This is a really interesting article that I draw a lot of comparisons from for Burrow in Year 1.

The Colts were coming off a 2-14 season, and Luck was going to be handed the reigns immediately. They had a highly suspect offensive line (that was most of the guy's career). They also had a so-so rushing attack. They had one star receiver in Reggie Wayne, and a young speedster in TY Hilton. They had a suspect defense.

Then how on earth did they go 11-5? The answer? Andrew Luck. He had really good mobility for a big man, and he was also very adept at Arians' vertical passing attack. He led the NFL with the highest average depth of pass attempt. Where he really shined, though, was in the clutch. He had seven game winning drives that year to tie the league lead.

Looking at that Colt's team and the current Bengal's roster, I see greater potential in the Bengals rushing attack. The article goes on to highlight the massive increase in completion % for Luck when operating out of a play-action scenario, but that is difficult to utilize if you have a struggling rushing attack. The Colt's ground game was somewhat inflated by Luck's 255 yards and 5 TDs on the ground.

I also like the offensive line better for Burrow (I know, that seems hard to believe) but luck was sacked 41 times his rookie season, despite having the good mobility and strength.

The defense in Cincinnati this coming year is a wildcard. We know the Colt's defense was awful that season, and the Bengals have made a lot of additions and had what we hope will be a quality draft.

I think the overall theme of the article on Luck's end-of-game heroics and how his play elevated the play of a fairly suspect team will be very similar to what we see out of Burrow. However, I think the surrounding cast is much better for Burrow than Luck had his rookie season.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477009-ignore-the-raw-numbers-andrew-luck-had-a-great-rookie-season

Great. Let’s compare him to a guy that got sacked out of the league because of an inadequate offensive line. What did he last, six, maybe seven seasons?

I can see the Bengals having some success this season, especially after we get 3 or 4 games under our belt. However I don't think Luck had the wholesale change among the starters Burrow will have. Not to mention the preseason will most likely be shortened.

I don't believe 11 wins is totally out of the question, just very optimistic all thing considered.

(05-06-2020, 12:31 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Great. Let’s compare him to a guy that got sacked out of the league because of an inadequate offensive line. What did he last, six, maybe seven seasons?

7 seasons, if you count 2017 where he played 0 games. (He also only played 7 games in 2015).

- - - - - - - - -

Also this thread is a bad comparison because the Colts intentionally tanked for Luck (Suck for Luck) and were a 10-6 team that won their division just the year before they went 2-14 (14-2 and went to the SB the year before that)... while the Bengals were just a really bad team coming off 3 straight losing seasons prior to going 2-14.

The biggest difference? The Colts were a perennial playoff team that only went 2-14 because Peyton Manning got injured and they had ZERO backup plan.

The Bengals? Obviously had some injury issues with Ross and Green, but still managed to go 2-14 with Dalton starting a majority of games.

And the moral of this story is...if you try to express hope and optimism around here, the army of self appointed "realists" who have ordained themselves Dashers Of Hope will rush in to smack you down.

(05-06-2020, 01:55 PM)McC Wrote: And the moral of this story is...if you try to express hope and optimism around here, the army of self appointed "realists" who have ordained themselves Dashers Of Hope will rush in to smack you down.

Yep,

We're never gonna beat the Steelers, and the Browns are on the verge of greatness. Only thing we can do is go on sucking, there's no hope ! And if you express any signs of hope you will be crushed.

IMO, if the defense and offensive line can go from abysmal to somewhat average, this season might not be so bad.

(05-06-2020, 11:00 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: This is a really interesting article that I draw a lot of comparisons from for Burrow in Year 1.

The Colts were coming off a 2-14 season, and Luck was going to be handed the reigns immediately.  They had a highly suspect offensive line (that was most of the guy's career).  They also had a so-so rushing attack.  They had one star receiver in Reggie Wayne, and a young speedster in TY Hilton.  They had a suspect defense.

Then how on earth did they go 11-5?  The answer?  Andrew Luck.  He had really good mobility for a big man, and he was also very adept at Arians' vertical passing attack.  He led the NFL with the highest average depth of pass attempt.  Where he really shined, though, was in the clutch.  He had seven game winning drives that year to tie the league lead.  

Looking at that Colt's team and the current Bengal's roster, I see greater potential in the Bengals rushing attack.  The article goes on to highlight the massive increase in completion % for Luck when operating out of a play-action scenario, but that is difficult to utilize if you have a struggling rushing attack.  The Colt's ground game was somewhat inflated by Luck's 255 yards and 5 TDs on the ground.

I also like the offensive line better for Burrow (I know, that seems hard to believe) but luck was sacked 41 times his rookie season, despite having the good mobility and strength.  

The defense in Cincinnati this coming year is a wildcard.  We know the Colt's defense was awful that season, and the Bengals have made a lot of additions and had what we hope will be a quality draft.  

I think the overall theme of the article on Luck's end-of-game heroics and how his play elevated the play of a fairly suspect team will be very similar to what we see out of Burrow.  However, I think the surrounding cast is much better for Burrow than Luck had his rookie season.  

