Luck Overrated?

[SuggsKill]

It would suck to lose and look back on this thread on Monday. Luck is asked to do a lot.... I think this kid is amazing.

[JAB1985]

If you consider overrated because people overlook his flaws id agree but Luck is everything theyre saying he is otherwise.

[PerpetuallyBored74]

I don't think he's overrated. He's thrown for more yards and has a higher QBR than Flacco.

ESPN's QBR is bullshit.

They won't admit it, but there are some serious flaws in how they derive QBR.
Or how do you explain how sometimes QBs who clearly played worse than others have higher QBRs? And not just marginally higher, but substantially higher. The old QB rating isn't perfect either but it's more trustworthy.

Flacco threw for less yards because he was taken out of games when the Ravens had large leads (Bengals, Raiders, Giants) and he didn't play the last game for more than 2 series. Otherwise his yardage would've about even.

[somedumbguy]

Luck has done very well as a rookie QB. I don't think you can truly judge a QB until they have 3 seasons under their belt. 2 years ago Josh Freeman was on his way to being a top 5 QB.

[wickedsolo]

Luck has done very well as a rookie QB. I don't think you can truly judge a QB until they have 3 seasons under their belt. 2 years ago Josh Freeman was on his way to being a top 5 QB.

This.

Many MANY were clamoring about how great Josh Freeman was after such a solid rookie year. Now there are rumors floating around that Schiano is considering going in a different direction than Freeman.

That said, Luck has done really well for a rookie and adapted to Bruce Arian's offense well [which pisses me off because Baltimore had an opportunity to nab Arians and they didnt...but anyway]…

Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner

[RavenScallywag]

ESPN's QBR is bullshit.

They won't admit it, but there are some serious flaws in how they derive QBR.
Or how do you explain how sometimes QBs who clearly played worse than others have higher QBRs? And not just marginally higher, but substantially higher. The old QB rating isn't perfect either but it's more trustworthy.

Flacco threw for less yards because he was taken out of games when the Ravens had large leads (Bengals, Raiders, Giants) and he didn't play the last game for more than 2 series. Otherwise his yardage would've about even.

Another part of that...Colts had more comebacks than we did. Which is to say, they were behind and you tend to throw mainly when you are behind at the end of a game. The Ravens MO tends to be if we have a lead, try to grind it out on the ground game and keep Flacco's passes short and safe.

[Terpsfan82]

ESPN's QBR is bullshit.

They won't admit it, but there are some serious flaws in how they derive QBR.
Or how do you explain how sometimes QBs who clearly played worse than others have higher QBRs? And not just marginally higher, but substantially higher. The old QB rating isn't perfect either but it's more trustworthy.

Flacco threw for less yards because he was taken out of games when the Ravens had large leads (Bengals, Raiders, Giants) and he didn't play the last game for more than 2 series. Otherwise his yardage would've about even.

Lol. I was waiting for this. I have a sneaking suspicion that if Flacco had the higher QBR it wouldn't be a "bullshit" stat. Nevertheless, I'm not going to argue about it. Fact is, it is not an arbitrary value. It does take into account how far passes travel through the air, and weights the stat accordingly. For example, a 29 yard completion that travels 29 yards through the air carries a higher rating than say, a 2 yard completion where the receiver runs the other 27 yards. Back to the discussion at hand, no. Luck is not overrated.

[PerpetuallyBored74]

Even if Flacco had the higher TQBR it would still be bullshit.

If ESPN only took into account EPA (Expected Points Added) then their QBR would have merit because you CAN predict how many points a team is most likely to score SOLELY by looking at what plays they make and when they make them.

But ESPN had to add a Clutch Factor into the mix and that's what fouled it up.

QB #1:
Plays well enough to help give team nice lead in 1st half, team's defense strong enough to hold lead, coaches decide to run ball control offense in 2nd half.

QB#2:
Plays well enough to score a lot of points, but defense isn't good so other team scores a lot of points too, game's outcome isn't decided until final series.

Guess which QB will have the higher TQBR?
The one who was clutch throughout the game because the other one was clutch for only one half, if even that much.

The other problem is the idea that a QB should be rewarded more for throwing the ball 60 yards then a QB who throws the ball 5 yards and the WR goes another 55. Because it doesn't matter how you get those 60 yards, what matters is that you do. How is a QB supposed to throw the ball 60 yards if his receivers aren't running deep routes because the OC doesn't want them too? Or if the defense is playing their DBs back to take away the deep route?

If you look at Flacco's TQBR, you see he gets heavily penalized for RUN EPA and SACK EPA while given a nice reward for PENALTY EPA.
Why? Hell, I don't know, he just does for whatever reason.

ESPN needs to stop trying to assign a value to each play based on how clutch it is or isn't as that's too subjective. And they need to stop weighing how much value a play has based on whether the QB threw it a long way or the receiver ran it a long way.

[leachisabeast]

The difference is, Luck is a rookie so to post superior stats or getting them on a par with a good QB Flacco (a 5th year QB) is pretty impressive.

I think we are seeing the difference between a first overall pick from Stanford to the 18th overall pick from Delaware. It's ok, Flacco has done well and is a good QB, but Luck and RG3 are going to be elite QB's by their second, maybe even 3rd year depending on play off performances, IMO.

[Tyrian]

The difference is, Luck is a rookie so to post superior stats or getting them on a par with a good QB Flacco (a 5th year QB) is pretty impressive.

I think we are seeing the difference between a first overall pick from Stanford to the 18th overall pick from Delaware. It's ok, Flacco has done well and is a good QB, but Luck and RG3 are going to be elite QB's by their second, maybe even 3rd year depending on play off performances, IMO.

Doubtful. Elite is such a throwaway word these days. There's only 2 or 3 actual elite QBs and a handful of very good ones. Luck and RG3 may enter the very good in a year or two.

Or maybe not.

It's not hard to look at recent history.

Sam Bradford was the next best thing after his rookie season. What has he done since? Not a lot.

Cam Newton was the next best thing after his rookie season. What's he done this year? Not a lot.

Guys are having great rookie years and then not following them up. Wait until their 3rd or 4th year to pass any real form of judgement.

[leachisabeast]

Doubtful. Elite is such a throwaway word these days. There's only 2 or 3 actual elite QBs and a handful of very good ones. Luck and RG3 may enter the very good in a year or two.

Or maybe not.

It's not hard to look at recent history.

Sam Bradford was the next best thing after his rookie season. What has he done since? Not a lot.

Cam Newton was the next best thing after his rookie season. What's he done this year? Not a lot.

Guys are having great rookie years and then not following them up. Wait until their 3rd or 4th year to pass any real form of judgement.

None of those guys got their teams to the play offs in their rookie years, which is one of the main argument people use around here when debating Flacco. Luck and RG3 have had a bigger impact then those guys, I think they are both special, and both are primed for Peyton manning type success with their franchises.