Andrew Luck and the Colts

[Turry 755]

The Redskins D is not way better. Both teams generated the same amount of sack, the redskins had more INTS but were also ranked 30 th in pass D.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The Colts' schedule last season was what it was. Even with that schedule, IMO, neither Wilson nor RG3 would have achieved what Luck did, if they were inserted into the Colts' starting QB position last season, even with the schedule.

 

I think they would have. But you can go back and forth on what they would have done, the fact is, that Wilson had a far better year against a far harder schedule on a far better team. Can I definitively say that makes him better than Luck? No, but pretty much anything you look at last year shows that. Luck had some terrible decisions at a lot of times, something Wilson and RG3 really did not. He threw more INTs than both of them combined, for one.

 

Wilson had the better year, so did RG3. But that was last year. This year, we shall see.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You're right. The 2012 Colts did not have the talent to be an 11 win team. When they lost, they lost big. When they won, they squeaked the win.

 

So, we are back to the elephant in the room....if the Colts did not have the talent to be an 11 win team, how did they win 11 games? How did they manage to have so many comebacks? What is it about them? It wasn't talent, so what was it?

 

The cheesecake schedule. They got blown out by good teams many times, and they managed to squeak wins against bad ones. That's how you get to be 11-5 with a negative point differential.

[Bay 2,003]

The Redskins D is not way better. Both teams generated the same amount of sack, the redskins had more INTS but were also ranked 30 th in pass D.

 

And that's without Orakpo.

[Jules 98]

Colts still managed to beat 3 playoff teams at home last year in the Vikings/Packers/Texans so those teams must be absolute crap if they managed to lose to us with our negative point differential, luck and overall sucktitude. Heck we beat more playoff teams last year then even the mighty Broncos who beat the Bengals and the Ravens who had around 5 starters missing in the game. The Patriots are another team like Denver who often stat pad against horse shit teams or in failed comebacks and everyone drools in the media. And yes I am aware we blew it vs. NE too big time but they also lost Gronk at the end of the game while running it up on us too so they lost as well.

 

Also the Colts were a ridiculous blunder away from being perfect at home last season thanks to a mistake at the end of a Jags game. If you want to talk about us getting lucky in a few wins we also got bad luck in a few losses too. It works both ways, people just talk about the good fortune all the time.

 

You play who you play, we can't help that who we play or beat cannot always satisfy the masses.

 

The Colts had the last place schedule obviously due to being the first pick in the draft the year before but were not even expected to make the playoffs. Anyone here who says they penciled in the Colts to make the playoffs let alone go 11-5 is lying!!! I saw tons of people having us pick in the top 5 again!!!

 

Heck how sad is it when the crappy lucky Colts had the defense that held the Ravens to the least amount of points in the playoffs!!! And we were on the road too in the Ray Lewis retirement party in Baltimore with Arians in the hospital with a bunch of bumbling rooks.

 

Yeah we have work to do, so what..and yes I understand the doubts, but give some credit to last years 11-5 season and team too...that was one mentally tough squad IMO for the amount of turnover/youth they had compared to the year before.

 

And if we lose so be it, we are still growing and it's just a game. But, I can't also pretend the AFC is loaded with all these incredible teams either and the competition is too tough for us in the future since I don't believe it either.

 

JMO of course.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Jules

[Thanatos 2,847]

The Vikings game was near the very beginning of the regular season. They had yet to start their run.

 

The Texans also lost to the good teams they played and got in by virtue of a great schedule.

 

The Packers win is the only impressive one out of those three.

 

"Last place schedule" doesn't really matter. The way the schedule works, your place in your division only affects two games.

 

You play the other three teams in your division twice, no matter your previous record.

 

You play one other division in your conference on a rotating three year basis, no matter your previous record.

 

You play one division in the other conference on a rotating four year basis, no matter your previous record. The only thing your record affects is the other two games. If you finish fourth in your division, then you get to play the two teams that finished fourth in their division within your conference that are not part of your conference or the conference you are playing on that 1 every 3 years schedule.

 

My point is not even about the Colts, it's about the fact that Russell Wilson or RG3 would have done just as good as Luck last season because the Colts really didn't face anyone. And since Wilson can stand up to the big defenses that he did, he would not have any trouble with the ones the Colts play.

 

Like I said, I fully expect Luck to take that step forward this year, but last year he was pretty clearly the 3rd best rookie QB.

[Jules 98]

The Vikings game was near the very beginning of the regular season. They had yet to start their run.

 

The Texans also lost to the good teams they played and got in by virtue of a great schedule.

 

The Packers win is the only impressive one out of those three.

 

"Last place schedule" doesn't really matter. The way the schedule works, your place in your division only affects two games.

 

You play the other three teams in your division twice, no matter your previous record.

 

You play one other division in your conference on a rotating three year basis, no matter your previous record.

