HTTR24-7: NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year: A Two Horse Race

[KCClybun]

Arians and the Colts targeted their TEs 109 times for 68 catches 780 yards (despite Fleener missing games due to injury)

Lol, how can anyone in their right mind knock Arians (a 2 time SB champion OC) coaching this season? its too absurd to even argue

Luck and Arians are such a poor match and the scheme is so terrible that their offense is top 10 in yards; at 10-5 they're playoff bound, Luck is being considered by many (not me btw) for rookie of the year largely based on his 4,183 yard passing total

Their offense is top 10 in yards and they have 10 wins against a who's who or "WHO!?".

Yes, I know they've beaten such defensive juggernauts as the Cleveland Browns (26th), Tennessee Titans (25th), Detroit Lions (19th versus the pass), Buffalo Bills (22nd), and Kansas City Chiefs (24th against the pass). Hell, even Green Bay has the 21st passing defense and Minnesota is middle of the pack at 13th.

Luck's had two games this season where he looked like was supposed to look against any sort of pass defense; versus the Dolphins in week 9 and in week 10 versus the Jags. For most of the season, he has not played well. At all. To suggest otherwise is to fool one's self. The yardage is gaudy and everything else is awful.

Over Luck's last four games, he's completing 47% of his passes, for 8 touchdowns and 5 interceptions. Which doesn't count the picks the defense drops, and if I can be bothered sometime this week I'll go back and count the number of balls that get dropped by the defense. He threw three INTs versus the Lions and he could've easily thrown two more, including two on his game winning drive. That's not counting the one he nearly threw into triple coverage when he had a guy wide open for an easy first down.

Also, Arians is not a two time Super Bowl winning OC. He was the Wide Receivers coach in 2005. He was the OC in 2008, which was also the season Ben got sacked 46 times and the season Ben had his worse statistical season. Arians should thank his lucky stars he worked with Ben, since Ben was able to bail him out with his ability to scramble and create plays outside the design off the offense.

The myth of Andrew Luck's incredible rookie season does not quite live up to the reality of Luck's mediocre rookie season. They've barely squeaked out victories versus the two teams they've played that have a winning record (Green Bay and Minnesota) and been blown out in 4 of their 5 losses (they lost 9-35 to the friggin' Jets. THE JETS.), in no small part to Luck not playing well. Coby Fleener averages 2.5 catches a game. Dwayne Allen averages 3 catches a game and 33 yards a game with 0.2 touchdowns a game.

I don't say Andrew Luck's not playing well and that Arians scheme sucks just because I'm bagging on the Colts. I say because I watch their games, and I think they've had a fair amount of good luck. I think they've had a lightweight schedule. I think Colts offense is great at creating big splash plays but sucks at being efficient. I think Luck's decision making in many cases has been questionable regardless of the scheme. I think his accuracy has been squirrely and his arm strength has been lacking. And I say that because I watch the tape and try and study it to better learn it, particularly because I'm better versed on West Coast Offense concepts and I try to learn more about the vertical "Air Coryell" offenses.

I think the great coordinators adapt and change their schemes to become more efficient and better run overtime, and I think you can tell when certain coaches let go and stop coaching their quarterbacks.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

So when someone points to their offense and proclaims they don't target their TEs its would be as wronged headed as saying Kyle doesn't target TEs no?

You literally just ignored the massive gulf in talent between Fleener/Allen and Paulsen/Paul/7 games of Davis. Fleener and Allen are both #1 TEs in this league. Paul is a pure special teamer and Paulsen is a 2nd or 3rd TE.

Its crazy to compare Rex to Luck. And I think comp% is one of the most overrated/over valued measures of the passing game.

Overrated in what sense? It's a highly important stat but it should be looked at in context. For example, certain schemes will increase or decrease a passing game's completion percentage. However, you need other stats to support the fact that a passing offense with a low completion percentage is productive. Where are those stats with Luck? The only good stat Luck has is yardage, but that seems to be more a product of volume as opposed to efficiency. Luck is well below average in nearly every measure of QB *efficiency*.

And the Rex Grossman comparison is valid, because Rex turned the ball over a lot while passing for a lot of yards in volume (the 2011 Redskins were 14th in passing yardage, and Grossman only started 13 games), just like Luck is doing now. Just because the comparison makes Luck look bad doesn't make it invalid.

And you ignored the turnovers completely, or the fact that Luck's offense is actually fairly bad at scoring.

[darrelgreenie]

Their offense is top 10 in yards and they have 10 wins against a who's who or "WHO!?".

Like every team in the NFL they play whomever is on their schedule and last I checked they don't pick and choose their schedule. You can invent clever arguments against the facts but the facts remain. The Colts are top 10 in yards and they have 10 wins.

Neither support your whole 'Arians is terrible' theory

Also, Arians is not a two time Super Bowl winning OC.

Okay, but he does have a SB as an OC correct? And even his lone SB as an OC goes against your 'Arains is terrible' routine.

The rest of your post and its arguments against Luck have nothing to do with me; only that you have incorrect assumption of my view.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Like every team in the NFL they play whomever is on their schedule and last I checked they don't pick and choose their schedule. You can invent clever arguments against the facts but the facts remain. The Colts are top 10 in yards and they have 10 wins.

Neither support your whole 'Arians is terrible' theory

And you can cherrypick the facts that support your pre-existing biases, but the facts that you ignore still remain. The Colts are a bottom 10 scoring offense and their 10 wins have come against terrible teams. Did they pick the teams they play? No. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it just because you want to argue that they're a good team. It's called using context and critical thinking.

Okay, but he does have a SB as an OC correct? And even his lone SB as an OC goes against your 'Arains is terrible' routine.

