What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Andrew Luck..... Love fest inside.... (1 Viewer)

Good stat line after all the doom and gloom of having to face Denver. Bye week to get healthy, new OC looks to be an improvement. Things looking up come week 11.

 
That was a great game by Luck. Good rhythm and mixing up the playcalls by Chuds. Good focus on quick out routes, good screens, and very nice call in the redzone to the quick hitter to Bradshaw. The Broncos just kept coming and the Colts made them pay for not staying back and playing coverage more. I really hope this puts the rest of the league on notice that blitzing Luck + Chuds will net a bad result. More than anything, I'm hoping this to save Luck taking that kind of a pounding on a weekly basis!

Just a quick note on opposing QB's QBR vs. the Broncos defense thus far this year (for those that continue to use stats as the measure for why Luck is a JAG).

Luck 92.3
Rodgers 64.6
McCown 9.9
Carr 26.3
Bridgewater 66.4
Stafford 33.5
Smith 7.4
Flacco 13.1
 
What's the word? Anyone else think he could be a nice stash if someone dropped him? The original injury report said 2- 6 weeks, right? If they are competitive, it could give him more reason to try to return for the fantasy playoffs. Thoughts?

 
I'd be surprised if he played this week. And honestly, would you be willing to trot him out there in the fantasy playoffs?

 
Pagano came out and said he won't play this week.

As a #1 seed relying on the rather unimpressive duo of Stafford/Carr I'd scooped Luck up off waivers in hopes that he would play week 15 and I could start him with confidence week 16 as I don't really care for either of my two QBs matchups. Obviously not happening now.

I'm still holding for the time being but likely dropping Luck in the next few days. Just don't see how you can feel good rolling him out there championship week without seeing him play and make it thru a game first. Especially given his struggles earlier this season.

 
Any locals hear anything on Luck? As a Hilton & Moncrief owner, I'm sweating bullets here. I know a report says he's out, but it's not official yet, I think.

*Edit*

####, he's officially out. ####### ####### bull####.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hoping perhaps a bluff on the Indy side and practices and plays this week. I know wishful thinking but he said he was going to play again this year. Let's see what they say today.

 
What would you add to a high upside guy like Mariota to get Luck?
Nothing. Mariota is a better prospect than Luck.
You really think this? One disappointing year cut short by injury and we forget a 40 TD season?

Its an interesting discussion because Mariota is now in the top-5 of tons of dynasty rankings. So what's the gap? Curious where other people fall, and if Mariota owners are happy to pay to upgrade or if Luck owners are looking to drop a tier and pick up value.

 
What would you add to a high upside guy like Mariota to get Luck?
Nothing. Mariota is a better prospect than Luck.
You really think this? One disappointing year cut short by injury and we forget a 40 TD season?

Its an interesting discussion because Mariota is now in the top-5 of tons of dynasty rankings. So what's the gap? Curious where other people fall, and if Mariota owners are happy to pay to upgrade or if Luck owners are looking to drop a tier and pick up value.
Luck threw 616 passes in that 40-TD season. As a rookie he threw 627 and only threw 23 TDs (and 18 INTs). Mariota in his rookie year, with less receiving talent around him, had 370 attempts and 19 passing TDs (and 10 INTs).

After four years, Luck is averaging 7.0 YPA, 4.8 TD%, 2.6 INT %, passer rating 85.0.

After one year, Mariota is averaging 7.6 YPA, 5.1 TD%, 2.7 INT %, passer rating 91.5

So with weaker receiving talent, in his rookie season, Mariota is already ahead of Luck's 4-year career averages, as well as Luck's 2015 numbers.

 
What would you add to a high upside guy like Mariota to get Luck?
Nothing. Mariota is a better prospect than Luck.
You really think this? One disappointing year cut short by injury and we forget a 40 TD season?

Its an interesting discussion because Mariota is now in the top-5 of tons of dynasty rankings. So what's the gap? Curious where other people fall, and if Mariota owners are happy to pay to upgrade or if Luck owners are looking to drop a tier and pick up value.
Luck threw 616 passes in that 40-TD season. As a rookie he threw 627 and only threw 23 TDs (and 18 INTs). Mariota in his rookie year, with less receiving talent around him, had 370 attempts and 19 passing TDs (and 10 INTs).

After four years, Luck is averaging 7.0 YPA, 4.8 TD%, 2.6 INT %, passer rating 85.0.