 

You play one division in the other conference on a rotating four year basis, no matter your previous record. The only thing your record affects is the other two games. If you finish fourth in your division, then you get to play the two teams that finished fourth in their division within your conference that are not part of your conference or the conference you are playing on that 1 every 3 years schedule.

 

My point is not even about the Colts, it's about the fact that Russell Wilson or RG3 would have done just as good as Luck last season because the Colts really didn't face anyone. And since Wilson can stand up to the big defenses that he did, he would not have any trouble with the ones the Colts play.

 

Like I said, I fully expect Luck to take that step forward this year, but last year he was pretty clearly the 3rd best rookie QB.

 

 

Fair enough, I think I misunderstood. Heck our schedule is ranked one of the easiest again this year but I think there are several games that look to be a challenge right now. The NFC West looks pretty daunting, but I guess we'll see how we match up when we play them.

 

And when it comes to divisional games those are always going be brutal regardless. Heck even the Jaguars often give us fits, even when we had our best Colts teams.

 

And the RGIII/Wilson comparisons are not really my favorite thing and I read it on a lot of Colts forums. I prefer Luck and would still choose him but if someone thinks RGIII/Wilson was/is better then so be it. I thought all 3 were terrific in their own ways. I enjoyed watching all 3 and think they can have great careers until proven otherwise.

 

I do have concerns about the durability of RGIII but I can't be the only one!

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Dmac, it's true the Redskins run game was more effective with RGIII because he possessed that threat and added numbers to the run game (QB is usually discounted by run defense), BUT... I don't believe he was "the reason" solely if that's what you meant. We've seen Shanahan teams time and time again produce good running games with average backs. It's his system, system specific RBs, the ZBS, his OL executing his scheme all working in unison to produce good run games. RGIII definitely boosted that, which made it the best (not sure if best, if not, one of the best) running attack last year. It wasn't solely because of RGIII though, we saw it work with Cousins at QB too. I think his system and the ZBS had more to do with the run game success than RGIII. Though he did add to it.

 

As far as Luck, he's gonna be good, but I can't see the Colts finishing better this year than last year. I was high on Grigson, but now I have reserves. I did not like some of his moves this offseason. Very questionable stuff. But I do like some of the additions he made to the secondary. He did add guys to the OL too, that'll help, but we'll see how it turns out by the end of next year. I feel like he had one of the weaker drafts however, he had a couple smart (IMO) picks, but overall I wasn't feeling it.

[UndecidedFrog 12]

Like I said, this makes no sense. Based on what? RGIII led the 4th ranked offense in terms of scoring. You really don't think he'd be able to win with the Colts? With their schedule? With two great rookie TE prospects, and Reggie Wayne?

 

RG3 would not have survived to play all 16 games with the Colts' OL. He didn't even survive to play all 16 games with the better (comparatively speaking) Redskins OL.

 

This is based on what? The one game that Kirk played from start to finish was the game against the Browns, and that rushing performance from he Redskins wasn't all that impressive.

 

This based on the fact that Cousins successfully won a game with the same team RG3 had.

 

The Colt's defense gave up 24 points per game. The Redskins also gave up... 24 points per game...

 

Look at the comparative rankings of the Colts defense and the Redskins defense. I think you will see there is a difference.

 

Wilson and RGIII's ability to run with the ball is the reason why defenses held back blitzes.

I can also say, it was Lynch's and Morris' ability to run with the ball being the main reason why defenses held back blitzes. For Brown, Carter, and Ballard, you cannot say that.

 

1. None of these guys had 20 seconds to throw the ball. And in fact, they all had around the same amount of time to throw the ball. All three QBs were in the top 10 among QBs in terms of time to throw the ball.

 

Of course not. I was merely providing an extreme example, so that you can see the difference. Luck did not have the time to throw. RG3 and Wilson had more time to throw than Luck.

 

2. Rusell Wilson ran a pro style offense in college. And he ran a pro style offense in the NFL, and it wasn't until late in the season that they incorporated some read option.

 

Wilson ran a lot of read option at his college prior to Wisconsin (NCstate?).

[BwareDWare94 723]

The only complaint I have about Andrew Luck is his gomer voice. I find him very hard to listen to.

[Dutch 874]

The only complaint I have about Andrew Luck is his gomer voice. I find him very hard to listen to.

 

lol

[UndecidedFrog 12]

The only complaint I have about Andrew Luck is his gomer voice. I find him very hard to listen to.

That gomer voice is annoying, and he uses it very loudly to draw defenses offside. During interviews, it is annoying. During the game, it can be a strategic weapon.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Of course not. I was merely providing an extreme example, so that you can see the difference. Luck did not have the time to throw. RG3 and Wilson had more time to throw than Luck.

 

Err, as Dmac pointed out, they all were in the top-10 as far as time allowed to throw.