QB THREAD - 2x quarterbacky award winner: Lamar Jackson

But I mentioned that, multiple times.

"Too many INT's"

1 per game.

One.

One is too many. Think about that. It isn't about defending Luck, or any other QB, ONE, a game, is "too many"

Tannehill threw 12. Luck threw 16.

Do those 4 make any sort of impact?

And why didn't the objective writer point out that amount of passes Luck threw, vs INT's? A rate right in line with the best of the best.

You throw 450 passes, 10 INT's, acceptable.
You throw 650 passes, 16 INT's, unacceptable?

How's that work, objectively?
 
See, that's exactly the problem I have with you on this whole topic. You can admit he makes mistakes but then you try to rationalize it by essentially saying "it's one per game, not a big deal."

One turnover a game is kind of a big deal, especially for a QB. Sorry.
 
See, that's exactly the problem I have with you on this whole topic. You can admit he makes mistakes but then you try to rationalize it by essentially saying "it's one per game, not a big deal."

One turnover a game is kind of a big deal, especially for a QB. Sorry.

For a QB that throws 40+ TD's (and runs in a couple more) No, 1 TO a game is not a big deal.

You guys hung up one 1 TO a game lack perspective to what he does accomplish.
 
And it's highly ironic that one side judges the other for "feelings," when it goes both ways. Funny.
16 interceptions is kinda high tho.
7nTnr.png
 
Would pointing out that Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, and Philip Rivers having higher career interception percentages than Andrew Luck be considered an irrelevant stat?

Or is that considered deflection/rationalizing?

Please let me know. Thanks.

-Chester McFloppy, President of the Andrew Luck is infallible brigade
 
Last edited:
Considering the fact that those guys have been in the league much longer than Luck, yea, I would consider that deflecting and rationalizing.

How are you comparing 10+ year vets to a guy who's been in this league for 4 seasons? :lol

Look, if you guys haven't noticed by now, I couldn't give two ***** about advance stats or whatever else you guys spend time putting on spread sheets.
 
If you'd like, I can pull up the first four years of those QBs listed. :D After looking at the numbers, though, you might not want me to do that.

Let me know if you need additional assistance.

-Chester McFloppy, President of the Andrew Luck is infallible brigade
 
Again, I really don't care :lol

You guys really act like Luck is flawless. Whatever floats your boat :lol
 
Last edited:
If you'd like, I can pull up the first four years of those QBs listed. :D After looking at the numbers, though, you might not want me to do that.

Let me know if you need additional assistance.

-Chester McFloppy, President of the Andrew Luck is infallible brigade

Remember Chester stats are inflated in this era.

Or do we forget this to prop up Andrew

If so there a guy whose stats his first 77 games has him on pace to be the best qb ever numbers wise :)
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the excuses will be after this season.

"His best players on offense are old, it's not his fault."
 
Remember Chester stats are inflated in this era.

Or do we forget this to prop up Andrew

If so there a guy whose stats his first 77 games has him on pace to be the best qb ever numbers wise :)

I'm comparing him to guys playing in this era, not Otto Graham and Joe Montana.

So Peyton Mannings first 4 years were played in the same era as Andrew Luck's?

Under the same rules for offense?

K
 
So Peyton Mannings first 4 years were played in the same era as Andrew Luck's?

Under the same rules for offense?

K

There are plenty of other 3 year stretches of Peyton's career we can use if you'd like :D

You know who I was referring to in my list, Mr. Pro.
 
Back
Top Bottom