad GM is an excuse for TT, then its also just an excuse for Luck too. If dealing with injuries is just an excuse for TT, then its also just an excuse for Luck. Sick of all this hypocritical defending of non bills players and the constant whining about the same things being just an excuse when it involves a Bills player. Doesn't matter if its TT, Dareus, Darby, Watkins, whoever...its always the same dumb story.
JohnC Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 Why am I not surprised you didn't read what I wrote. I literally word for word specifically stated I am not comparing them. Word for Word, in the very post you responded to, and even referenced Luck the superior passer. But of course, I knew someone absolutely obsessed Tyrod basher would try and pretend there was a comparison. THE ONLY comparison I made is that the same "reasons" be given to VALIDATE all the Luck short comings, turnovers, etc are also similar factors that have worked abasing Taylor where you and others like you call them excuses. IT CANT BE A VALID REASON FOR ONE AND JUST AN EXCUSE FOR ANOTHER. It doesn't work that way. Please show me where I compared them? Especially since I specifically stated I am not comparing them and called Luck the obvious superior passer...something you already referenced. Some of you just can't help yourself and no matter what just feel the need to twist something to say something I not only didn't do or say, but very clearly pointed out that I wasn't comparing them. I don't know what you are getting at. Luck and TT are in two different situations. Going in circles is going in circles. Respectfully, there is no need to respond.
GunnerBill Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) But of course, I knew someone absolutely obsessed Tyrod basher would try and pretend there was a comparison. I am not an obssessed Tyrod basher. Wrong. I am prefectly fair on Tyrod. You want to know why excuses can be valid for one and not the other? Because of the tape. When you watch the actual plays yoh can decipher what is a valid excuse and what isn't. In some cases saying "oh his line is bad" will be valid because you will see broken plays. Tyrod had the longest average time back there to throw in the league last year. Yes - he was the most sacked.... but if you hold the ball the longest you will be. Luck on the other hand had continuous broken plays where pass rushers got to him inside 2 and half seconds. You watch the plays and you work out what is a valid excuse and what isn't. That's how it works. And I also don't make dumb crticisms of Bills players. That is a weak argument to throw at me. There are plenty of Bills players I have defended. Including Tyrod Taylor I might add. But even trying to suggest he has the same "excuses" as Andrew Luck stretches credulity. Watch the film. Their excuses are nothing alike beyond their defenses lost them games. EDIT: indeed this "obsessed Tyrod basher" was saying just yesterday that for my money he should absolutely be on the team for 2018 and if he beats out the shiney new 1st round rook in camp he should open that season as the starter and the Bills should make the rook earn it. Obviously a tell tale sign of a hater. It is easier just to attack anyone who doesn't think Tyrod can be our answer at Quarterback as a hater or obsessed than engage with the criticisms. The idea that the same reasoning can't be legitimate in one set of circumstances and then an excuse in another different set of circumstances makes no sense to me. Edited August 31, 2017 by GunnerBill
HappyDays Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 The whole 'Andrew Luck isn't that great' argument is old hat put forth by the stat geeks and the casual football observer crowd. It's easily disproven, more often than not, Sundays between September and January. Unsurprisingly it's the same crowd that think Taylor makes a reasonable comparison. The guy is a troll. I haven't seen anything substantive from him beyond casual bon mots and hyperbole. Not much there to work with. I mean you said you'd trade 4 1st round picks for Luck now on his contract which is at least equally stupid to what you seem to think people are saying.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 I don't know what you are getting at. Luck and TT are in two different situations. Going in circles is going in circles. Respectfully, there is no need to respond. Don't worry, I am seriously over this conversation...when people start twisting things to pretend they say something different, I check out. Its beyond aggravating. I really don't care what anyone thinks, he is over rated IMO and I hate the contractual position the Colts are in with him given his 1.55 per game average of INT & Fumbles to go with his torrid injury situation. Like I said 3 years ago, wake me when he stops making so many mistakes and has a good post season. #StillWaiting I mean you said you'd trade 4 1st round picks for Luck now on his contract which is at least equally stupid to what you seem to think people are saying. That was my whole point too...that 4 firsts for him would be way over the top given his massive contract, poor post season resume, his turnover ratio, and his injury issues. But people want to spin it as if I said he sucks (which I clearly said he is a good QB, just think he is over rated as he is not on the Rodgers, Brady, Brees level IMO that every one annoits him) or compared him to TT. I only mentioned one mans reason is somehow another mans excuse and thats always the case with Bills players vs other teams players around here.
GoBills808 Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I mean you said you'd trade 4 1st round picks for Luck now on his contract which is at least equally stupid to what you seem to think people are saying. I stand by that. It's not half as stupid as pretending Luck and Taylor suffer from the same deficiencies, which IS what Alphadawg7 (and presumably you too?) is saying.
Augie Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Luck should stay in hiding until they put a team around him. What a mess.....
