Thread: Fuck the Pats
View Single Post
  #27  
Old 05-16-2017, 08:10 AM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,343
Thanks: 1,437
Thanked 3,682 Times in 2,058 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoosierinFL View Post
The criticism of Luck is pretty unfair. I saw something on ESPN yesterday where they were criticizing him for throwing too many INTs. Thing is, he doesn't really throw a lot of them!
Luck's first 5 years: 18, 9, 16, 12,13
Years 1, 3 and 4 (12 ints in limited play) were problematic, but year 1 is forgivable, and year 4 was a fucked up season.
But consider some of the numbers from those considered all time greats:

P. Manning: 28, 15, 15, 23, 19 (I mean wow, that's terrible!)
D. Marino: 6*, 17, 21, 23, 13, 23 (*first year was not a full season, so I included a 6th year)
J. Elway: 14, 15, 23, 13, 12 (overall comparable to Luck's numbers)
J. Montana: 9, 12, 11, 12, 10 (now those are some good numbers, but that west coast scheme was revolutionary back then)
T. Brady: 12, 14, 12, 14, 14 (and this is from a guy generally reputed to be safe with the ball, and was playing in a more conservative system in his first few years)
B. Favre: 13, 24, 14, 13, 13 (and who went on to have several more 20+ INT seasons later in his career)

So there's literally nothing unusually high about Luck's INT numbers. I didn't even bother factoring in things like TDs and attempts, so that the numbers could be seen more as an INT rate instead of raw numbers, but given how much we throw the ball, Luck's INT rate is surely low compared to these others QBs.
That's the problem. They make analyzations in a vacuum. Or they make it compared to say Brady today who has a lot more experience and plays in a different system meant to get it out quickly. "Hey he threw 18 ints one year, that is way too much" round table circle jerks each other over expert analysis.
Reply With Quote