But I wonder about posts like this and the many others. It seems like it is very difficult for you guys to make the case for Luck, to build Luck up, without tearing the other young QBs down. I know, the logical response is "well if you don't like it don't read it and no one is forcing you to read or post on a Colts site to begin with" but again, I ask "don't hate me."
So what is it motivated by? Is it fear that Andrew Luck might not actually be the best young QB? If so that is nuts. Being the best QB - which in most cases is subjective anyway - isn't worth a thing. What is meaningful is being a very good or great QBs who wins rings. Ben Roethlisberger is nowhere near the best QB but he has 2 rings, and if it wasn't for Rashard Mendenhall's fumble he'd have 3. Meanwhile lots of "better QBs" don't have squat. Eli Manning? Ditto. Joe Flacco? I personally think that he is better than a lot of people admit but he is no Hall of Famer. Still, he has one Super Bowl ring and is a dropped pass in the end zone AND a field goal kicker from having 2. So if he is good enough to win a Super Bowl - and he clearly is - what difference does it make if he is the best QB? I ask it because making the case that he is "the best" seems to be so important that it basically centers on focusing on the flaws of other QBs while ignoring, contextualizing or excusing Luck's.
Oh yeah, and totally dismissing their successes. For example: yes, Russell Wilson went to a good team, but he still increased their passing TDs from 15 to 27 while reducing their INTs from 14 to 10. Look, if the Seahawks were that great then why didn't Tarvaris Jackson lead them to the playoffs the previous year? Don't laugh. Jackson took Minnesota to the playoffs, remember? (Playoffs in 2007, injured in 2008, replaced by Brett Favre in 2009 and 2010, dumped in favor of Donovan McNabb in 2011). Golden Tate went from doing nothing his first 2 years to catching 7 TDs and averaging over 15 ypc. So Wilson just wasn't on a good team, he was a very good QB.
Is it a personal dislike of the other young QBs? Why? What did they ever do to you? Eliminate your team from the playoffs or something? Ummm ... no. See, I can understand the dislike for Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger and Philip Rivers because of what they have done against your team when it really matters.
Are they big jerks? OK, Cam Newton was a thug until getting kicked out of Florida and still acts like a pompous,, immature, arrogant, unaccountable you-know-what. But the irony is that Newton is probably the young QB that gets trashed LEAST in these parts. The other guys? College degrees, no off-the-field trouble, churchgoers, hard working, articulate, family-oriented, etc. Yet there are frequent attacks on their character and intelligence and mocking of their injuries.
The media hype and endorsements that they get? I have to say that if it wasn't a problem for you when Peyton Manning stepped right into the NFL and became its highest paid endorser and most visible face - and this was back when there was a lot less sports media mind you - why is it a problem now? Claiming that Luck is more humble, team oriented, more concentrated on his job, etc. for not chasing the limelight and endorsements now only trashes what Manning did then, and validates the knuckleheads and losers who hated Manning's guts because of all his exposure and still root for him to fail to this day. Another point: Peyton Manning played with Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, Joseph Addai (don't forget that he had 23 TDs his first 2 seasons before the Colts' OL play broke him down), Dominic Rhodes, James Mungro, etc. Anyone want to minimize or dismiss HIS success because he played with good or great RBs?
Basically, my point is that trashing the other young QBs doesn't make Luck better. (And trashing the other young QBs for doing what the most beloved player in franchise history and embraced athlete in the history of your tradition-rich city is just wrong.) More importantly Luck is plenty good, record-setting, pro bowl and playoffs in his rookie year 7 comebacks victory against a much more talented Houston team in a game that meant a lot more to Houston than it did to Indy type good so he doesn't need the trashing, bashing, even rooting to fail of other QBs in the first place. So why do it?
Yes, I know, "it is how we feel, we have a right to have and express our opinions and if you don't like it then don't bother reading" is a good response, and I won't begrudge any of you who choose it. But I am hoping for at least a couple of better ones, ones that give good, consistent, logical and fair reasons why? You may be frustrated that a lot of people say that Cam, RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick etc. are better than Luck. But look at it this way: being compared to Luck is not a crime. Instead, it is a compliment. After all, who is comparing anyone to Sam Bradford, Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez? (Yes, they are part of the "young QB" debate because Stafford and Kaepernick are the same age, and Ryan Tannehill is only 1 year younger.) Think about it.