Perk71 Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Don't give a cra?p. He is not a Bill I can't agree more. When I finally make it out there for a game I will bring you a nice bottle of red Mead. Go Bills!
4merper4mer Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 The whole 'Andrew Luck isn't that great' argument is old hat put forth by the stat geeks and the casual football observer crowd. It's easily disproven, more often than not, Sundays between September and January. Andrew Luck was deemed to be the second coming. There is no denying this. So far the results are: He is a great dude, has a good arm and a good football sense when things are going his way. He has played in inarguably the weakest division the NFL has seen in decades. His team has squeaked by in this division a few times and lost other times. The arrows are pointing down and the Colts can't afford free agents because they are saddled with his contract. In crunch time, whether in the playoffs or individual games he has choked aplenty. His "career" at this point is a complete myth in terms of results. If it were to end today, he would likely be remembered as football's version of Sandy Koufax and he has done nothing to earn that.
dave mcbride Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) Andrew Luck was deemed to be the second coming. There is no denying this. So far the results are: He is a great dude, has a good arm and a good football sense when things are going his way. He has played in inarguably the weakest division the NFL has seen in decades. His team has squeaked by in this division a few times and lost other times. The arrows are pointing down and the Colts can't afford free agents because they are saddled with his contract. In crunch time, whether in the playoffs or individual games he has choked aplenty. His "career" at this point is a complete myth in terms of results. If it were to end today, he would likely be remembered as football's version of Sandy Koufax and he has done nothing to earn that. Um ... Sandy Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers of all time, and it's not even remotely arguable. HOF votes are based on career counting stats and five-year peak stats, and koufax's five year peak is about as great as you'll ever see. You're a good poster, but do you know enough about baseball to comment on it? Koufax had a total of 46.6 WAR between 1961 and 1966 (staggeringly great) plus two dominant postseason WS-winning performances and 5 straight ERA titles. Christ, man: Koufax's ERA in 4 world series was 0.95 and he won 2 world series MVPs. More to the point, Koufax did nothing until his seventh season in MLB. Edited August 31, 2017 by dave mcbride
4merper4mer Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Um ... Sandy Koufax is one of the greatest pitchers of all time, and it's not even remotely arguable. HOF votes are based on career counting stats and five-year peak stats, and koufax's five year peak is about as great as you'll ever see. You're a good poster, but do you know enough about baseball to comment on it? Koufax had a total of 46.6 WAR between 1961 and 1966 (staggeringly great) plus two dominant postseason WS-winning performances and 5 straight ERA titles. Christ, man: Koufax's ERA in 4 world series was 0.95 and he won 2 world series MVPs. More to the point, Koufax did nothing until his seventh season in MLB. You are making my point for me. Luck does not deserve to be thought of like a Koufax, but if his career ended early, he would be. It would would be "Look at that greatness, oh what could have been". Koufax earned his legend, even in a relatively short career. Luck has a similar legend. Personally if his career ended I'd think of him more like Dave Dravecky. Showed glimpses...some ups and downs and it is too bad we didn't get to see the whole product to know for sure. If Luck starts producing like Koufax did then awesome. But he hasn't and everyone everywhere acts like he has.
BringBackOrton Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I said repeatedly he is a good QB...the point I made is that he has one of the worst contracts in football right now. 1. He has yet to play up to it. 2. His injury issues are compounding it. 3. That contract is a cap choking contract, and all Luck has proved up to this point is that he can carry a bad roster against bad teams, but not against good teams or the playoffs. I have aslo repeatedly stated that he can still improve. But the bottom line is undeniable, he has been too mistake prone. And many of his "comebacks" he gets heralded for were both against bad teams and also comebacks from holes HE put them in with bad mistakes. And as far as fumbles vs fumbles lost...who cares what the balance is between them, a fumble is a fumble.. A fumble, even when retaining the ball, is a terrible play resulting most often in negative yards, drive ending plays, turnovers, or significantly increasing the distance for a first down. 105 INTs and Fumbles in just 70 games is not very good, especially when you consider that was the regular season and the only time he actually had any success. His TD to Turnover ratio is atrocious in the postseason. Luck has 80 Interceptions in 76 career games between Regular Season and Playoffs. Thats more than 1 per game. He also has 38 fumbles in 76 career games. Thats an average of a combined INT/Fumble rate of 1.55 per game played. Thats is not very good at all. He has been more Jay Cutler than Aaron Rodgers. He has been more Jeff George than Steve Young. He has been a lot less than his LEGEND makes people believe he has been. Is he a bad QB, by no means...I am simply stating his success is over exaggerated and I would not want to be in the Colts shoes right now with that contract, his injury history, and his on field struggles. Luck made the playoffs more in his first 5 years than Rodgers did.
4merper4mer Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Luck made the playoffs more in his first 5 years than Rodgers did. How do you think the Packers would have done in the AFC south?
Recommended Posts