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477009-ignore-the-raw-numbers-andrew-luck-had-a-great-rookie-season

Luck is the last QB I can think of that reminds me of Burrow in most aspects coming out of college. One thing besides the
thoughts you added about the difference is Burrow did what he did in the SEC against the best teams in college football.

Luck did what he did at Stanford. 

Also, our O-line wasn't the worst in the NFL last season and they got considerably better as the year went on and we have
a damn good RB in Joe Mixon and our backups are not punks either. Jonah Williams coming back, adding XSF should help
lots and LSU's pass protection last season was less than stellar and Burrow still did what he did.

(05-06-2020, 02:25 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Luck is the last QB I can think of that reminds me of Burrow in most aspects coming out of college. One thing besides the
thoughts you added about the difference is Burrow did what he did in the SEC against the best teams in college football.

Luck did what he did at Stanford. 

Also, our O-line wasn't the worst in the NFL last season and they got considerably better as the year went on and we have
a damn good RB in Joe Mixon and our backups are not punks either. Jonah Williams coming back, adding XSF should help
lots and LSU's pass protection last season was less than stellar and Burrow still did what he did.

Not trying to knock Burrow, but Luck accomplishing what he did at Stanford is all the more impressive. I know he had a couple of NFL caliber guys (Richard Sherman and Fleener off the top of my head), but look at the guys just drafted from LSU... Andrew Luck may not have been record breaking in college, but he was pretty badass.

FYI: Andrew Luck's rookie season...

54.1 Completion %, 4,374 yards, 23 TDs, 18 Int, 76.5 Rating

(05-06-2020, 03:12 PM)jason Wrote: Not trying to knock Burrow, but Luck accomplishing what he did at Stanford  is all the more impressive. I know he had a couple of NFL caliber guys (Richard Sherman and Fleener off the top of my head), but look at the guys just drafted from LSU... Andrew Luck may not have been record breaking in college, but he was pretty badass.

All true, Burrow had probably more talent but it doesn't take away from what Burrow did either.

I doubt a lot of those guys get Drafted if Burrow didn't just do what he did in the SEC. One thing is for sure, if Burrow's WR's
are dropping balls it wouldn't matter, in the end the WR's, RB's and TE's have to catch the ball and the O-line has to block.

But yeah, Luck did some great stuff his last couple years at Stanford. 


Burrow is the best QB prospect to come out since Luck IMO.

(05-06-2020, 03:27 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: FYI: Andrew Luck's rookie season...

54.1 Completion %, 4,374 yards, 23 TDs, 18 Int, 76.5 Rating

Would be more than fine if Burrow had a rookie season like that. Just up that completion % and throw less INT's.

(05-06-2020, 12:31 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Great. Let’s compare him to a guy that got sacked out of the league because of an inadequate offensive line. What did he last, six, maybe seven seasons?

Did you even read the post?  The Colts waited too long to address the offensive line.  The Bengals have used several first round picks on offensive linemen and traded for one.  My point was they are better than the Colts were that year and Luck took them to 11-5.

(05-06-2020, 01:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 7 seasons, if you count 2017 where he played 0 games. (He also only played 7 games in 2015).

- - - - - - - - -

Also this thread is a bad comparison because the Colts intentionally tanked for Luck (Suck for Luck) and were a 10-6 team that won their division just the year before they went 2-14 (14-2 and went to the SB the year before that)... while the Bengals were just a really bad team coming off 3 straight losing seasons prior to going 2-14.

Not so sure I agree with these points...The Colts had poor QB play and a bad offensive line.  Sound familiar?  They didn't tank for luck.  Their team was just bad, and their division was pretty good.  

The Bengals had several bad drafts that caught up to them and, prior to now, they were unwilling to cut bait with their draft busts and address in FA.  The Bengals were not a bad team last year, but losing your LT, the guy that was going to be the starting LG, the best offensive weapon on the team, a starting CB, and a three game evaluation of a dud QB, all contributed to a 2-14 season.  The good?  They showed signs of improvement during the season.  They made major changes to the defense through FA and draft, and have another really good WR option for depth.  

So, in other words, I don't think the Colts were as good as you give them credit for and I don't think the Bengals were as bad as you make them sound.  

(05-06-2020, 01:55 PM)McC Wrote: And the moral of this story is...if you try to express hope and optimism around here, the army of self appointed "realists" who have ordained themselves Dashers Of Hope will rush in to smack you down.

I can take it...I was married for 20 years. 

I seriously think it is a great parallel for Burrow.  That Indy team declined after their Super Bowl loss.  They made the playoffs the following year, but lost in the WC round.  

I think Burrow is entering the league with a better team than Andrew Luck and is every bit as "Pro ready" as luck.  

(05-06-2020, 03:27 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: FYI: Andrew Luck's rookie season...

54.1 Completion %, 4,374 yards, 23 TDs, 18 Int, 76.5 Rating

That's in the article.  And the fascinating stat was the 7 game-winning drives, where his completion % jumped to close to 65%.  

(05-06-2020, 04:41 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Not so sure I agree with these points...The Colts had poor QB play and a bad offensive line.  Sound familiar?  They didn't tank for luck.  Their team was just bad, and their division was pretty good.  

