Colts vs. Steelers: Andrew Luck's Positives Outweigh Negatives on SNF
Andrew Luck threw two interceptions in the Indianapolis Colts’ Sunday Night Football game against the Pittsburgh Steelers. But just because he finished with a stat line that isn’t as impressive as his previous performance, that doesn’t mean Indy fans should turn off their television disappointed.
First off, let’s address the picks. Luck’s first interception was on a deep out-route to Reggie Wayne.
Now, a perfectly placed ball on an out is nearly impossible to defend—just ask all those teams that Peyton Manning executed it on over the years. But if the passer underthrows the wide receiver just slightly against a defensive back with tight coverage, the result is a pick-six every time.
Ike Taylor had tight coverage on Wayne. Luck underthrew it.
But that’s a rookie making a rookie mistake. It’s better for Luck to work out the kinks now than in the regular season.
The second interception wasn’t Luck’s fault at all. But again, that’s why numbers lie—you couldn’t tell that if you just looked at the stat sheet.
Luck threw a perfect pass to rookie third-round pick T.Y. Hilton and the wide receiver bobbled the ball right in to Cortez Allen’s hands.
No big deal, at least on Luck’s part.
But on to the positives. Take away the two picks, and Luck would’ve gone 16-23 for 175 yards. And remember, this is against a Pittsburgh defense that isn’t too bad.
Luck also rushed for a one-yard touchdown to erase the lead that the Steelers had built in the fourth quarter.
On Sunday night, Luck showed the mental strength needed to shake off and move on from a turnover. He also repeatedly displayed the ability to squeeze throws in between defenders in an opponent’s zone.
I can’t stand when an up-and-coming player garners undeserved, premature hype. But this Luck kid looks like he may just live up to any and all expectations.
David Daniels is a featured columnist at Bleacher Report and a syndicated writer.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?