No one is saying he sucked.
He was just upsold pre draft as a franchise changing, 15 year, next big thing at QB. The next "Manning, Brady, whatever"

And he wasn't. He wasn't anything better than a number of other middling franchise QBs. (He's closer to Philip Rivers or Eli, than Manning or Brady) He had a penchant for throwing a lot of INTs and overall wasn't great in the playoffs.
Did he have an all-star OL? no. Most QBs don't. But he didn't elevate his team and had Reggie Wayne for his first few and TY Hilton his entire career. He had a better roster than the majority of AFCS squads during his time (and racked up most of his wins versus those bad teams)

First overall pick turned in less than a decade of a career and 4 playoff wins. And very good but not really great stats honestly.


Not saying the guy was bad. Just never bought the hype and certainly ain't buying it now. He was good but it isn't insane to say that he wasn't what he was supposed to be or what everyone thought he would be.

It isn't a bias thing.
Watson, very good, proved me wrong after only 2 seasons... thought he was being oversold.
Hopkins, top 3 WR in the league his entire career....
Henry is a beast...

I got no problem giving credit to rivals when it is due...

+1k  Luck was decent most definitely but the hype was atrocious.  Alot of QBs get hyped up so its not his fault.  The media does it every year just to try and be first when a player does have a great career.  Us fans probably hit on that more than they do.

Indeed. Pre-injury Tua was getting the same sort of hype.
However, I saw Tua as a different QB behind a 'meh' OL vs top tier defenses (Clemson in Natty). He has plenty of talent but can he do as well at the next level under duress against better defenses... and now, can he stay healthy (fragile fred syndrome) 

Burrow has his own bit of hype, however, I have yet to see the type of hype of the likes of what Luck was getting. Luck was supposed to be system proof (and thus HC and roster proof) he wasn't. I'm sure Luck would have done better under Reid. Most QBs probably would. That's a terrible argument in favor of why Luck was better than he showed lol

It isn't the QBs fault when they receive such hype (Don't hate Tebow for his media coverage) and I don't blame Luck for his hype, I blame media, draftniks, and fans --namely those suck for Luck campaigners--.
Those Luck fans, that would gladly take a 1 win season to net that QB got just as many rings as the Jaguars, tacks, and tinhorns in those 7 years. And only 3 more (worthless) playoff wins than our very own hapless Jags. Sure the 11 win seasons would have been nice, hell they would have been great, and honestly, I would have loved to have Luck.
My point is circles back to what I was trying to say before Luck fan-boys got butt hurt lol... multiple first rounders are going to be more valuable to me than any 1 QB, unless you can somehow guarantee he's the next Brady and even then... When it comes to roster building, I think the roster/team as a whole matters more than the QB. (We were a quarter of football away from the SB with Blake freakin Bortles)

---

+1k  Luck was decent most definitely but the hype was atrocious.  Alot of QBs get hyped up so its not his fault.  The media does it every year just to try and be first when a player does have a great career.  Us fans probably hit on that more than they do.

Indeed. Pre-injury Tua was getting the same sort of hype.
However, I saw Tua as a different QB behind a 'meh' OL vs top tier defenses (Clemson in Natty). He has plenty of talent but can he do as well at the next level under duress against better defenses... and now, can he stay healthy (fragile fred syndrome) 

Burrow has his own bit of hype, however, I have yet to see the type of hype of the likes of what Luck was getting. Luck was supposed to be system proof (and thus HC and roster proof) he wasn't. I'm sure Luck would have done better under Reid. Most QBs probably would. That's a terrible argument in favor of why Luck was better than he showed lol