The Bengals had several bad drafts that caught up to them and, prior to now, they were unwilling to cut bait with their draft busts and address in FA.  The Bengals were not a bad team last year, but losing your LT, the guy that was going to be the starting LG, the best offensive weapon on the team, a starting CB, and a three game evaluation of a dud QB, all contributed to a 2-14 season.  The good?  They showed signs of improvement during the season.  They made major changes to the defense through FA and draft, and have another really good WR option for depth.  

So, in other words, I don't think the Colts were as good as you give them credit for and I don't think the Bengals were as bad as you make them sound.  

How?

Colts 2008: 12-4, playoffs
Colts 2009: 14-2, SB Appearance
Colts 2010: 10-6, Division Champion
Colts 2011: 2-14, chose to start Curtis Painter (6th rounder), Dan Orlovsky (5th rounder), and 39-year-old Kerry Collins. Everyone knew they could have easily found better. None of the 3 ever started a game in the NFL again.

Bengals 2016: 6-9-1
Bengals 2017: 7-9
Bengals 2018: 6-10
Bengals 2019: 2-14, starting QB played 13 of the 16 games, only got benched after an 0-8 start

- - - - - - - - - -

One is a good team that had just one bad year to get the 1st overall pick. The other is a bad team that continued to get worse until they got the 1st overall pick in the midst of a 4 game losing streak.

Luck's OL was never as terrible as some made it to be. The guy hung onto the ball for AGES.

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/andrew-luck-needs-to-get-rid-of-football-faster-but-is-it-out-of-his-hands-101316
(From 2016, before he missed the entire 2017 season.)

Quote:According to ESPN’s Mike Wells, Luck is holding the football 2.81 seconds, which is 0.33 seconds longer than the league average this season. Per Pro Football Focus, at least entering last week, Luck held the football on average longer than any other quarterback except one in the NFL.

I am aware that is a 2016 article and not a 2011/2012 article, which is the OL we were talking about, but it goes to show a pattern/habit that Luck simply held onto the ball for way too long and paid the price for it. In the process he made his OL look much worse than it was because all the other OLs in the league had to block for much less time.
To give a point of reference, Peyton Manning in 2014 averaged 2.24... meaning his OL had to block for over 20% less time than the Colts OL did for Luck in 2016.
That's actually what made the Bengals OL performance over the last few years so much worse. Andy Dalton has always been known as a QB who could quickly get rid of the ball. I know a couple years here he was in the 3rd quickest in the league range. Can't for the life of me find the article talking about it, though.

(05-06-2020, 11:00 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: This is a really interesting article that I draw a lot of comparisons from for Burrow in Year 1.

The Colts were coming off a 2-14 season, and Luck was going to be handed the reigns immediately.  They had a highly suspect offensive line (that was most of the guy's career).  They also had a so-so rushing attack.  They had one star receiver in Reggie Wayne, and a young speedster in TY Hilton.  They had a suspect defense.

Then how on earth did they go 11-5?  The answer?  Andrew Luck.  He had really good mobility for a big man, and he was also very adept at Arians' vertical passing attack.  He led the NFL with the highest average depth of pass attempt.  Where he really shined, though, was in the clutch.  He had seven game winning drives that year to tie the league lead.  

Looking at that Colt's team and the current Bengal's roster, I see greater potential in the Bengals rushing attack.  The article goes on to highlight the massive increase in completion % for Luck when operating out of a play-action scenario, but that is difficult to utilize if you have a struggling rushing attack.  The Colt's ground game was somewhat inflated by Luck's 255 yards and 5 TDs on the ground.

I also like the offensive line better for Burrow (I know, that seems hard to believe) but luck was sacked 41 times his rookie season, despite having the good mobility and strength.  

The defense in Cincinnati this coming year is a wildcard.  We know the Colt's defense was awful that season, and the Bengals have made a lot of additions and had what we hope will be a quality draft.  

I think the overall theme of the article on Luck's end-of-game heroics and how his play elevated the play of a fairly suspect team will be very similar to what we see out of Burrow.  However, I think the surrounding cast is much better for Burrow than Luck had his rookie season.  

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1477009-ignore-the-raw-numbers-andrew-luck-had-a-great-rookie-season

If you watch luck enough you also know a portion of his sacks are on him.. held in to ball way too long at times

(05-06-2020, 01:11 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: The biggest difference?  The Colts were a perennial playoff team that only went 2-14 because Peyton Manning got injured and they had ZERO backup plan.

(05-06-2020, 05:43 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: How?

Colts 2008: 12-4, playoffs
Colts 2009: 14-2, SB Appearance
Colts 2010: 10-6, Division Champion
Colts 2011: 2-14, chose to start Curtis Painter (6th rounder), Dan Orlovsky (5th rounder), and 39-year-old Kerry Collins. Everyone knew they could have easily found better. None of the 3 ever started a game in the NFL again.

The entire left side of the colt's 2010 O-line was replaced with rookie starters in 2011.

Plus the 10 win 2010 Colts were not a good team at all.  The were a bad team that was carried by the greatest QB of all time.  They were 29th in rushing and 23rd in defense.