I've already gone into detail about my belief that the Indianapolis Colts, as good of a story as they were, weren't a true "11-5" caliber team, that rookie quarterback Andrew Luck, as bright as his future may be, did not have a rookie-of-the-year kind of season this year, and that both the team and rookie have been vastly overrated this season on ESPN (and elsewhere).
This was again showcased yesterday in the Colts' 24-9 loss to the Baltimore Ravens in the 1st round of the playoffs. The Ravens, having lost 4 of their previous 5 games, led throughout the contest, before placing the exclamation mark on it in the 4th quarter.
Andrew Luck's performance was like many others he's had this year. The guy completed 28 of 54 pass attempts (51.9%) for 288 yards (5.3 per attempt), an interception, and a quarterback rating of 59.8. He rushed the ball 4 times for 35 yards (8.8 per carry), lost a fumble, and was sacked 3 times for a net minus of 21 yards (-7.0 average per sack). These are not staggering numbers here, yet that hasn't been anything new for Luck this season. The team had been largely aided by a soft schedule, the defense showing up in their wins, and the offense finding a way to click in the final moments of multiple contests.
Yet, even when taking all this into consideration, here's what ESPN had to say about Luck after yesterday's performance:
"Luck completed 28-of-54 passes for 288 yards with an interception in Sunday's loss to the Ravens. He also ran four times for 35 yards.
Only six NFL QBs recorded more passing yards than the 4,374 that Luck racked up this season as he led the Colts to an improbable 11-5 record..."
Curious on where Eagles quarterback Michael Vick might land, especially since Andy Reid took over coaching duties for the Kansas City Chiefs, I clicked on his name and here's what ESPN had to say:
"Vick finished the 2012 season by throwing for 2,362 yards (6.7 YPA), 12 touchdowns and 10 interceptions while running for 332 yards and one touchdown in 10 games.
It was an absolute trainwreck of a season for Vick, who is loosely expected to play somewhere other than Philadelphia in 2013 as a result of his poor showing this year. Vick wasn't a viable starting NFL quarterback in 2012, because his play and durability alike were major issues. He is not open to a pay cut with the Eagles, however, and it's objectively true that Vick isn't worth anywhere near the amount he's getting paid in his six-year, $100 million deal. If cut by Philadelphia, though, Vick figures to make a few teams curious in free agency given the reliable supply of teams desperate for quarterback upgrades."
Granted, of the three years Vick has started for the Eagles, this was by far his worst. However, why is it that Andrew Luck had a brilliant season and Michael Vick's was a trainwreck?
Luck was near the very bottom of the league in completion percentage, quarterback rating, and near the very top of the league in interceptions thrown.
Completion Percentage
Michael Vick: 58.1%
Andrew Luck: 54.1%
Difference: Vick +4.0%
Quarterback Rating
Michael Vick: 78.1
Andrew Luck: 76.5
Difference: Vick +1.6
Interceptions
Andrew Luck: 18
Michael Vick: 10
Difference: Luck +8
Statistically speaking, Vick was a more efficient quarterback this year than Luck, yet ESPN has called Luck's year marvelous, while Vick's has been a trainwreck.
The one stat ESPN threw out about Luck was his passing yards. It's true - Luck threw for 4,374 yards this season, which ranked him 7th in the league in that category (behind Drew Brees, Matthew Stafford, Tony Romo, Tom Brady, Matt Ryan, and Peyton Manning). The guy also ranked 5th in pass attempts with 627 (behind Stafford, Brees, Romo, and Brady). Matt Ryan threw for 345 more yards on the season than Andrew Luck on 12 fewer pass attempts, while Peyton Manning threw for 285 more yards than Luck on 44 fewer pass attempts. Of all the quarterbacks I listed, Luck was the least efficient, with Stafford finishing slightly above him in that category at 79.8 and the rest finishing at solid 90.0+ ratings. Aaron Rodgers threw for 79 fewer yards this year than Andrew Luck. Does that mean he was less effective? No, of course not. Rodgers completed 67.2% of his passes, threw 39 touchdown passes, only 8 interceptions, for a quarterback rating of 108.0. If Rodgers threw an equal number of passes as Luck this year, he would have wound up with 4,878 passing yards - 504 more than Luck. Indy threw the ball this year like Andy Reid has liked to do in Philadelphia for over a decade. A great number of passing yards doesn't equal a great amount of efficiency and success. When a basketball player regularly scores 25 points a game, but does it on 41% shooting and the team is winning more times than not, how then can we rightfully determine he/she is the main reason for that success? He misses close to 3 of every 5 shots, yet finds ways to score, and for whatever reason, the team finds ways to win. What I think these ESPN analysts are missing is that Andrew Luck did not have a great season this year as far as raw numbers are concerned. Just as far as numbers go, he was one of the poorer quarterbacks in the NFL this year. However, the Colts found ways to win more times than not, and the one thing that Andrew Luck consistently provided this team was leadership and with that solid play in the clutch. Do I think Luck will be a very solid quarterback for years to come? Yes. The guy seems to be a natural leader, is poised, intelligent, and has a yearning to continually get better. However, let's cut it out with this nonsense that Luck's numbers were anything to marvel about this year and that he's already an elite quarterback. I know how common it is for analysts and writers to drool and orgasm over rookies, but give the kid some time. Like I said last year about Cam Newton, let's wait another year and even beyond that to see how Luck progresses. Heck, Newton just wrapped up his second year with the Panthers, and I still think it's too early to tell where he's going to take his NFL career. I know that whole "patience-is-a-virtue" thing typically gets tossed out the window by sportswriters, analysts, and the like, but let's wait just a little while longer before declaring Luck and others like him to be Hall-of-Fame worthy or complete busts.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/14874/andrew-luck
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/2549/michael-vick
This was again showcased yesterday in the Colts' 24-9 loss to the Baltimore Ravens in the 1st round of the playoffs. The Ravens, having lost 4 of their previous 5 games, led throughout the contest, before placing the exclamation mark on it in the 4th quarter.
