Skip Bayless Trolls as Hard as Possible When Talking about Andrew Luck

There is a certain awfulness that goes without explanation. Skip Bayless displays this type of awfulness. He's horrible, an attention-whore, and a massive troll. He's mastered the art of taking a strong position that gets him attention and then not moving from that position. He's incapable of being argued with because he's so stupid you can't refute his points, because he has no points, only a differentiating level of volume at which he yells his desperate attempts to troll. Today, Skip writes about Andrew Luck. He says that Andrew Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer and he isn't an elite quarterback yet. Yep, this is all true. I don't know why the point is being argued. In fact, I jokingly call Luck "a future Hall of Famer" and other sarcastic names because it feels like he's been anointed by some in the media, so you would think I could agree with Skip. But that's the beauty of Skip Bayless. He takes a relevant point, that Andrew Luck is not elite, and somehow manages to make someone (such as myself) who agrees with this point disagree with him because Skip takes it to the extreme and argues using a straw man argument that make zero relevant arguments.

No doubt I'll soon snap out of my stupor, update my Lasik surgery and view Andrew Luck the way seemingly everyone but me does: as the next Greatest Quarterback Ever

I say this jokingly and as a parody of many who are overly-enamored with Luck. This is a reasonable viewpoint. So why is Skip seem so unreasonable when defending the viewpoint?

and even (beware lightning strike) the NFL's Michael Jordan.

The Colts GM compared Andrew Luck to Michael Jordan. This is not a widely-accepted opinion and is only an example of a team's GM talking up that team's quarterback. Yet, Skip makes it seem like everyone thinks Luck is the NFL's Michael Jordan.

"It's like Jordan when he'd take the last shot -- he wants the ball," Grigson told NFL.com after his Colts had come from 38-10 down to mortify the Chiefs in last Saturday's very wild-card game.
 
And yes, Colts coach Chuck Pagano merely suggested that Luck "is probably gonna go down as one of the best, if not the best, ever to play when all is said and done."

This is just an example of a team's coaches and upper management talking up their franchise player. So yes, Skip is excused for not thinking as much of Andrew Luck as Luck's employer does. I'm betting Andrew Luck doesn't think as much of Skip Bayless as ESPN does.

Understand, Grigson went MJ and Pagano reached for Greatest Ever soon after Luck had thrown THREE interceptions in his home dome 

Luck did lead a pretty good comeback after throwing those interceptions. Luck threw four interceptions the following week at New England, which obviously is not so good. Again, Luck isn't elite and those who believe Luck is elite probably are employed by the Indianapolis Colts. He's not there yet, but that doesn't stop Skip Bayless from acting like EVERYONE thinks Luck is elite.

against a Kansas City team that had lost five of its final seven games, had lost to injury early in this game its best offensive weapon (Jamaal Charles), then its fastest receiver (Donnie Avery), then its backup running back (Knile Davis) … while also losing both starting cornerbacks, Brandon Flowers and Dunta Robinson, and eventually losing its best pass rusher, Justin Houston, whose bookend, Tamba Hali, was sadly limited on a knee that had to be drained the week before. 

Once the Chiefs' pass rush disappeared, and they were down to third-string running back Cyrus Gray,

Yes, the Chiefs were injured and this was fortunate for the Colts. Davis wasn't injured until later in the game, as was Justin Houston, so Luck still did a great job leading the comeback.

and they had no one left who could cover T.Y. Hilton, I (for one) would've been disappointed in Luck if he HADN'T finished off the comeback

See, this is typical Skip Bayless writing. He would have been disappointed if Luck didn't come back from 28 points down in the third quarter to win the game. Just think about for a second, because we know Skip didn't think about it before writing the sentence. Down 38-10 in the third quarter it's fine to think, "Man, the Colts could come back if they get a few breaks to go their way." Sure, it could happen. To expect the Colts to comeback and win the game to the point you would be disappointed if the Colts didn't outscore the Chiefs by 28 points in the second half is absolutely unreasonable. But that's Skip. He's unreasonable and that's why you can't argue with him. He will throw his fingers in his ears and try to hammer home the same point you have already disproven several times over.

Andrew was really good, but Andrew was Lucky.

If this were the late 1800's a man could hang for writing such a bad pun in a sentence.

I'm sorry, but THAT game -- Luck's first playoff win in two tries --

Two whole tries. Luck lost last year to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens and I'm sure Skip would argue Luck wasn't elite then either.

is being viewed by many as Luck's Canton-bound coronation?

