Andrew Luck

[ericanadian]

Strongly disagree. Luck isn't "elite" in the sense of Brady and Rodgers, of course not. But he's not just a stat padder. He's an extremely talented QB who gives his team a chance to win no matter the opponent. Yes, he takes some chances sometimes that look dumb in retrospect, but he's a total stud.

I'm not sure why you think Stafford is a "stat padder", but what exactly do you think Luck does better than him?

This is what I was referencing

Yes, and enough volume can take a very good qb, which Luck & Stafford are, and make them look elite. To me, a stat padder would be a guy like Bortles.

[ninotoreS]

These days, I don't think Luck is clearly more desirable in dynasty than Wentz, Watson, Prescott, Winston, Carr, Mariota, Wilson... I may even slightly prefer Stafford and Cousins to him now; they're almost the same age.

The most important issue for us with Luck is his health. It's a terrible drag on a dynasty team when your QB1 is missing games every season, unless you have another QB1 approximately as productive. When Luck is healthy, I'd prefer him as a fantasy play over a lot of those names up there, but not so much that it's a huge difference, enough of a difference that I'd be comfortable investing in a guy that increasingly seems to be falling apart physically as his chronically bad O-line and tendency for unhealthy play-extension seems to be derailing his career.

In the next few seasons, I think Luck may settle into being a top 10 QB as opposed to top 5. Even aside from his health issues, he throws more picks than he should and quietly has a career sub-60% completion percentage. I'm no longer sure he's actually elite.

[Plank]

Move the Sticks podcast were discussing the idea of maybe trading Luck ... thinking it could shape up to be a "Herschel Walker" kind of trade to help their struggling franchise ... They seem pretty down on him in general.

[maxhyde]

Their only wins have come against 0-6 teams. I think Brissett has been somewhat propped up by this. They are a bad team and Luck's not going to change that. He's about as elite as Stafford was with Calvin. Throw enough volume and a lot of guys become elite for fantasy purposes.

Strongly disagree. Luck isn't "elite" in the sense of Brady and Rodgers, of course not. But he's not just a stat padder. He's an extremely talented QB who gives his team a chance to win no matter the opponent. Yes, he takes some chances sometimes that look dumb in retrospect, but he's a total stud.

I'm not sure why you think Stafford is a "stat padder", but what exactly do you think Luck does better than him?

I think Luck is better than Stafford too. He is more athletic and has more "it" factor than Stafford imo. I also think there is a big difference in "making" Calvin a stud WR and making TY Hilton a stud WR. I think Luck is better than Stafford when I watch them and it wasn't even a comparison that crossed my mind...

[failblazer]

Move the Sticks podcast were discussing the idea of maybe trading Luck ... thinking it could shape up to be a "Herschel Walker" kind of trade to help their struggling franchise ... They seem pretty down on him in general.

I saw that and I actually came on the forum to start a bold predictions thread, starting it with the prediction that next year Andrew Luck will be the starting QB of the Arizona Cardinals.

These days, I don't think Luck is clearly more desirable in dynasty than Wentz, Watson, Prescott, Winston, Carr, Mariota, Wilson... I may even slightly prefer Stafford and Cousins to him now; they're almost the same age.

I disagree with a lot of those names. I own Luck and it is in a league where I am competing (reigning champ) and the only two of those players I would trade Luck for straight up (or consider doing so) are Wentz and Carr. I would not trade Luck for and lock in any of the rest of them as my QB1 for the next 3-5 years. When Luck went down my backup was actually Cousins (in a 16 teamer no less) and I didn't trust him to take me through the season and I moved him for Brady. Cousins is Eli but younger. He's streaky.

[StableOfRBs]

These days, I don't think Luck is clearly more desirable in dynasty than Wentz, Watson, Prescott, Winston, Carr, Mariota, Wilson... I may even slightly prefer Stafford and Cousins to him now; they're almost the same age.

The most important issue for us with Luck is his health. It's a terrible drag on a dynasty team when your QB1 is missing games every season, unless you have another QB1 approximately as productive. When Luck is healthy, I'd prefer him as a fantasy play over a lot of those names up there, but not so much that it's a huge difference, enough of a difference that I'd be comfortable investing in a guy that increasingly seems to be falling apart physically as his chronically bad O-line and tendency for unhealthy play-extension seems to be derailing his career.