After one year, Mariota is averaging 7.6 YPA, 5.1 TD%, 2.7 INT %, passer rating 91.5

So with weaker receiving talent, in his rookie season, Mariota is already ahead of Luck's 4-year career averages, as well as Luck's 2015 numbers.
Okay...why are Luck's pass attempts a concern? The Colts have a 20 year history throwing the ball all over the place like this, and they didn't fire the GM that put this roster together or the HC that coached it, so I'm not sure why it would change.

Mariota looked really good at times but there's no way to know if he'll even become a QB who is given the number of pass attempts the elite guys are. He was very efficient as a rookie but what happens if the volume doesn't drastically increase?

 
What would you add to a high upside guy like Mariota to get Luck?
Nothing. Mariota is a better prospect than Luck.
You really think this? One disappointing year cut short by injury and we forget a 40 TD season?

Its an interesting discussion because Mariota is now in the top-5 of tons of dynasty rankings. So what's the gap? Curious where other people fall, and if Mariota owners are happy to pay to upgrade or if Luck owners are looking to drop a tier and pick up value.
Luck threw 616 passes in that 40-TD season. As a rookie he threw 627 and only threw 23 TDs (and 18 INTs). Mariota in his rookie year, with less receiving talent around him, had 370 attempts and 19 passing TDs (and 10 INTs).

After four years, Luck is averaging 7.0 YPA, 4.8 TD%, 2.6 INT %, passer rating 85.0.

After one year, Mariota is averaging 7.6 YPA, 5.1 TD%, 2.7 INT %, passer rating 91.5

So with weaker receiving talent, in his rookie season, Mariota is already ahead of Luck's 4-year career averages, as well as Luck's 2015 numbers.
Okay...why are Luck's pass attempts a concern? The Colts have a 20 year history throwing the ball all over the place like this, and they didn't fire the GM that put this roster together or the HC that coached it, so I'm not sure why it would change.

Mariota looked really good at times but there's no way to know if he'll even become a QB who is given the number of pass attempts the elite guys are. He was very efficient as a rookie but what happens if the volume doesn't drastically increase?
Luck's passing attempts aren't a specific concern, but his low rate stats are. You can get fantasy production out of Matt Stafford as long as they leave him in there and have him heaving it around, but is that really what you want in your dynasty QB? Stafford threw for 41 TDs and 5000 yards in his third season, and he's still a usable QB, but not someone youi'd want to build around.

In 1996 you could have had a young QB who threw for 27 TDs (#3 in the league at the time) on 623 attempts at 6.6 yards per attempt. But would you really want Drew Bledsoe?

I'll take a high rate stat guy like Wilson or Mariota over a high attempt guy like Luck or Stafford any time in a dynasty. The upside is way higher. For a high rate stat guy to be a top fantasy QB, he just needs more attempts. For a low rate stat, high-attempt guy, he needs to play better, which he may or may not ever do.

Ideally you'd want both high attempts and high rate stats, but there are only a couple of those guys in the league at a time.

 
Luck's still #1 fantasy qb. Mariota's got a ways to go b/f i'd put him in top tier. If he continues to develop and improve he may get there but no guarantee of that

 
Are you talking about PEYTON Manning? Here were the Colts annual rankings based on fewest sacks allowed:

1998 - 2nd
1999 - 1st
2000 - T-1st
2001 - 10th
2002 - 4th
2003 - T-2nd
2004 - T-1st
2005 - 1st
2006 - 1st
2007 - 7th
2008 - 4th
2009 - 1st
2010 - 1st

The Colts ranked #1 seven times and #2 twice in 13 seasons. Peyton probably took the fewest hits in the league out of any QB in his time in Indy.

 
Are you talking about PEYTON Manning? Here were the Colts annual rankings based on fewest sacks allowed:

1998 - 2nd
1999 - 1st
2000 - T-1st
2001 - 10th
2002 - 4th
2003 - T-2nd
2004 - T-1st
2005 - 1st
2006 - 1st
2007 - 7th
2008 - 4th
2009 - 1st
2010 - 1st

The Colts ranked #1 seven times and #2 twice in 13 seasons. Peyton probably took the fewest hits in the league out of any QB in his time in Indy.
Reminds me a bit of the Trent Richardson apologists who talked about how bad the run blocking was. I kept showing stats about how outside of Richardson, the Colts had the #2 yards per carry in the NFL behind the Eagles. The OL may be worse now, I'm not an Indy, but QBs have a big impact on sacks, as much as the OL.

 
This is unfortunate :(

Grigson MUST get Luck some o-line protection in the draft. It is imperative. His career will be cut short if they don't. I'm sure Manning could have a few years left at this point if he didn't get destroyed the first few years of his career. 
Agree that the oline is a big issue. However Andrew also has to alter the way he plays the game and start protecting himself. I cannot believe he is not back to 100% as of yet....that is a big concern. I wonder if that is why we have not heard anymore on contract discussion for him.

