NFL executives rank Brady as third best QB behind Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck

[Deus Irae]

Except ten years ago, Manning had been in the league several years longer than Luck has now.

People here are ignoring that. We're supposed to be uber patient with JAG, but Luck's called overrated because he hasn't won a Super Bowl already.

It's blatant homerism, and it's a product of being spoiled for more than a decade. God help this place if Brady's successor sucks, because the crying will be non-stop.

 

[ViperGTS]

People here are ignoring that. We're supposed to be uber patient with JAG, but Luck's called overrated because he hasn't won a Super Bowl already.

It's blatant homerism, and it's a product of being spoiled for more than a decade. God help this place if Brady's successor sucks, because the crying will be non-stop.

Luck (and before being flamed I know he had zero to do with it) plays at the very least half of his games in a dome. One would expect more.

 

[1960Pats]

Except ten years ago, Manning had been in the league several years longer than Luck has now.

Thanks for jogging my memory. It was actually 2002 I was thinking about, not 10 years ago. That would make it 1 year longer.

The post caught my eye because it reminded me of an Indy fan who decided that the Pats were done after their "fluke" win in 2001 (not to mention their struggles in 2002) and started talking up Peyton on an AOL board in 2002. The poor guy and all of the Peyton worshipers never saw 2003-2004 coming.

 

[1960Pats]

People here are ignoring that. We're supposed to be uber patient with JAG, but Luck's called overrated because he hasn't won a Super Bowl already.

It's blatant homerism, and it's a product of being spoiled for more than a decade. God help this place if Brady's successor sucks, because the crying will be non-stop.

I'm not sure what's worse, the crying or the crying about the crying. Who's putting JG ahead of Luck?

I was off on the number of years (mhtf) but not the concept. Manning had only been around 1 year more than Luck in 2002 (which makes it 13 years ago not 10 if that's acceptable). Manning was starting his 5th season and Luck is starting his 4th.

 

[1960Pats]

Luck (and before being flamed I know he had zero to do with it) plays at the very least half of his games in a dome. One would expect more.

I'm perfectly willing to give Luck as much time as he needs to reach the same level as the QB he replaced.

 

[upstater1]

He didn't look good today, that's for sure.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

That's simply not correct, as I've demonstrated.

I don't see any demonstration from you on Luck's interceptions to his peers. It's easy to show, look at the years he played and compare interceptions. 3rd worst his first year, 6th worst last year. Those are his peers he was worse than.

Except that it does no such thing. Manning has been the second best QB of his era.

So Luck is similar to Manning in interceptions, and Manning is the second best QB of his era, therefore what? Luck will be the second best of his era?

"Manning's era" is a made up category, and has nothing to do with next year, which is what the thread is about. Even if I accept the "Manning's era" nonsense, Manning and Luck are still playing in the same year, so Luck exists in Manning's era and both can't be second best next year. If the second best QB of his era isn't the second best QB next year this entire line of reasoning has said nothing. Luck becomes a guy who plays next year with 5 QBs that are better, and that may continue years after that.

I like Brees, but Manning's the better QB, IMO, and I don't really think it's close. I generally look at the top 4 QBs of the Manning "era" in this probable order:

Brady
P. Manning
Roethlisberger
Brees

Then I'd slot Rodgers and Rivers in behind them.

I don't have a problem with that, but that list has QBs who are all playing next year, and that doesn't put Luck as the second best or even close. Since this is what I said:

Maybe he will be one day, but so far he isn't in the top 3 IMO.

I don't see what you're arguing about.

 

[LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady]

This post of yours proves my point about your arguments, so..... Thanks.


Dalton as a comp? You're out of your freakin' mind.

Apparently you can't sense the sarcasm in the Dalton part of my post or you just used it as some way to make yourself right. My point is if you're gonna make an argument for Luck being great, one can make a similar argument for Dalton. Both QBs suck, but because Luck makes the playoffs, due to lack of competition in his division or schedule, fans are suddenly ready to label him as great or better than QBs like Brady, Rothlisberger, Brees, Manning and even Romo-- just a complete slap in the face to these really good QBs. I have not seen an argument you've made yet, that has convinced me that Luck is any better than Wilson or the other overhyped QBs. Luck throws the ball probably 20 times more than the average, so of course he'll have better stats than most. Padded stats doesn't make him great, making the playoffs, in his weak division and then getting beat down by the first good team he encounters, doesn't make him great either. Stats are overrated and deceptive, Luck has failed my eyeball test. I don't see his greatness.

Luck vs Buffalo today proves my point. He can't beat a good defense. The guy sucks unless he's playing against scrubs. That's been my argument since day 1 and I'm sticking to it. Even Flacco shows up against good teams.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I don't think it is a shot at Brady as much as the NFL hope to hype Andrew Luck into the next All time great.

Maybe he will be and maybe not. But too early to put him ahead of Brady. Rodgers is the only QB that has an argument that makes sense.

Here is a stat I posted in another thread by mistake.
Including playoffs,
Luck has thrown 2 or more interceptions in 5 of his last 8 games.
Brady has thrown 2 or more interceptions in 5 of his last 40 games.....
Food for thought...two full seasons worth...