In the next few seasons, I think Luck may settle into being a top 10 QB as opposed to top 5. Even aside from his health issues, he throws more picks than he should and quietly has a career sub-60% completion percentage. I'm no longer sure he's actually elite.

To be fair if you're gonna knock Luck for his health (he had one freak injury to his kidney and this year a shoulder issue but that's about it) then you really need to knock Mariota as well, he's got one of the best OLs in the league and still he has had two major injuries in the past two seasons and is injured again this year, Carr has a better OL than Luck as well and still managed to break his leg last year.

Since he came into the league Luck has missed 10 "unexpected" games, 9 in 2015 because of the kidney issue (which doesn't concern me at all, that bleep just happens sometimes) and one game last year because of a concussion. Luck owners have known he was gonna miss some time this year since like mid July and planned accordingly so I'm not gonna count that as more of a negative than it already was heading into the season. Honestly considering that since the start of 2012 Luck has been hit (QB hits + sacks) 503 times, more than any other QB in that span, I'm surprised he isn't injured more often, the dude is a rock.

Andrew Luck through his first 5 seasons:
70 games, 5.0% TD%, 2.6 INT%, 59.2% completion %, 156 sacks

Drew Brees through his first 5 seasons (excluding rookie season, only played one game):
74 games, 4.5% TD%, 2.8% INT%, 62.6% completion %, 108 sacks

Brees arguably had a better supporting cast than Luck does now (he sure as bleep had a better run game) but Luck has put up better stats than Brees did at this point in his career so I don't know if you can really say for sure at this point whether Luck is "elite" but, in my opinion at least, he's a top 8 QB in the league just based off of talent alone.

[Vcize]

Andrew Luck through his first 5 seasons:
70 games, 5.0% TD%, 2.6 INT%, 59.2% completion %, 156 sacks

Drew Brees through his first 5 seasons (excluding rookie season, only played one game):
74 games, 4.5% TD%, 2.8% INT%, 62.6% completion %, 108 sacks

Brees arguably had a better supporting cast than Luck does now (he sure as bleep had a better run game) but Luck has put up better stats than Brees did at this point in his career so I don't know if you can really say for sure at this point whether Luck is "elite" but, in my opinion at least, he's a top 8 QB in the league just based off of talent alone.

I am a big Luck fan but Brees is a bit of a silly comparison because he didn't truly breakout until he moved to New Orleans (in his 6th season). Prior to that he was merely pretty good, and was actually quite awful in his first two years as a starter.

I would wager that most decent modern QBs had a better first 5 years than Brees (heck Ryan Tannehill compares just as favorably in those stats you listed as Andrew Luck does). Not many have the major breakout in year 6 that Brees did.

[ericanadian]

Strongly disagree. Luck isn't "elite" in the sense of Brady and Rodgers, of course not. But he's not just a stat padder. He's an extremely talented QB who gives his team a chance to win no matter the opponent. Yes, he takes some chances sometimes that look dumb in retrospect, but he's a total stud.

I'm not sure why you think Stafford is a "stat padder", but what exactly do you think Luck does better than him?

I think Luck is better than Stafford too. He is more athletic and has more "it" factor than Stafford imo. I also think there is a big difference in "making" Calvin a stud WR and making TY Hilton a stud WR. I think Luck is better than Stafford when I watch them and it wasn't even a comparison that crossed my mind...

The athleticism is definitely in Luck's favour. Can't argue that. Your comparison on Calvin & Hilton is hollow though. Hilton may be considered a stud, but he's a low end stud. Calvin is in the conversation for greatest receiver of all time. In terms of production, it's not close. If you're playing that loose in your comparisons, it would make more sense to compare Hilton to Tate.

Reason the comparison between Luck & Stafford crosses my mind is that both guys were brought in to terribly run franchises and single-handedly have given them respectability. No disrespect to Calvin, but he was putting up stud numbers for an 0-16 team before Stafford came along. Both have been averaging over 600 attempts per season (adjusting for injuries) for a while now because their teams have no functional running game and both teams have had terrible defenses that get them behind early and often. Statistically, outside of rushing stats, they're very comparable. Both of them will get their team into the playoffs in their good years and end up right around 8-8 in their bad years. Both have had even had issues with shoulder injuries and taking longer to get back on the field than expected.