In all seriousness, who is doing this? I joke about it, but Skip clearly has a bug up his ass and thinks somebody somewhere (or the proverbial "they" that often don't exist except in the deluded mind of a person) is saying Andrew Luck should be in the Hall of Fame after his comeback against the Chiefs. We won't find any links because Skip won't and can't provide any. He's just disproving an argument he wants others to make, not a real argument that is widely being made.

What exactly is it about this kid that inspires so many to race to proclaim him the This or the That while stumbling blindly past obvious negatives?

He's a white, pocket-passer quarterback from an excellent school who is smart and plays well with the media. It also helps that Andrew Luck seems to have no life outside of playing football, which the media always appreciates. He's also made the playoffs in both of his seasons as an NFL quarterback, which really, really helps the media's opinion of him.

I see a big, smart, fairly athletic, remarkably resilient QB who throws a nice deep ball -- a fine young player. I do not see a lock first-ballot Hall of Famer. Not yet, at least.

So Skip's basic argument is that Luck isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer yet. Is there really someone out there who thinks Luck IS a first ballot Hall of Famer at this point in his career? I doubt it. But in his efforts to troll, attention can't be paid to the fact few or no people are making the argument Skip is refuting.

I watched Luck a lot in college. On an ESPNU show, I picked Stanford to win at Oregon when Luck was a redshirt sophomore. Stanford led 31-24 at half … and lost the second half 28-0 as Luck threw two interceptions.

Andrew Luck made Skip Bayless look stupid one time. That's really what this is all about. Also, lost in Skip's "me me me" commentary, notice the Stanford defense gave up 52 points in this game. 52 points. But yes, this one college game from three years ago goes to prove Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer. Great point.

When Luck was a junior, I saw the late interception returned for a touchdown that nearly cost Stanford the game at USC, and while Luck played pretty well in the Fiesta Bowl, I watched Oklahoma State's Brandon Weeden outplay him.

Here's Skip's biggest problem when making his trolling arguments. Very few of these arguments are based on fact and he relies on his audience being as dumb as he is. Luck "played pretty well" in the Fiesta Bowl. I would say so. He was 27-31 for 347 yards, throwing two touchdowns and one interception. He threw four incompletions during the entire game. I guess that's "pretty good" though I'm sure Skip would argue he would have been disappointed if Luck threw any incompletions.

Brandon Weeden was 29-42 for 399 yards, throwing three touchdowns and one interception by the way. I'll let you as the reader decide which quarterback outplayed the other, but I'm feeling like this was a draw. Leave it to Skip to describe a quarterback who threw four incompletions in a BCS game as "playing pretty well."

I see no Elway or Favre or Marino in his game -- no wow factor. While his teammates all seem to love him -- how could they not? -- I don't see dynamic leadership. I see consistently, solidly unspectacular.

I forgot where flair and dynamic leadership were prerequisites for being a Hall of Fame quarterback or even a quarterback who can win a Super Bowl. Does Eli Manning or Joe Flacco have dynamic leadership? Heck, is Peyton Manning even a dynamic leader or just a really good quarterback who leads by example? I would argue the "wow" factor is probably the worst way to evaluate a quarterback's eliteness or not. Yes, Luck isn't elite, but it has nothing to do with whether he has the "wow" factor or not. This is what Skip Bayless looks for. Flash and the "wow" factor when he looks at a quarterback. This is also why Skip Bayless is horrible.

This is why Skip likes Tebow so much, because Tebow has the "wow" factor and has charisma. A quarterback has to have more than that, which is why Tim Tebow is currently a co-worker of Skip Bayless and no longer playing quarterback in the NFL.

This season, Luck has thrown for 300 or more yards only three times -- all spectacular losses, 38-8 to St. Louis at home, 24-20 to Miami at home (when Ryan Tannehill outplayed Luck) and 42-28 at Cincinnati.

You be the judge on whether Tannehill outplayed Luck in this game.

Luck: 25-43 for 321 yards with one touchdown and one interception. He had a 51.5 QBR and 79.7 QB rating.

Tannehill: 23-34 for 319 yards with one touchdown and zero interceptions. He had a 44.4 QBR and a 107.4 rating.

It looks like Luck got outplayed, but it wasn't because he necessarily played poorly, but because Tannehill played so well.

Peyton Manning, the Colts' legend replaced by Luck, has thrown for 300 or more 12 times this season, winning 11

Comparing an actual first ballot Hall of Famer in his 15th season who has receivers by the name of Wes Welker, Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker and Julius Thomas to a guy playing his second season in the NFL who has receivers by the name of Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton, Coby Fleener, and Darrius Heyward-Bey is the epitome of stupidity. Or should I just say, "Being a Skip Bayless"? No one is arguing Luck is currently on Manning's level, so the comparison is just dumb.

