Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
There isn't even a comparison between Wilson and what Roethlisberger and Sanchez did as rookies, even if both won games and a lot of them. Wilson was also asked to win games and did it. He threw far fewer interceptions and more touchdowns than Luck, had a higher YPA, completion percentage (by 10 points), and he didn't have the benefit of a galvanizing force like ChuckStrong behind him.
Indy was a mirage. The debate is over how much of that credit you give to Luck as opposed to aberrational factors. If you look at FBO, for example, Indy is not only the worst 11-5 team in like 20 years, they were worse than any 10-6 team over the same time span. That suggests a team that was significantly worse than their record. Their Pythagorean W-L was 7-9. They were outscored by opponents. They got destroyed by the Jets and lost at home to Jacksonville. They barely beat the Chiefs.
Keep in mind that teams that often outperform Pythag often crater the next year. The 2011 and 2012 Chiefs are examples of that.
That's not to say that Luck is not an exceptional QB prospect. However, I think his team's BABIP this year was about .410. I realize that a counterargument could be made that Luck's late-game ability helped elevate the team, and I think there is some merit to it, but if i were a gambling man I would POUND Indy's under next year.
|
I completely agree with all this, and I guess you weren't around... but you could find posts where I make several of these points over the last month or so. They might have been one of the worst playoff teams of any record of all time.
But they still made it. Part of it was the lack of decent teams of the AFC. But part of it is having a QB who played well under pressure for the most part. They are not a good team, but Luck carried them to 11-5. I think that actually aids my point.
If you gave Luck a top 5 running back and defense, he may have been good enough to get to a Super Bowl THIS year. He is a robot put on this earth to play QB.