[StableOfRBs]

Andrew Luck through his first 5 seasons:
70 games, 5.0% TD%, 2.6 INT%, 59.2% completion %, 156 sacks

Drew Brees through his first 5 seasons (excluding rookie season, only played one game):
74 games, 4.5% TD%, 2.8% INT%, 62.6% completion %, 108 sacks

Brees arguably had a better supporting cast than Luck does now (he sure as bleep had a better run game) but Luck has put up better stats than Brees did at this point in his career so I don't know if you can really say for sure at this point whether Luck is "elite" but, in my opinion at least, he's a top 8 QB in the league just based off of talent alone.

I am a big Luck fan but Brees is a bit of a silly comparison because he didn't truly breakout until he moved to New Orleans (in his 6th season). Prior to that he was merely pretty good, and was actually quite awful in his first two years as a starter.

I would wager that most decent modern QBs had a better first 5 years than Brees (heck Ryan Tannehill compares just as favorably in those stats you listed as Andrew Luck does). Not many have the major breakout in year 6 that Brees did.

Those stats I posted included his first year in NO and excluded his rookie year (again, he only played one game that year) also Brees 6th year breakout season in 2006 wasn't as good as Luck's 2014 season and was almost identical to Luck's 15 games last year

[Vcize]

Andrew Luck through his first 5 seasons:
70 games, 5.0% TD%, 2.6 INT%, 59.2% completion %, 156 sacks

Drew Brees through his first 5 seasons (excluding rookie season, only played one game):
74 games, 4.5% TD%, 2.8% INT%, 62.6% completion %, 108 sacks

Brees arguably had a better supporting cast than Luck does now (he sure as bleep had a better run game) but Luck has put up better stats than Brees did at this point in his career so I don't know if you can really say for sure at this point whether Luck is "elite" but, in my opinion at least, he's a top 8 QB in the league just based off of talent alone.

I am a big Luck fan but Brees is a bit of a silly comparison because he didn't truly breakout until he moved to New Orleans (in his 6th season). Prior to that he was merely pretty good, and was actually quite awful in his first two years as a starter.

I would wager that most decent modern QBs had a better first 5 years than Brees (heck Ryan Tannehill compares just as favorably in those stats you listed as Andrew Luck does). Not many have the major breakout in year 6 that Brees did.

Those stats I posted included his first year in NO and excluded his rookie year (again, he only played one game that year) also Brees 6th year breakout season in 2006 wasn't as good as Luck's 2014 season and was almost identical to Luck's 15 games last year

Still, you're talking about 1 year of the 5 with Brees in NO.

Like I said, most modern QBs put up numbers similar to that in their first 5 years. Brees is an all-time great because he suddenly made a huge jump. Implying that a mediocre first 5 years was some symbol of that historic jump does not compute.

It's like saying Taywan Taylor is going to be the next great WR because he has as good of numbers this year as Antonio Brown did in his rookie year.

[whodunnit]

Move the Sticks podcast were discussing the idea of maybe trading Luck ... thinking it could shape up to be a "Herschel Walker" kind of trade to help their struggling franchise ... They seem pretty down on him in general.

I saw that and I actually came on the forum to start a bold predictions thread, starting it with the prediction that next year Andrew Luck will be the starting QB of the Arizona Cardinals.

These days, I don't think Luck is clearly more desirable in dynasty than Wentz, Watson, Prescott, Winston, Carr, Mariota, Wilson... I may even slightly prefer Stafford and Cousins to him now; they're almost the same age.

