Jump to content
Dutch

Let's put this to bed. Give me Andrew Luck.

Recommended Posts

Well, since everyone keeps overlooking him...I'll take Wilson.

 

If we are picking "best young upcoming QB" I'd actually lean towards Bradford.

 

Curious as to why you have Sam Bradford as your #1? Not that I disagree because they have a lot of potential on offense on that team. But just to spark a conversation/curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He threw the ball less than 30 times only four games all year, and never less than 26. Seven times he threw over 40 times, and he threw 50 or more three times. RGIII threw more than 30 times in four games, and Wilson was asked to do it in just three. Neither one ever went over 40. Luck's not calling the plays. He's being asked to take on the brunt of the load, no matter how you slice it.

 

Only Brady, Brees, Stafford and Romo threw the ball more. A rookie being top five in attempts is pretty ridiculous. It speaks to the confidence that his coach has in him as well as the lack of faith in a struggling running game.

 

I'm not here to try to take anything away from Griffin or Wilson, because that would be a fool's errand. I feel that trying to dismiss Luck as being lucky or overrated is just as ridiculous though.

 

In comparison, RGIII and Wilson tied with the exact same amount—393—of passes on the season, good for 25 most in the league. Both of them were coached better, and by that I mean that they were put in good situations to maximize success both for them and for the team. That's a good thing, because it shows that everyone was doing their job.

 

In the case of Luck, he was basically asked to pick up where Manning left off. Throw the ball around 40 times per game and see what happens. If just so happened that the Colts won 11 games, largely due to the play of their QB. That's no small feat for a rookie.

 

Saying that him having to do more isn't "played out." It's a legit takeaway from looking at the total picture. There's really no way to argue otherwise. That takes nothing away from the other two who are also fine players, but it does speak volumes to the ability of Luck imo.

 

The argument that I'm tired of hearing is about how overrated he supposedly is. These days everyone gets so caught up in stats that if someone doesn't have them we look for reasons to diminish their success. "Yeah, they won, but look at his stats. He couldn't possibly be the reason that they were winning." Well if not him, then who? What was it about this team that made it so they could win 11 games? Was it their stellar rushing attack? How about the amazing defense? Was that it?

 

Oh, I know. It must have been the easy schedule. Sure, he was the reason they were winning, but anyone could have done that. He wouldn't have done it against tougher teams. The problem with that argument is that HE did it, and not anyone else. He DIDN'T play tougher teams, and he DID win the games that were on his schedule. Taking away from what was actually done by throwing out hypotheticals and what-ifs is a bit much to me.

 

I've never been a fan of diminishing what someone did because of what might have happened in a different situation. I'm not gonna do it with RGIII or Wilson because they might not have been as good without their running games, and I'm not gonna do it with Luck either. The fact is that all three QBs were successful. Whether it was due to or despite their situations can be debated, but it's ultimately moot. They were successful. Period.

 

XrKtkro.jpg

Edited by dutchff7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious as to why you have Sam Bradford as your #1? Not that I disagree because they have a lot of potential on offense on that team. But just to spark a conversation/curiosity.

I expect everyone to disagree lol. Statistically, everything points to RG3 or Wilson. Oh and Luck (very much like Bradford) entered a bad situation and took his team to the playoffs. But I was big on Bradford coming out of college, a very accurate pocket passer. With the Rams finally rounding out overall, I expect Bradford to take the next step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one heck of an informative post, and even more so of an argument for Luck. I was one of the believers that Luck was more or less cleaning up his own mess looking at the stats without actually going deep into the game break down. You proved a lot of people wrong on that and deserve a lot of props.

 

Luck has definitely got the most sustainable career opportunity. I won't doubt that one bit. I like the fact that even though he's a guy who likes to stand tall in the pocket, he can get out of the pocket and run down field still. I personally don't believe Luck gets enough credit for the amount of mobility he possesses. He may not be running option plays or making big breaks like Griffin and Wilson do, but when he needs to get away, he certainly can and has shown that on numerous occasions. The mere fact that he isn't running around all the time like those two should give him a leg up on this discussion, the longevity of his career is certainly more probable in comparison amongst the three.

