Setting aside the "Newton vs Luck" stuff...

[carolina-chuck]

The only thing I'll be rooting for in the playoffs is for those Failcons to lose.

[tiger7_88]

Are you new here? Luck could've thrown for 6000 yds and they could've played the Packers every game, and RGIII could have played blind with a broken femur while the Skins played the Pats every game and this retarded board will still belittle anything not slurping the sack that is Cam and the fact we could easily have won 11 games this year.

Worst homers in the NFL, folks. Right here.

Precious... just precious.

[Monday Night Shyamalan]

OROY is a tossup between Wilson, RGIII, and Luck, but at this point I would give the nod to RGIII or Wilson. However, Luck is going to be a surgeon in the future, a very cerebral football player. Wilson (though playing lights out right now) has the benefit of his defense but will falter a little at some point in his career. RGIII is, well ... RGIII, but he's injury prone and will miss a batch of games throughout his career.

The long term solution is Luck. Regardless of stats you don't win 10 games as a rookie QB. He is a guy who will take command of his offense (similar to shall I say ... Peyton Manning).

Regardless, I'm happy with the guy in the #1 jersey we have. Here's to a future of showdowns between the next wave of elite QB's, and I am ecstatic Carolina can finally take part in the action.

[tiger7_88]

The following article is the kind of thing that makes me want to root AGAINST Luck...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--richard-sherman--andrew-luck-among-pro-bowl-snubs--ed-reed--matt-schaub-undeserving-of-honors-040000663.html

While Luck is likely to finish third in the NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year balloting, he deserved better when it came to Pro Bowl voting. Sure, his stats don't measure up to the Houston Texans' Matt Schaub, who made it behind Peyton Manning and Tom Brady for the AFC team, but Luck was asked to do far more in the grand scheme of a season than Schaub.

Luck - 54.3% completion, 7.0 ypa, 21 TDs, 18 ints, 75.6 QB rating (10 team wins)

Schaub - 64/2 % completion, 7.3 ypa, 22 TDs, 10 ints, 92.4 QB rating (12 team wins)

So, if you follow Jason Cole's convoluted logic that Luck "is asked to do more" than Schaub, than Luck "is asked to do more" but accomplishes less, and Schaub is asked to do less but accomplishes MORE (higher %, higher ypa, more TDs, less ints).

Yet (again by Cole's convoluted logic) Luck deserves it more than Schaub does.

[fieryprophet]

http://50.116.44.142/qba/player/A.Luck

See all the purple games? That's all you need to know about Luck and the Colts winning in spite of him this year.

[Ivan The Awesome]

I hope to god that Luck doesn't come in and make a SB run. We won't hear the end of it from the Luck supporters in the huddle.

[tiger7_88]

http://50.116.44.142/qba/player/A.Luck

See all the purple games? That's all you need to know about Luck and the Colts winning in spite of him this year.

I also see that Luck has been under 50% completion percentage for his last four games. And five games this year.

Hmmmm...

[Urrymonster]

http://50.116.44.142/qba/player/A.Luck

See all the purple games? That's all you need to know about Luck and the Colts winning in spite of him this year.

PFF also have him rated negatively as a passer, ranked 26th of 39 qualifying QBs. In addition when adjusting his accuracy statistic by counting drops as completions and removing spikes, throw aways etc then he is 34th out of 39 in accuracy.

The only thing pundits are looking at is his game winning drives, which is obviously important but looking at his as a passer he isn't anywhere near rg3 or Wilson.

[JJT]

Worst homers in the NFL, folks. Right here.

We're the best homers in the NFL.

[mav1234]

http://50.116.44.142/qba/player/A.Luck

See all the purple games? That's all you need to know about Luck and the Colts winning in spite of him this year.

put a minimum attempts in there at 50 or 100 or something, imo.

[fieryprophet]

put a minimum attempts in there at 50 or 100 or something, imo.

100 attempts for what? If you're talking about the season rankings single game players are marked with an asterisk.

[mav1234]

100 attempts for what? If you're talking about the season rankings single game players are marked with an asterisk.

eh, I just prefer a cleaner list than that, but a matter of preference. I could tell who had single games from the asterisk but there just seems to be no reason to leave them on the season rankings really, though I can understand why you wouldn't want to arbitrarily assign some minimum number of attempts I guess.

[fieryprophet]

eh, I just prefer a cleaner list than that, but a matter of preference. I could tell who had single games from the asterisk but there just seems to be no reason to leave them on the season rankings really, though I can understand why you wouldn't want to arbitrarily assign some minimum number of attempts I guess.

Well, my problem is that you can narrow the dataset to single weeks, which would mark everyone as outliers because no one would have had more than one game. I'll think of something.

[mav1234]

Not a big deal, I applaud your effort, neat little stat you have :)