It isn't the QBs fault when they receive such hype (Don't hate Tebow for his media coverage) and I don't blame Luck for his hype, I blame media, draftniks, and fans --namely those suck for Luck campaigners--.
Those Luck fans, that would gladly take a 1 win season to net that QB got just as many rings as the Jaguars, tacks, and tinhorns in those 7 years. And only 3 more (worthless) playoff wins than our very own hapless Jags. Sure the 11 win seasons would have been nice, hell they would have been great, and honestly, I would have loved to have Luck.
My point is circles back to what I was trying to say before Luck fan-boys got butt hurt lol... multiple first rounders are going to be more valuable to me than any 1 QB, unless you can somehow guarantee he's the next Brady and even then... When it comes to roster building, I think the roster/team as a whole matters more than the QB. (We were a quarter of football away from the SB with Blake freakin Bortles)

Most definitely

---

Season Tix, Section 409

2023 and still counting.....SB will finally be ours soon enough.
TLaw aka 'the prince that was promised' supporter.

Other than the shoulder shortened season Luck's INT%+ was 99 98 118 99 and 100. Other than 2013 where he was excellent at avoiding INTs he was virtually exactly league average. Just another misconception.

---

Other than the shoulder shortened season Luck's INT%+ was 99 98 118 99 and 100. Other than 2013 where he was excellent at avoiding INTs he was virtually exactly league average. Just another misconception.

Exactly what is being said.  He's not some generational QB.

---

Other than the shoulder shortened season Luck's INT%+ was 99 98 118 99 and 100. Other than 2013 where he was excellent at avoiding INTs he was virtually exactly league average. Just another misconception.

So... he was average?
Thanks for adding to my point?

But seriously... WHEN you throw the INT matters as much (or more) than the total number or % of throws that end in INTs.
Like... down by 4 driving with less than 2 minutes in the game (Bortles and Garrard esque) as opposed to early in a game when your team can bounce back from it.
His INTs were almost always game changers in bad ways. Or at least momentum swingers.

Anywho... he was just aiight as far as #1 overall picks go.
And his career was rather short for a #1 overall pick. (Early retirement was a choice, not like he had nerve damage or career ending injury)
And his end results (and yes, it's a team game so average roster around him matters too) were just aiight. Manning never had elite OLs or run game either. He made them better with his play as QB, which is what Luck was supposed to do.

So "Luck is the next best thing to hit QBs since [insert already elite QB name here]" ended up being an oversell.
He wasn't. He was just a good QB. The clots went from a Manning led perennial 11 win team, to tanking to a 1 win season, to getting a Luck led 11 win team in 2 seasons (the roster wasn't THAT bad obviously)
The clots got 2 SB appearances with Manning and 1 ring and a decade of 10 plus wins.
They got 4 10 plus win seasons, 0 SB appearances and 0 rings, in arguably a worse AFCS than the one Manning played in.

---

Other than the shoulder shortened season Luck's INT%+ was 99 98 118 99 and 100. Other than 2013 where he was excellent at avoiding INTs he was virtually exactly league average. Just another misconception.

Exactly what is being said.  He's not some generational QB.

To be a generational QB you have to be elite in every single facet?

---

Andrew Lucks ranks in AY/A:

2012: 20th
2013: 16th
2014: 5th
2015: 32nd (only played 7 games)
2016: 10th
2017: didn't play
2018: 11th

Playoff stats:

8 games, 4-4

12 TDs
13 picks
56% completion
4% INT rate
3.7% TD rate
5.8 AY/A
73 passer rating

---

Exactly what is being said.  He's not some generational QB.

To be a generational QB you have to be elite in every single facet?

Generational prospect , not a generational QB.

---

You didn't see the greats on the sidelines smacking themselves in the head about the big mistake they made with the frequency Luck did.

Rare QBs like Favre had their turnovers because they had no fear to take any and all risks.

Luck was nothing like Favre (or any Hall QB.} Luck was the insanely smart QB who overthought everything to the point of his own detriment. His head made it a tough job for his talent to overcome. It was like he started every game at -7.5, yet still had the talent to overcome most of the time.

These should be clearly apparent observations.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Maybe someone should change this thread title.

---

Upper thinks every player not on the Jaguars is automatically awesome.

He does have the odds in his favor on that.

---