 

With that said though I still believe that if you give me a healthy RG3, I would take him first. I understand that Luck is going to get better with his reads and the interceptions will come down but I was extremely impressed last year with how RG3 threw the ball. You give me a guy who has the ability and speed to rush for 100 yards in a football game (on top of the ability to provide a 65% completion rate and make every throw in the books) and I'll show you a guy that can win a lot of football games. He's such a dual threat that it really doesn't matter what the defenses do, he's almost unable to game plan for. So for one game, I think I would hesitantly go with Griffin.

 

That's not even mentioning Russell Wilson, this kid is just as amazing and he wasn't even a first round selection for Seattle.

 

All three of these guys are going to get better with time and have great careers barring any major injuries.

Edited by Rain Man
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He threw the ball less than 30 times only four games all year, and never less than 26. Seven times he threw over 40 times, and he threw 50 or more three times. RGIII threw more than 30 times in four games, and Wilson was asked to do it in just three. Neither one ever went over 40. Luck's not calling the plays. He's being asked to take on the brunt of the load, no matter how you slice it.

 

Only Brady, Brees, Stafford and Romo threw the ball more. A rookie being top five in attempts is pretty ridiculous. It speaks to the confidence that his coach has in him as well as the lack of faith in a struggling running game.

 

I'm not here to try to take anything away from Griffin or Wilson, because that would be a fool's errand. I feel that trying to dismiss Luck as being lucky or overrated is just as ridiculous though.

 

In comparison, RGIII and Wilson tied with the exact same amount—393—of passes on the season, good for 25 most in the league. Both of them were coached better, and by that I mean that they were put in good situations to maximize success both for them and for the team. That's a good thing, because it shows that everyone was doing their job.

 

In the case of Luck, he was basically asked to pick up where Manning left off. Throw the ball around 40 times per game and see what happens. If just so happened that the Colts won 11 games, largely due to the play of their QB. That's no small feat for a rookie.

 

Saying that him having to do more isn't "played out." It's a legit takeaway from looking at the total picture. There's really no way to argue otherwise. That takes nothing away from the other two who are also fine players, but it does speak volumes to the ability of Luck imo.

 

The argument that I'm tired of hearing is about how overrated he supposedly is. These days everyone gets so caught up in stats that if someone doesn't have them we look for reasons to diminish their success. "Yeah, they won, but look at his stats. He couldn't possibly be the reason that they were winning." Well if not him, then who? What was it about this team that made it so they could win 11 games? Was it their stellar rushing attack? How about the amazing defense? Was that it?

 

Oh, I know. It must have been the easy schedule. Sure, he was the reason they were winning, but anyone could have done that. He wouldn't have done it against tougher teams. The problem with that argument is that HE did it, and not anyone else. He DIDN'T play tougher teams, and he DID win the games that were on his schedule. Taking away from what was actually done by throwing out hypotheticals and what-ifs is a bit much to me.

 

I've never been a fan of diminishing what someone did because of what might have happened in a different situation. I'm not gonna do it with RGIII or Wilson because they might not have been as good without their running games, and I'm not gonna do it with Luck either. The fact is that all three QBs were successful. Whether it was due to or despite their situations can be debated, but it's ultimately moot. They were successful. Period.

 

 

tumblr_mdrzey04G21qjoecd.gif

 

Someone is paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He threw the ball less than 30 times only four games all year, and never less than 26. Seven times he threw over 40 times, and he threw 50 or more three times. RGIII threw more than 30 times in four games, and Wilson was asked to do it in just three. Neither one ever went over 40. Luck's not calling the plays. He's being asked to take on the brunt of the load, no matter how you slice it.

 

Only Brady, Brees, Stafford and Romo threw the ball more. A rookie being top five in attempts is pretty ridiculous. It speaks to the confidence that his coach has in him as well as the lack of faith in a struggling running game.

 

I'm not here to try to take anything away from Griffin or Wilson, because that would be a fool's errand. I feel that trying to dismiss Luck as being lucky or overrated is just as ridiculous though.

