Sup, I rarely see you take a position that doesn't have solid plausibility behind it, and you do it without SIN too [Standard Internet Nonsense]). However, and no offense meant man, I'm having a hard time seeing a clear foundation on this one. My understanding of your belief is you'd rather have faced Cincy/believe Indy is the more concerning matchup -- yet Luck doesn't concern you. If that's an accurate description of your position, I think you're off base. IMHO how concerning Indy is is synonymous with how concerning Luck is. Look, Luck's got a fairly impressive comeback record and fairly impressive amount of yards thrown in his short pro career....as well as CW saying he ran a pro offense in college very impressively. Given that, given the poise needed for a comeback against KC on the big stage, and given that Indy doesn't really possess anything else that jumps out at me as worrisome (Mathis?), I think 'Luck' and 'Indy' are interchangeable words. That's not to say it's all Luck if they win or if they lose, it's to say they won't win without him playing at a high level.
Of course I believed/wrote SD was a joke and would get walloped easily by Cincy......so take my post for what it's worth