Quote:Not sure why you pretend debate when talking to you is like talking to a wall.  Zero comprehension from you.  

 

https://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/to.../?p=994372

 

PFF is disconnected from reality with their rankings, which are retooled until a desired outcome is obtained.

 

You can't do that when you ask the players who they feel the best players are.  You know, the players who actually play against them.  Their peers.

 

Look, we get it.  We've always got it.  You think you've got "the guy."  Congrats that you feel that way.  If he were the guy I'm not sure why you would be triggered by those who don't share that opinion, but hey... confident folks would't behave that way.

 

We can agree to disagree on what and who you feel Luck is, but make no mistake whatsoever:

 

Your opponents do not share that opinion.

 

The NFL doesn't fear Luck, nearly as much as you seem to be confident in him.

 

In fact, I'm happy you've got him instead of Peyton, too.

 

Peyton was a serious factor to be reckoned with.  Luck isn't the same.  He's just another factor.

 

So, enjoy your vacuum of comfort, while you're still comfortable with him.

 

From our perspective, you can keep him as long as you like.

 

He may be Peyton to you, but he certainly has been no Peyton to us (or the rest of the NFL.)

Pirkster, a couple items of note:

 

1. Regarding NFL Networks Top 100:The players do not get a chance to play against every team, every year, and as such, you could have someone from a team that you did not play against cast a vote in your favor or against it, which would lead to a less informed viewpoint. It's a fun show to watch, but it is in no way an accurate representation of a player's actual abilities or rank within the NFL in their particular position. When NFL execs (not players, but people who are paid to evaluate players and lead teams) where asked which player would they choose to lead their franchise, Luck was the top pick with Rogers in second.

 

2. With Peyton, you have the benefit of hindsight (16 years Vs 5 years). My point was that at the same point in their careers, Luck is ahead. It remains to be seen how they compare as their careers progress. Manning was incredible years 6+. It appears that you are comparing Manning in his prime to Luck at the start of his career, which is an intellectually dishonest comparison.

 

3. Luck may not match Manning's heights. That is a clear possibility as Manning is considered one of the best to ever play the game. As a Colt's fan, I have no problem stating that. It does bother me a bit when I see a post that says "Luck was supposed to break all of Manning's records." As I stated, Luck can't possibly do that only having played 5 seasons compared to Manning's 16. I then provided facts that show that Luck is ahead at this stage in their respective careers.

 

You responded with pictures and no substance. Is there any true objection to the points I have brought up?

---