 

In comparison, RGIII and Wilson tied with the exact same amount—393—of passes on the season, good for 25 most in the league. Both of them were coached better, and by that I mean that they were put in good situations to maximize success both for them and for the team. That's a good thing, because it shows that everyone was doing their job.

 

In the case of Luck, he was basically asked to pick up where Manning left off. Throw the ball around 40 times per game and see what happens. If just so happened that the Colts won 11 games, largely due to the play of their QB. That's no small feat for a rookie.

 

Saying that him having to do more isn't "played out." It's a legit takeaway from looking at the total picture. There's really no way to argue otherwise. That takes nothing away from the other two who are also fine players, but it does speak volumes to the ability of Luck imo.

 

The argument that I'm tired of hearing is about how overrated he supposedly is. These days everyone gets so caught up in stats that if someone doesn't have them we look for reasons to diminish their success. "Yeah, they won, but look at his stats. He couldn't possibly be the reason that they were winning." Well if not him, then who? What was it about this team that made it so they could win 11 games? Was it their stellar rushing attack? How about the amazing defense? Was that it?

 

Oh, I know. It must have been the easy schedule. Sure, he was the reason they were winning, but anyone could have done that. He wouldn't have done it against tougher teams. The problem with that argument is that HE did it, and not anyone else. He DIDN'T play tougher teams, and he DID win the games that were on his schedule. Taking away from what was actually done by throwing out hypotheticals and what-ifs is a bit much to me.

 

I've never been a fan of diminishing what someone did because of what might have happened in a different situation. I'm not gonna do it with RGIII or Wilson because they might not have been as good without their running games, and I'm not gonna do it with Luck either. The fact is that all three QBs were successful. Whether it was due to or despite their situations can be debated, but it's ultimately moot. They were successful. Period.

 

I honestly don't understand the logic on this site sometimes.

 

When a new member comes on here, and makes a claim for a QB ranking based on wins (granted they were rings, but overall, wins), he gets the wrath of hell from all living creatures.

 

But with Luck, all the sudden it's reversed into some kinda double standard. The Colts last year were an average to below average team, regardless of what their record may indicate. In every facet of the game, yet the guy who played like a bottom 5 QB facing a awfully easy schedule among starters should get the credit? IDT some of you guys realize how badly Luck looked, not even his stats, but how he himself looked last year. He showed glimpses of greatness, but he also showed glimpses of being really shitty.

 

Color me confused. I was under the impression from everyone on this site that winning was a team thing?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Colts don't have any named players, Luck must be the reason they win all the time!

 

Really he hasn't distinguished himself from Tim Tebow yet.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand the logic on this site sometimes.

 

When a new member comes on here, and makes a claim for a QB ranking based on wins (granted they were rings, but overall, wins), he gets the wrath of hell from all living creatures.

 

But with Luck, all the sudden it's reversed into some kinda double standard. The Colts last year were an average to below average team, regardless of what their record may indicate. In every facet of the game, yet the guy who played like a bottom 5 QB facing a awfully easy schedule among starters should get the credit? IDT some of you guys realize how badly Luck looked, not even his stats, but how he himself looked last year. He showed glimpses of greatness, but he also showed glimpses of being really shitty.

 

Color me confused. I was under the impression from everyone on this site that winning was a team thing?

 

I see you put an italicized emphasis on how badly Luck looked which is perception and is the entire point of my post.

 

And if you really think that Luck played in the same lane as a Sanchez, Gabbert/Henne and company, it just proves you're just looking at stats. That's a ridiculous statement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that Andrew Luck is slightly superior to Wilson, but if the tail end of last season is any indication, Wilson will shine when given opportunities and on occasion make Luck look pedestrian based on how many tools he has to beat you with.

Edited by BC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one heck of an informative post, and even more so of an argument for Luck. I was one of the believers that Luck was more or less cleaning up his own mess looking at the stats without actually going deep into the game break down. You proved a lot of people wrong on that and deserve a lot of props.

 

Luck has definitely got the most sustainable career opportunity. I won't doubt that one bit. I like the fact that even though he's a guy who likes to stand tall in the pocket, he can get out of the pocket and run down field still. I personally don't believe Luck gets enough credit for the amount of mobility he possesses. He may not be running option plays or making big breaks like Griffin and Wilson do, but when he needs to get away, he certainly can and has shown that on numerous occasions. The mere fact that he isn't running around all the time like those two should give him a leg up on this discussion, the longevity of his career is certainly more probable in comparison amongst the three.

