My point was that factors like injury can have an impact on a quarterback's performance. Which seems like an obvious point to make but I found it necessary given that I felt you dismissed that as a possibility too quickly. What do you want me to explain further? The specific ways that a partially separated shoulder can affect a quarterback? Would you like me to go more into why bad blocking will hurt a QB's performance?

This is where your whole argument falls apart and you don't even realize it. Yes, it is true that injuries have an impact on a quarterback's performance, but you have shown no evidence or information to support the conclusion that injuries are having an impact on this quarterback's performance.

What evidence?! Where did you prove that his injuries and poor line play just can't be part of the explanation here? I understand that he wasn't hurt coming into the year, but that doesn't mean that they can't have been affecting him since the point of the injury.

Do you just read comments then pretend you didn't see them? I clearly spelled this out for you in the last comment. Let's try this once more, I'll make it easier: His o-line was just as bad as it was last year, yet he played worse, even before any injury. There's your proof. I'm sure you'll attack this next, demanding game-by-game evidence of a poor o-line. I'm not going to waste my time with that since enough has been written about the 2012 to 2014 Colts o-line. It's one of their biggest needs going into every draft and has been discussed at length in the media due to the number of different personnel groups they started due to injuries and poor play.

Luck's INT% was not "very high" in the past.

Which is why the term "INT%" appears nowhere in my comment. You have this troubling pattern of hearing what you want to hear. By volume, he throws a great deal of INTs. He also fumbles the ball much more than other QBs.

The Colts pass blocking has been terrible in every game I've seen of theirs.

Thank you for proving my point.

Isn't it possible that factors that came on as the season progressed,

None of which you've proven. This is the crux of the argument--your position is based on speculation, assumption, and outright false information. If you think there is a particular factor holding Luck back then make a case for that factor specifically for Luck and provide evidence. Without doing that you're doing exactly what OP was doing: spewing a conclusion that isn't based on anything tangible. And that's the kind of information that shouldn't be supported. That's the summation of this whole problem.

That's it. There's no need for this conversation to continue unless you're prepared to make an evidence-based case specific to a factor affecting Andrew Luck's performance.