How do we know Luck's team was bad? Luck supporters have an inherent contradiction in their argumentation. It goes something like this . . .
Luck fan: Luck took a team that won two games in 2011 and won 11 games. Luck alone did this, the rest of the team was a two win team . . .
Luck critic: that two win team won 10 games the year prior. It was injuries and bad coaching that made them play down to two wins. in reality Andrew Luck took a healthy ten win team and added a win.
Luck fan: the new GM and coach completely turned over the roster in 2012. It wasn't the same team as the 2010-2011 team.
The problem is the second response undermines the first. We're the 2012 Colts simply the 2011 Colts plus Andrew Luck, or were they an entirely different team? The answer is largely the latter. Ad if that's the case, why are all the wins attributed to the single player, rather than the largely new roster and entirely new coaching staff? Perhaps the win increase has as much to do with remaining vets being healthy, new players across the board stepping up (rookies Vic Ballard, TY Hilton, Dwayne Allen, veterans Donnie Avery, Samson Satele, Vontae Davis) and a coachingstaff that won coach of the year?
The Colts improvement in record was not due to the addition of Luck. it was a perfect storm of health, player acquisition and improvement and quality coaching. In other words, it was a team achievement.