 

With that said though I still believe that if you give me a healthy RG3, I would take him first. I understand that Luck is going to get better with his reads and the interceptions will come down but I was extremely impressed last year with how RG3 threw the ball. You give me a guy who has the ability and speed to rush for 100 yards in a football game (on top of the ability to provide a 65% completion rate and make every throw in the books) and I'll show you a guy that can win a lot of football games. He's such a dual threat that it really doesn't matter what the defenses do, he's almost unable to game plan for. So for one game, I think I would hesitantly go with Griffin.

 

That's not even mentioning Russell Wilson, this kid is just as amazing and he wasn't even a first round selection for Seattle.

 

All three of these guys are going to get better with time and have great careers barring any major injuries.

 

Thank you and who you prefer is definitely respectable. You really can't go wrong picking any of these kids at the moment. My post isn't saying "if you don't choose Luck, you're wrong" or anything like that. Just to show people that are stat lookers what really happened beyond just the stats because stats aren't the end all of everything.

Edited by dutchff7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been wildly proven that when a majority of your games are won/lost by 7 points or less, luck (the real luck not the human Luck) played a factor.

 

 

But with Luck, all the sudden it's reversed into some kinda double standard. The Colts last year were an average to below average team, regardless of what their record may indicate. In every facet of the game, yet the guy who played like a bottom 5 QB facing a awfully easy schedule among starters should get the credit? IDT some of you guys realize how badly Luck looked, not even his stats, but how he himself looked last year. He showed glimpses of greatness, but he also showed glimpses of being really shitty.

 

 

Haha I love you Dmac but your inner hater is shining through. You are making stuff up now lol.

 

In the first paragraph I would love to see some sort of empirical proof of what you say. All games that are decided by a small margin are luck. I would like to see a study doing that with actual proof not just you claiming it to be so to support your own conclusions.

 

With the second you contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You say it is a below average team. Then you say luck played like a bottom 5 QB which is a fallacy that again you are just throwing out there to support your own conclusion. Then you go on to ask why should he get the credit. Well if he is bottom 5 and his team is below average than who should get the credit ? You have to pick one. You cant say his team is below average and he is bottom 5 and ask why he gets the credit. One of those statements is false.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha I love you Dmac but your inner hater is shining through. You are making stuff up now lol.

 

In the first paragraph I would love to see some sort of empirical proof of what you say. All games that are decided by a small margin are luck. I would like to see a study doing that with actual proof not just you claiming it to be so to support your own conclusions.

 

With the second you contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You say it is a below average team. Then you say luck played like a bottom 5 QB which is a fallacy that again you are just throwing out there to support your own conclusion. Then you go on to ask why should he get the credit. Well if he is bottom 5 and his team is below average than who should get the credit ? You have to pick one. You cant say his team is below average and he is bottom 5 and ask why he gets the credit. One of those statements is false.

 

This ^

Edited by dutchff7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand the logic on this site sometimes.

 

When a new member comes on here, and makes a claim for a QB ranking based on wins (granted they were rings, but overall, wins), he gets the wrath of hell from all living creatures.

 

But with Luck, all the sudden it's reversed into some kinda double standard. The Colts last year were an average to below average team, regardless of what their record may indicate. In every facet of the game, yet the guy who played like a bottom 5 QB facing a awfully easy schedule among starters should get the credit? IDT some of you guys realize how badly Luck looked, not even his stats, but how he himself looked last year. He showed glimpses of greatness, but he also showed glimpses of being really shitty.

 

Color me confused. I was under the impression from everyone on this site that winning was a team thing?

Actually, I've gone on record multiple times praising Eli for being a 4th quarter QB and being a "winner." Also, I gave a lot of credit to Tebow when he was in Denver and still think it's a shame he didn't at least get a chance to play somewhere. While it takes a team to win, it only takes one bad QB to tank a season—see Matt Cassel, Curtis Painter, etc...

