(04-12-2018, 09:51 AM)AlsJagsFan Wrote: (04-12-2018, 08:40 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: So an old and not producing Wayne. 2 aging pass rushers. Then you go on to name studs like Tommy Harris, Austin Collie, Fleener and Redding? Yikes dude. Reaching real hard there. Also, let's not forget that only 2 of those players are still Colts. Hilton and Constanzo. So all those "studs" were so great that the team let them walk?
The Colts roster was and still is a bottom 5 roster. I mean... I think they may have the worst roster in the league right now.
I am pretty sure Wayne was a 1000+ yds receiver Luck's first year. And how can you say Luck's line was worse when Bortles was sacked more. I did some research and stat comparisons on the two and while luck has slightly better stats it doesn't prove he's head over heels better than Bortles despite what fans think. The numbers don't lie. I would take Bortles and our defense over luck and their defense both combinations produced and AFC Championship game appearance. Also if I remember correctly Luck enjoys fumbling the ball....a lot. But I could be wrong on that.
You're all over the place here.
1. Never said the Jags had a better Oline. They were both equally bad at one point and Luck went 11-5. The Jags line has gotten better and the Colts has become worse.
2. Their stats may be similar but Luck took a team that won 1 game and the very next season they go to the playoffs. Blake at one point had more pick 6's than wins.
3. Stats don't make Luck better but dominating the division does. Especially when he was working with a bad defense, no running game and a bad OLine.
4. I would also take Bortles and our defense over Luck and their defense. That's not the point. The point is that Luck has won many games with one of the worst rosters in football. In 2016, everything broke right for the Jags and yet they won 3 games? Blame Bradley because he sucks but Pagano also sucks.
5. Luck may fumble but Blake turns the ball over a ton.
6. Lastly, Luck has 17 game winning drives while Blake has 7.
All in all, when healthy (which is what the initial question asked), Luck is better.
(04-12-2018, 10:07 AM)pirkster Wrote: I don't think Blake is better than healthy Luck, but he's not far behind when Blake is playing well. I suppose both of those are big "IF"s.
Luck is overrated IMO (bad decisions for a supposedly cerebral QB - constantly on the sideline shaking his head at himself, turnover prone) and Blake is probably underrated. People act as if he's worse than Garrard.
The truth is, Blake is arguably the best QB we've had. Folks will obviously argue Brunell and I get it. I just don't agree. Brunell was special prior to his injury. After that, not so much. His career as a whole (even only considering his time in Jax) wasn't special. He was there in the early glory days, and he has cemented himself as part of team history - but that's it, only nostalgia.
Leftwich and Garrard set QB records here after Brunell. Blake has his share as well. Blake took us to the game only Brunell has. I'd much rather have today Blake than the Brunell that left Jacksonville for Washington. Brunell was a flash in the pan. Blake is showing more promise than he ever has. Yet some are ready to bail on Blake already, and put Brunell on a pedestal (for very little aside from nostalgia.)
So after being pretty long winded... sure, Luck is better (not as wide a margin as it might seem) but may not ever be back, and may not be the same guy he was if he does get back. That even further narrows that margin, and could eliminate it by default if he never plays again.
Flash in the pan? He was the QB here for 8 years.