I disagree with a lot of those names. I own Luck and it is in a league where I am competing (reigning champ) and the only two of those players I would trade Luck for straight up (or consider doing so) are Wentz and Carr. I would not trade Luck for and lock in any of the rest of them as my QB1 for the next 3-5 years. When Luck went down my backup was actually Cousins (in a 16 teamer no less) and I didn't trust him to take me through the season and I moved him for Brady. Cousins is Eli but younger. He's streaky.

and Luck is Cutler, but younger. both make piss poor decisions with the football and were supposed to be so much more than they were. To me, Luck is one of the most overrated QBs in the league. He's not lived up to his hype IMO

[lukkynumber13]

Move the Sticks podcast were discussing the idea of maybe trading Luck ... thinking it could shape up to be a "Herschel Walker" kind of trade to help their struggling franchise ... They seem pretty down on him in general.

I saw that and I actually came on the forum to start a bold predictions thread, starting it with the prediction that next year Andrew Luck will be the starting QB of the Arizona Cardinals.

These days, I don't think Luck is clearly more desirable in dynasty than Wentz, Watson, Prescott, Winston, Carr, Mariota, Wilson... I may even slightly prefer Stafford and Cousins to him now; they're almost the same age.

I disagree with a lot of those names. I own Luck and it is in a league where I am competing (reigning champ) and the only two of those players I would trade Luck for straight up (or consider doing so) are Wentz and Carr. I would not trade Luck for and lock in any of the rest of them as my QB1 for the next 3-5 years. When Luck went down my backup was actually Cousins (in a 16 teamer no less) and I didn't trust him to take me through the season and I moved him for Brady. Cousins is Eli but younger. He's streaky.

and Luck is Cutler, but younger. both make piss poor decisions with the football and were supposed to be so much more than they were. To me, Luck is one of the most overrated QBs in the league. He's not lived up to his hype IMO

You take that back, you Scottish whore!

Jk. I'm Scottish so I can say that

[Dynasty DeLorean]

and Luck is Cutler, but younger.

Cutler is the epitome of lazy quarterbacking. Luck might throw more INT's than you want but imo it's not due to laziness, just trying to do too much imo. Plus he's been playing on a shoulder that's needed surgery since week 3 in 2015. If you want to compare Luck to Cutler then I suppose we're comping Favre to Cutler too?

[Cameron Giles]

Move the Sticks podcast were discussing the idea of maybe trading Luck ... thinking it could shape up to be a "Herschel Walker" kind of trade to help their struggling franchise ... They seem pretty down on him in general.

If Herschel Walker was a QB, Dallas would not have made that trade. Draft picks are only great if you hit on each one of them. Otherwise, you are giving up a 28-year-old franchise QB for peanuts. It could take years before you get anyone with a mild resemblance to Luck's impact on a game.

[StableOfRBs]

I am a big Luck fan but Brees is a bit of a silly comparison because he didn't truly breakout until he moved to New Orleans (in his 6th season). Prior to that he was merely pretty good, and was actually quite awful in his first two years as a starter.

I would wager that most decent modern QBs had a better first 5 years than Brees (heck Ryan Tannehill compares just as favorably in those stats you listed as Andrew Luck does). Not many have the major breakout in year 6 that Brees did.

Those stats I posted included his first year in NO and excluded his rookie year (again, he only played one game that year) also Brees 6th year breakout season in 2006 wasn't as good as Luck's 2014 season and was almost identical to Luck's 15 games last year

Still, you're talking about 1 year of the 5 with Brees in NO.

Like I said, most modern QBs put up numbers similar to that in their first 5 years. Brees is an all-time great because he suddenly made a huge jump. Implying that a mediocre first 5 years was some symbol of that historic jump does not compute.

It's like saying Taywan Taylor is going to be the next great WR because he has as good of numbers this year as Antonio Brown did in his rookie year.

Andrew Luck through his first 5 seasons:
70 games, 5.0% TD%, 2.6 INT%, 59.2% completion %, 2651 attempts, 19078 yards, 156 sacks

Drew Brees through his first 5 season in NO:
79 games, 5.2% TD%, 2.6% INT%, 67.1% completion %, 3013 attempts, 22918 yards, 92 sacks

In terms of completion percentage Brees blows Luck out of the water but everything else is pretty comparable and other than Bush/Sproles they've had a pretty similar supporting cast although the Saints OL was better than the dreck Luck has had to play behind, they're even neck and neck in terms of attempts per game (Brees is like .5 attempts ahead of Luck and 18 yards/game better). I don't think it's completely out of this world to compare those two 5-season streaks so far.