 

You're right about one thing though: Luck did look bad at times, as well as he looked equally great at times. It's been said by professional QBs and CBs alike that those two positions are less about the mistakes a guy makes and more about getting past them and overcoming them. Luck managed to that extremely well.

 

He didn't look like an all-pro, but he's not an overrated bum either imo. He's clearly talented and deserves the credit he gets for leading that team—you know, the one that won 2 games just one year before—to the playoffs. Dismissing wins as "luck" sounds like a cop-out response to me.

 

He didn't play flawless football every Sunday, and I honestly don't think that anyone is saying that he did. He's deserving of the praise he gets though, as his talent is undeniable. He's got a solid arm, good mobility, accuracy MOST of the time, and the mind for the position. He might not be making all the throws just yet, but he's making some very big ones. That counts for something.

 

The season was a bit of roller coaster ride with Luck, but when he was good he was very good. In the playoff game, when the playcalling was atrocious, the entire offense looked abysmal. That tracks with the normal play caller hospitalized. Apart from that game though, Luck did a great job of making sure that the Colts were competitive week after week. Hell, even in the playoff game the weren't ever really out of it up until the very end.

 

It's my belief that Luck is a good player. Also, I have always put a lot of stock in the ability of a QB to dial it in late in games, in big situations, and on third down. Luck does this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The craziest thing is that the hype that Luck had pre-draft is just as strong if not stronger after a painfully mediocre season with more ups and downs. You have to wonder, do people just excuse the bad because he was a rookie? Or maybe because the high moments were more entertaining and memorable?

 

I know we kind of what to go beyond the stats somewhat... But why praise a QB who digs himself huge holes and then struggles after he crosses midfield?

 

The kid struggles immensely pinpointing his passes beyond 10 yards. Yes, everyone expects performance to drop off in the deep game, but being so mediocre in this department... You have to wonder why he is attempting more of them than most any QB in the league.

 

We also expect QB to get worse when facing pressure, right? Of course... And Luck faced a lot of pressure this last season. He responded extremely unfavorably. Bar none, he is one of the worst QBs when facing pressure which makes the number of deep passes he attempts even more confounding. If you can't man up and deliver with a defending barreling down at you, making a living in this league won't be easy.

 

He can get better, absolutely. And he has plenty of time to do it... But this is a great example of putting the cart before the horse. Let's sit back, call it as we see it, and see what he can develop into.

 

Although, after one season... He looks like maybe the best Peyton Manning replacement ever. Maybe we should wait to see how he does in the playoffs first.

 

Regardless.... Whether you look at the stats or watch him play, you should come to the same conclusion. Calling Luck anything more than mediocre would be an insult to the good - great QBs around the league.

Edited by Favre4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The telling thing for me is you have to make excuses for Luck.

 

RG3 and Wilson don't need excuses because they played well.

 

I watched Andrew Luck a lot last year. He made a lot of great plays, but made just as many, if not more idiotic plays. Mistakes you didn't see RG3 or Wilson make.

 

Both RG3 and Wilson are far ahead of Luck as pro style quarterbacks. It's not really close at this point. Luck had a good year for a rookie. RG3 and Wilson had what would be considered good to great years for veterans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think a lot of people who don't follow the Colts closely realize the mess we were left with in 2011 and much of it can be attributed to bad drafting and Polian miscues. Manning overcame A LOT of team weaknesses. The o line had declined rapidly since the SB win, the run game was shit, the D was inconsistent at best and the special teams in the Manning era were constantly bad. And Caldwell was a horrible head coach with no idea how to manage a game. See the Jets playoff loss when he called the time out to HELP the Jets. That was sadly Manning's last game as a Colt and our final memories of him here.

 

In 2010 we made the postseason even when Manning had several uncharacteristically bad multiple interception games. And when the season was over I heard waves of fans I know saying, "Wow, Manning carried this team to the playoffs with all those injuries and a shitty o line."