His only loss? Naturally, his wildly anticipated return to the House That He Built in Indy. That Sunday night, Peyton threw for 386, three touchdowns and an interception. Luck: 228, three touchdowns, no interceptions.

That's Luck.

Yes, that is Luck. He's a second year quarterback who isn't capable of keeping up with elite NFL quarterbacks because he is not yet elite. The opinion of Luck's employer doesn't mean everyone else shares the opinion. Again, Skip is refuting a point I'm not sure is widely being made. Luck looks like he may one day be an elite quarterback, but he's not there yet.

At his best -- and worst -- he's actually more Eli than Peyton.

That sucks because Eli has two Super Bowl rings. How embarrassing for Andrew Luck.

But like Eli, Andrew has an unsinkable, almost oblivious confidence. High football IQ but no ability to remember mistakes. Luck knows he was born to play QB, so if he screws up, so what, he just shrugs and keeps playing, as Kansas City will attest.

This is as opposed to being like David Carr and ducking at the upcoming pass rush because you are shell-shocked from being sacked too many times?

Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment and its historical perspective...But Luck will let his pedigree get the better of him -- he will occasionally go Eli and try something he shouldn't. In the past two seasons, he has had four three-interception games in the regular season, second-most in the NFL to … Eli, with six. Last season, his rookie year, Luck had the NFL's second-most turnovers, 23, just three fewer than Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez.

I've criticized Luck for being turnover prone as well, so Skip has a point in regard to Luck's turnovers. Where Skip has no point is he is comparing Luck, a rookie quarterback, to Mark Sanchez who is not a rookie quarterback, and only in the context of turnovers. It's misleading. Luck is turnover-prone, but Peyton Manning threw 43 interceptions is his first two years in the NFL. Andrew Luck has 27 his first two seasons in the NFL. Fine, I won't count Manning's first two seasons in the NFL. In Manning's third and fourth year in the NFL he threw 38 interceptions. Good point, let's not include Manning's third or fourth year. In Manning's fifth and sixth season in the NFL he threw 29 interceptions. Luck threw 27 interceptions his first two seasons in the NFL. Yes, he has fumbled quite a bit but this is a product of being a rookie and lacking pocket awareness, along with his offensive line having deficiencies. The argument that Luck has thrown too many interceptions to be elite doesn't hold up even when comparing Luck to Skip's cherry-picked Hall of Fame quarterback.

Andrew Luck turned the ball over too much in his rookie season and he turned it over too much in the playoffs, but these turnovers aren't a warning that he can't one day be an elite quarterback. It's a warning that he needs to improve his decision-making and ability to read an NFL defense. You know, things nearly every young quarterback has to do. As far as Skip's lazy-ass analysis that Luck throws the interceptions because his pedigree gets the better of him, but Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment, well the turnover totals for each quarterback doesn't reflect this as true. Possibly Peyton NOW understands the moment and historical perspective, but Skip is comparing two quarterback in completely different stages of their careers.

Back on that field for a playoff game this Saturday night, Luck is just as likely to outplay Brady as he is to throw the same interceptions he did last Saturday against the Chiefs.

He did not outplay Brady and Luck threw four interceptions. He played badly and he isn't an elite quarterback yet. No bad comparisons to Eli/Peyton Manning are needed to show this as being true.

Luck now has nine fourth-quarter comebacks and 11 game-winning drives -- hence "Michael Jordan." Yet nearly all are of the slow, steady variety.

Considering an offense can only score 7-8 points in a single touchdown drive it's kind of hard to overcome a 28 point deficit in a quick and easy manner. But yeah Skip, you are an idiot. What does it matter if Luck's comebacks have been slow, steady or fast comebacks? Skip is ridiculously trying to criticize Luck for not coming back fast enough. Troll hard, enemy.

Against Seattle, the Colts took the lead for good at 31-28 after a 14-play, 86-yard drive produced a touchdown (and two-point conversion) with 8 minutes, 55 seconds left.

This is typical Skip Bayless. When presented with evidence of his being wrong, he argues further rather than just concede a comeback is a comeback no matter how long it takes.

Yes, the Colts' defense still had to stop Russell Wilson and Co. twice more to preserve Luck's "Jordanesque" heroics.