 
Agree that the oline is a big issue. However Andrew also has to alter the way he plays the game and start protecting himself. I cannot believe he is not back to 100% as of yet....that is a big concern. I wonder if that is why we have not heard anymore on contract discussion for him.
I agree. When he runs with the football, he has an issue with not sliding. It's almost like he likes to get hit. You know how sports reporting is though...often speculation & rumors. It's hard to believe things sometimes until it comes out of their mouth. http://www.stampedeblue.com/2016/4/18/11456272/andrew-luck-not-100-healthy-yet-but-feeling-really-really-good-colts 

 
Agree with you guys who say he needs to make some adjustments to prolong his career. Even though it is a huge part of his overall game and a big part of what makes ff people like him, he needs to do something. He got lit up a few times last year that made me think "he ain't shaking that off".

Also agree on the o-line. I was pounding the table last year after they took Dorsett asking "what the hell"? I think they got a little too cute. Remind me of the Niners when it appeared they were just drafting luxury depth a few years ago (my, how things change quickly) but the Colts couldn't afford that. They should have put everything they had into that line and built a beast but for whatever reason I guess they thought if they could play run-n-shoot, it wouldn't matter.  It mattered.

 
Yeah, I have no problem seeing Luck at the ~$25M / year level.  I'd be shocked if he doesn't land around that number. % of cap wise, it'd be under what they paid Peyton so long ago on his 2nd deal.  More worried about Grigson's ability to keep the cupboard stocked with the other skill positions on the cheap.  The Pats have been pulling that off for more than a decade. Right now the cupboard is stocked at an above average level, imo. Put that deal in place and push the time machine forward 3 years.  Not really sure where we'll be sitting in regards to the surrounding talent on O-line, skill positions, and D.

 
It doesn't matter what the Colts pay Luck, its not like its going to hinder their ability to ever keep their own. Grigson would have to draft good players for that to be a problem. 

 
Are you talking about PEYTON Manning? Here were the Colts annual rankings based on fewest sacks allowed:

1998 - 2nd
1999 - 1st
2000 - T-1st
2001 - 10th
2002 - 4th
2003 - T-2nd
2004 - T-1st
2005 - 1st
2006 - 1st
2007 - 7th
2008 - 4th
2009 - 1st
2010 - 1st

The Colts ranked #1 seven times and #2 twice in 13 seasons. Peyton probably took the fewest hits in the league out of any QB in his time in Indy.
Sacks are not the best way of measuring how many times a QB gets hit.
P Manning has a very quick release-doesn't mean he always had a clean pocket.

 
Luck is about to have another monster year. They out resources into the OL, the defense will still stink, and they didn't bring in another RB to challenge Gore, so they won't be leaning on the running game much. That plus all the WR's being more developed and healthy, gonna be fireworks this year.

 
Luck is about to have another monster year. They out resources into the OL, the defense will still stink, and they didn't bring in another RB to challenge Gore, so they won't be leaning on the running game much. That plus all the WR's being more developed and healthy, gonna be fireworks this year.


I agree with this and have been buying him where I could

 
I take Luck in redraft, but it is close. in dynasty it is a no brainer for Luck. 
I have the opportunity to transition to Luck in a deep keeper league.  My team in defending champion and still positioned to win.  A year ago, i would have done this in a heart-beat.  Last year was a disaster for Luck....  I guess that's why a buy opportunity exists.  I should probably capitalize on it.

 
I have the opportunity to transition to Luck in a deep keeper league.  My team in defending champion and still positioned to win.  A year ago, i would have done this in a heart-beat.  Last year was a disaster for Luck....  I guess that's why a buy opportunity exists.  I should probably capitalize on it.
I would and it wasn't like Rodgers was that great either. I would argue that Rodgers hurt you more than Luck. Luck was a wasted roster spot, but you could pick up guys like Cousins, or Taylor and get great production, Rodgers was playing and you had to play him because he is Rodgers, while a lot quarterbacks were out performing him down the stretch.

 
I would and it wasn't like Rodgers was that great either. I would argue that Rodgers hurt you more than Luck. Luck was a wasted roster spot, but you could pick up guys like Cousins, or Taylor and get great production, Rodgers was playing and you had to play him because he is Rodgers, while a lot quarterbacks were out performing him down the stretch.
I actually sat him for Stafford in the championship game.  It was the difference between winning and losing.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top