 

 

Luck actually sort of took off with the Colts where Manning left us in 2010. He passed his ass off behind a weak o line/run game and he was not treated as a rookie by Arians nor was anything made easier for him because he was a rookie. Not an excuse, it's the truth. When Manning was here people used to give just HIM credit for wins this team got. Now that Manning is gone I feel as if Luck is under a much more critical eye then even Peyton was even though he was just in his first year. Replacing Manning is a tougher challenge too then ANYTHING Wilson or RGIII will have to go through. Colts fans expect the playoffs every single season...it's a spoiled spoiled fanbase. Many worshipped Manning to the point it was down right sickening. Many have moved on though finally...thank God. The past was the past but this fanbase is spoiled and expects a top QB.

 

For a rookie Luck was going to fuck up at times and throw picks. No shit......it happens. He might throw picks next year. OH THE HORROR. No QB is perfect and it remains to be seen if our o line will improve and how the Pep Hamilton things works out.

 

And besides, I like my QBs to be able to show the ability to comeback in games even if they played like junk for 3 quarters. The ability to overcome diversity when your team needs you the most speaks volumes to me.

 

The Colts were 2-14 in 2011 and cleaned house when the season ended. We released a ton of veterans including our GM/HC/DC etc. etc. Anyone here who says they had us going 11-5 is LYING. But, at the same time nobody seems to want to give a lot of credit to Luck as well for helping us turn around and for reviving what looked like a dead franchise with a heavy rebuilding period ahead. They will give credit to Arians, to Pagano and his cancer story, to everything else but Luck. Oh and our easy schedule...haha. Look at the Pats and the shit schedules they sometimes play every year. Nobody makes excuses....They went to the SB in 2011 without beating a team over .500 until the Ravens in the AFCCG and they had incredible luck just getting by them.

 

 

People will believe and think what they WANT.

 

I realize it's all too soon though and honestly these young QBs are probably being overly analyzed and critiqued.

 

And for the record I was one of the Colts fans who fully supported the release of Peyton Manning and wanted to clean house and start over. I am also not saying Luck is the next Peyton either. They honestly do not even remind me much of each other in terms of personality and overall game so far. It's just that in MY fanbase it took a lot for people to move on from Manning and many have....so that is some big credit to Luck right there, he helped in just his first season many to move on from a legend.

 

 

 

JMO of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a report by Irsay that Polian thought about trading Manning in 2004.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/jim-irsay-bill-polian-wanted-trade-peyton-manning-194559209--nfl.html

 

Irsay is the one who chose Luck too and made the tough decision to rebuild with him. Rumor is/was that Polian was even becoming high on RGIII during the end of the 2011 season and Irsay was always high on Luck. So there was a clash possibly behind the scenes as well as what to do with Manning/the money he was due.

 

And the possiblility by Polian too of even keeping Manning and molding Luck/RGIII behind him a la Favre/Rodgers. Or the other possibility was trading the #1 pick for a bundle in return and making the most of the final Manning years with those picks. But, even then if we kept Manning there is no guarantee that these picks turn out good enough and develop fast enough. And this team has NO MONEY last year...

 

And it never made sense to me to have two QBs on the roster with one being the first overall pick in the draft. Luck+Peyton or RGIII+Peyton...didn't make sense. You had to make the decision to either go with Luck/RGIII or go with Manning for a final run. And Luck and his people had hinted for a while that they did not want to go to a team unless he was going to play right away too. And Luck was always Irsay's boy IMO. Not RGIII.

 

Keep in mind some of these are just rumors around "town" but a lot of Colts fans have heard them who live in Indiana.

 

 

There is some veiled discontent at times between Irsay and Polian that Colts fans noticed in recent years. So sometimes the truth might not what we think it is and sometimes I don't even know what to believe with what happens behinds the scenes.

Edited by Jules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Luck could have potentially started where Manning left off. The Colts, with the offensive efficiency they utilize have been able to do just fine with the variety of Olineman or RBs they have incorporated through the years.

 

What you saw last year with Luck was a completely different offense, philosophically. It was more of a "let's take 5 step drops and wing it" kind of offense than we ever saw it become under Manning. Now, while I don't want to get into a debate about Manning's supporting cast in Indy (as I generally think they are underrated)... However, with the offense Manning ran, he was able to negate a lot of the flaws that his lineman and backs may or may not have had.