Andrew Luck's performance was like many others he's had this year. The guy completed 28 of 54 pass attempts (51.9%) for 288 yards (5.3 per attempt), an interception, and a quarterback rating of 59.8. He rushed the ball 4 times for 35 yards (8.8 per carry), lost a fumble, and was sacked 3 times for a net minus of 21 yards (-7.0 average per sack). These are not staggering numbers here, yet that hasn't been anything new for Luck this season. The team had been largely aided by a soft schedule, the defense showing up in their wins, and the offense finding a way to click in the final moments of multiple contests.
Yet, even when taking all this into consideration, here's what ESPN had to say about Luck after yesterday's performance:
"Luck completed 28-of-54 passes for 288 yards with an interception in Sunday's loss to the Ravens. He also ran four times for 35 yards.
Only six NFL QBs recorded more passing yards than the 4,374 that Luck racked up this season as he led the Colts to an improbable 11-5 record..."
Curious on where Eagles quarterback Michael Vick might land, especially since Andy Reid took over coaching duties for the Kansas City Chiefs, I clicked on his name and here's what ESPN had to say:
"Vick finished the 2012 season by throwing for 2,362 yards (6.7 YPA), 12 touchdowns and 10 interceptions while running for 332 yards and one touchdown in 10 games.
It was an absolute trainwreck of a season for Vick, who is loosely expected to play somewhere other than Philadelphia in 2013 as a result of his poor showing this year. Vick wasn't a viable starting NFL quarterback in 2012, because his play and durability alike were major issues. He is not open to a pay cut with the Eagles, however, and it's objectively true that Vick isn't worth anywhere near the amount he's getting paid in his six-year, $100 million deal. If cut by Philadelphia, though, Vick figures to make a few teams curious in free agency given the reliable supply of teams desperate for quarterback upgrades."
Granted, of the three years Vick has started for the Eagles, this was by far his worst. However, why is it that Andrew Luck had a brilliant season and Michael Vick's was a trainwreck?
Luck was near the very bottom of the league in completion percentage, quarterback rating, and near the very top of the league in interceptions thrown.
Completion Percentage
Michael Vick: 58.1%
Andrew Luck: 54.1%
Difference: Vick +4.0%
Quarterback Rating
Michael Vick: 78.1
Andrew Luck: 76.5
Difference: Vick +1.6
Interceptions
Andrew Luck: 18
Michael Vick: 10
Difference: Luck +8
Statistically speaking, Vick was a more efficient quarterback this year than Luck, yet ESPN has called Luck's year marvelous, while Vick's has been a trainwreck.
The one stat ESPN threw out about Luck was his passing yards. It's true - Luck threw for 4,374 yards this season, which ranked him 7th in the league in that category (behind Drew Brees, Matthew Stafford, Tony Romo, Tom Brady, Matt Ryan, and Peyton Manning). The guy also ranked 5th in pass attempts with 627 (behind Stafford, Brees, Romo, and Brady). Matt Ryan threw for 345 more yards on the season than Andrew Luck on 12 fewer pass attempts, while Peyton Manning threw for 285 more yards than Luck on 44 fewer pass attempts. Of all the quarterbacks I listed, Luck was the least efficient, with Stafford finishing slightly above him in that category at 79.8 and the rest finishing at solid 90.0+ ratings. Aaron Rodgers threw for 79 fewer yards this year than Andrew Luck. Does that mean he was less effective? No, of course not. Rodgers completed 67.2% of his passes, threw 39 touchdown passes, only 8 interceptions, for a quarterback rating of 108.0. If Rodgers threw an equal number of passes as Luck this year, he would have wound up with 4,878 passing yards - 504 more than Luck. Indy threw the ball this year like Andy Reid has liked to do in Philadelphia for over a decade. A great number of passing yards doesn't equal a great amount of efficiency and success. When a basketball player regularly scores 25 points a game, but does it on 41% shooting and the team is winning more times than not, how then can we rightfully determine he/she is the main reason for that success? He misses close to 3 of every 5 shots, yet finds ways to score, and for whatever reason, the team finds ways to win. What I think these ESPN analysts are missing is that Andrew Luck did not have a great season this year as far as raw numbers are concerned. Just as far as numbers go, he was one of the poorer quarterbacks in the NFL this year. However, the Colts found ways to win more times than not, and the one thing that Andrew Luck consistently provided this team was leadership and with that solid play in the clutch. Do I think Luck will be a very solid quarterback for years to come? Yes. The guy seems to be a natural leader, is poised, intelligent, and has a yearning to continually get better. However, let's cut it out with this nonsense that Luck's numbers were anything to marvel about this year and that he's already an elite quarterback. I know how common it is for analysts and writers to drool and orgasm over rookies, but give the kid some time. Like I said last year about Cam Newton, let's wait another year and even beyond that to see how Luck progresses. Heck, Newton just wrapped up his second year with the Panthers, and I still think it's too early to tell where he's going to take his NFL career. I know that whole "patience-is-a-virtue" thing typically gets tossed out the window by sportswriters, analysts, and the like, but let's wait just a little while longer before declaring Luck and others like him to be Hall-of-Fame worthy or complete busts.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/14874/andrew-luck
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/2549/michael-vick
Comments
Post a Comment