In any comeback the defense has to stop the opposing offense for the comeback to work. This isn't new nor is this telling us anything of importance. The fact the Colts defense stopped the Seahawks is impressive, but when discussing a quarterback who has led a comeback it is always necessary for the defense to stop the opposing offense to preserve the heroics.

What's really funny about Skip Bayless arguing a quarterback isn't heroic because he leads a comeback since the defense has to stop the other team is that he has argued the exact opposite on repeated occasions when discussing Tim Tebow. When discussing Tebow's heroics Skip never mentions the Broncos defense had to stop the opposing team. No, in that case the comeback was all Tebow. When Skip wants to bash Andrew Luck, all of a sudden the Colts defense is an important part of the comeback.

The great news Saturday was the second-biggest comeback in NFL history. The bad news: The Chiefs led 38-10 without Jamaal Charles.

And gosh, what unit could be partially responsible for the Chiefs scoring 38 points? I guess the defense that played such a vital part in the comeback isn't a vital part of allowing the Chiefs to score 38 points by the third quarter.

Yes, the Colts' defense ranks no better than 20th, while they're tied for 20th in rushing. And yes, Luck lost a mentor and go-to receiver, Reggie Wayne, for the season on Oct. 20. But seriously, is Luck having Jordanesque impact?

His coach said that. This isn't a widely-held opinion.

Does that, as my "First Take" debate partner Stephen A. Smith says, qualify Luck as a "game-changer who just oozes greatness"?

Stephen A. Smith is as brain-dead as Skip Bayless is. They each take strong opposing views and then scream and yell at each other like delusional senior citizens fighting over the last Bingo card until the next commercial break. Neither of them is right.

Maybe I'd be more sold if Luck acted more like a star. Maybe so many rush to lionize Luck because he's just so ordinary-Joe likeable.

As I said, Skip is brain-dead. He would think Luck is a better quarterback if he acted more like a star? What does Luck's actions have to do with his quarterbacking skill? And again, Tim Tebow is very unassuming and ordinary-Joe likeable, yet Skip couldn't wait to lionize him. If Luck acted more like a star then Skip would criticize Luck for acting like the star he isn't. Can't fool me.

I was on record before Luck's draft that Robert Griffin III would prove to be the better NFL QB. He certainly made me look right last season with his 20 TD passes to just five interceptions, fifth-in-the-NFL QBR, division title and 14-0 lead over Seattle in his first playoff game before aggravating, then wrecking, his knee.

Good thing Griffin wasn't playing Luck or else Skip wouldn't give Luck any credit for leading a comeback down 14-0 on the road in a playoff game.

But this season, RG III made the Luck-lovers beam when he let his stardom go to head, rushed back from knee surgery and forgot how to play quarterback.

I don't understand Skip's insistence on playing this out as a Griffin v. Luck debate where those people who like Andrew Luck are happy for the misfortune that befalls Robert Griffin. I think Skip assumes that everyone lives their life in a constant antagonistic debate between two strong opposing points of view. I don't know why the Luck-lovers would be happy Griffin had a bad year.

The day the Colts eased Peyton out the back door in favor of Luck, I said they were making a monumental mistake. The NFL is a win-now business and Peyton, I said, would give the Colts a better chance of winning a Super Bowl for the next three seasons (last year, this year and next). For the second straight year, Peyton has lifted Denver to a 13-3 record and potentially two home playoff games, this time with a record-shattering 55 TD passes and 5,477 yards.

But last year, of course, Peyton's postseason record fell to 9-11 and he lost his third straight playoff game thanks to a Hail Flacco that forced the overtime in which Peyton threw the killer interception.

Advantage, Andrew?

It sounds like Luck has won this fictional antagonistic debate that Skip Bayless seems to believe is a reality.

Maybe I'm asking for it to dare to doubt this kid as he returns to face the Patriots (my Super Bowl pick) and the pretty-boy quarterback who got Eli-ed twice in Super Bowls.

This is Skip Bayless saying, "Troll me and give me attention. I thrive off attention because my mom never loved me, my dad ignored me and I'm so insecure that I don't believe I exist unless I'm given constant attention."

This is Skip's intention in writing this column. He writes a strongly-worded column that takes a strong point of view and then thrives off the attention given to him that he has so desperately attempted to receive in writing the column.

Maybe, late Saturday night, you'll tell me, "Told you."

Seriously, please give Skip attention. He's saying Andrew Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer right now and is comparing him to veteran Hall of Fame-caliber quarterbacks to prove his point. It's a terribly written article and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not, but one thing is for sure on purpose. Skip wants your attention and he wants people to hate him or love him for his strong hot sports takes.