 

Gone were the smart reads and quick decisions that have defined Manning's career and in to save the day was the massively overrated success-by-night Bruce Arians to destroy it all.

 

The inability to go through his progressions, bad decisions, and inaccuracy doomed the Colts. They drafted Andrew Luck to come in right away and be an all-star championship contending QB. They put the team on Andrew Luck's back... And then his knees gave way and was crushed under the tremendous weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just to throw this out there.. how much of the Colts' surprising success could be attributed to the emotional "lift" if you will of playing for a cause such as a seriously ill head coach?

 

I'm thinking not a whole lot, but the ability to reach down for the emotional inspiration is there. Sometimes a player or a team has nothing left in a game except something like that, and they can serve as a lifter over the short term. ("Win one for the Gipper!", and such.)

 

Luck played great, the defense really stepped up, and Reggie Wayne deserves a LOT of credit for giving his rookie QB the reliable veteran presence that often isn't translated when a young QB comes in after a legend has gone.

 

I guess the main question here, of the hotshot young QBs, who's got the highest chance of a Sophomore Slump? (I count Kaepernick even though he's not a rookie.)

Assuming everyone stays healthy, i'm thinking Wilson. for no other reason than I hope it's Wilson. I think of the group, they're the least conventional in that they expect and get more out of players who might not be able to do the same in another uniform.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being that I don't think they played all that well to begin with, probably not a lot. But I do think a lot of people underrated how much raw emotion can propel people and teams to perform beyond expectations. :yep:

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arians is known for running those long developing, deep pass plays. I'm interested to see how Luck does in a different style of offense. I think it will actually help him. His season last year is massively overrated though. I've never seen the media glamorize a 23 TD-18 INT season with a 75 passer rating as much as they have this past year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arians is known for running those long developing, deep pass plays. I'm interested to see how Luck does in a different style of offense. I think it will actually help him. His season last year is massively overrated though. I've never seen the media glamorize a 23 TD-18 INT season with a 75 passer rating as much as they have this past year.

 

The completion percentage scares me more, actually... Nearing the 50% mark is nearing the unemployment line in my book. Haha. But yes, getting away from the Arians offense should help that considerably. I am expecting a big jump this year for Luck. I hope he can deliver.

 

Even with limited OC experience, bringing in the guy who coached the offense under Luck for his senior season should help him a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are officially reaching the point of over analysis at times. ;)

 

We have no idea how any of these young men will perform in the next few years even though they ALL showed potential and flashes of potential greatness IMO as rookies. Of course though it does make for good conversation. :corn: I have faith Luck will develop and I have hope Hamilton is the right man to do so.

 

We can nitpick all we want with the stats and cherry pick those that mean the most to us. Before last season started I stated on the Colts forums that I was not going to be critical too much when it came to stats since I looking at the big picture too and signs of a solid foundation in place from top to bottom in the rebuild.

I looked more at the team stats at times then individual stats....and I have a tough time being overly critical when the defense was adjusting to a 3-4 and the offense had several rookies on it. I was more then thrilled as a fan of what the team accomplished and the ride they gave us. Yes there was an element of emotion brought into it too. This team loves Pagano as well, from day 1 when he arrived he energized the players/fans and gave rousing speeches. He presented the team even with shirts that had "#32" on them before their first preseason game to wear. 32 being their power ranking...it hit them all hard when he became so ill. If this continues over or not I don't know but the bottom line is they all need to get better and more fundamentally sound.

 

I think personally as a fan I am sick and tired of stats at times since in the Manning era all I heard about was the bragging of stats when the postseason was lackluster outside of a few seasons. So at times I felt left empty with nothing but great numbers with not much to show for it in January. I am hoping that this journey in Indy can eventually result in a few deep postseason runs though more then anything if they continue to build it right and I think they are trying...

 

What RGIII/Wilson do at times is interesting to watch from afar as a football fan but it's still a different conference to me and I consider neither a rival either. And Irsay IMO from everyone I heard was never going to not take Luck so there is never any second guessing from me. I feel we got the man we needed. I feel the Seahawks got the man they needed. I feel the Skins got the man they needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×