So the guy who was the OC of the 2000 Ravens is better than Kyle Shanahan or Josh McDaniels right? Josh McDaniels didn't win a SB as an OC, only got to the SB as an OC. Or how about Ryan Dennison? This is just pure cherrypicking in a ridiculous manner.

The rest of your post and its arguments against Luck have nothing to do with me; only that you have incorrect assumption of my view.

>I can't refute arguments so I'll just assume you're too stupid to understand my views

Basically, either you can't provide a counter or don't feel like it. So why should I bother debating with you?

[Going Commando]

Arians is a good coach. I think it's remarkable how he's kept that team together while Pagano was gone. But I do not think his offense is a good fit for Luck and I do not think Arians is a great playcaller because of his failure to adjust here. Your QB is playing very inefficient and turning the ball over a ton, you need to make adjustments to get him comfortable IMO. Luck leads the league in passes over 20 yards. A rookie with 55% completions and a weak running game to support him should not be running that kind of system. It's just bad football. If the Colts hadn't played such a weak schedule, the problem would have become acute and they would have lost a ton more games.

[darrelgreenie]

You literally just ignored the massive gulf in talent between Fleener/Allen and Paulsen/Paul/7 games of Davis. Fleener and Allen are both #1 TEs in this league. Paul is a pure special teamer and Paulsen is a 2nd or 3rd TE.

If the argument that Arians doesn't target TEs is based on the actual TE targets then you either have to admit that Kyle doesn't target TEs either or that there is nothing wrong with how often Arians targets TEs.

Overrated in what sense? It's a highly important stat but it should be looked at in context. For example, certain schemes will increase or decrease a passing game's completion percentage.

For a bunch of reasons but for brevity sake (a) peopel confuse comp% with accuracy ( comp% vary based on scheme © comp% by itself doesn't really convey anything meaningful about the passing offense or the QB i.e. a QB could have a high comp% yet lead an inept offense etc...

And the Rex Grossman comparison is valid, because Rex turned the ball over a lot while passing for a lot of yards in volume (the 2011 Redskins were 14th in passing yardage, and Grossman only started 13 games), just like Luck is doing now. Just because the comparison makes Luck look bad doesn't make it invalid.

And you ignored the turnovers completely, or the fact that Luck's offense is actually fairly bad at scoring.

If you cannot see that a QBs rookie season and a career journeyman QB past season don't make for apples to apples comparisons; then I won't be able to explain it you.

And further your argument comparing Rex to Luck don't have any bearing on any points I've made about Luck.

Do you even know my view about Luck?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

If the argument that Arians doesn't target TEs is based on the actual TE targets then you either have to admit that Kyle doesn't target TEs either or that there is nothing wrong with how often Arians targets TEs.

Arians's targeting of TEs would be understandable if he had bad tight ends, like we do. However, he has 2 highly skilled and athletic TEs.

For a bunch of reasons but for brevity sake (a) peopel confuse comp% with accuracy ( comp% vary based on scheme © comp% by itself doesn't really convey anything meaningful about the passing offense or the QB i.e. a QB could have a high comp% yet lead an inept offense etc...

Which is what I said, and you yet again blatantly ignored. I never said comp% by itself suggested that the offense was good, I said that completion percentage could vary based on scheme, but a passing offense that didn't produce high comp% would have to show proficiency in other metrics to compensate (because most productive passing offenses have high comp%). Where are these metrics in the case of Luck? Luck is below average in YPA, touchdowns per passes thrown, and godawful in interceptions. The Colts offense is bottom 10 in points scored as well. And if it's the scheme that is producing poor metrics for the Colts, then how can you defend Arians as an OC?

If you cannot see that a QBs rookie season and a career journeyman QB past season don't make for apples to apples comparisons; then I won't be able to explain it you.

Why is it not an apples to apples comparison? We're looking at their play through the prism of individual seasons, not talent or upside. Regardless of Luck's skillset, his production is similar to Grossman's.

[darrelgreenie]

And you can cherrypick the facts that support your pre-existing biases, but the facts that you ignore still remain. The Colts are a bottom 10 scoring offense and their 10 wins have come against terrible teams. Did they pick the teams they play? No. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it just because you want to argue that they're a good team. It's called using context and critical thinking.

lol, Cherry picking? You're attempting to discount the facts: The Colts have a top 10 offense and are a 10 win team bound for the playoffs. Nothing you post changes those facts.

So the guy who was the OC of the 2000 Ravens is better than Kyle Shanahan or Josh McDaniels right? Josh McDaniels didn't win a SB as an OC, only got to the SB as an OC. Or how about Ryan Dennison? This is just pure cherrypicking in a ridiculous manner.

When all else fails just trot out some strawmen? Show me where I said the above then you'll get a response.

>I can't refute arguments so I'll just assume you're too stupid to understand my views....

Basically, either you can't provide a counter or don't feel like it. So why should I bother debating with you?

Try: I don't feel the need to respond nor argue about points that I''m not making.

---------- Post added December-25th-2012 at 12:36 AM ----------

Arians's targeting of TEs would be understandable if he had bad tight ends, like we do. However, he has 2 highly skilled and athletic TEs.

If Arians doesn't target TEs but Kyle targets TEs less then either Kyle doesn't target TEs either or there is nothing wrong with how often Arians targets TEs.

Which is what I said, and you yet again blatantly ignored. I never said comp% by itself suggested that the offense was good, I said that completion percentage could vary based on scheme, but a passing offense that didn't produce high comp% would have to show proficiency in other metrics to compensate (because most productive passing offenses have high comp%). Where are these metrics in the case of Luck? Luck is below average in YPA, touchdowns per passes thrown, and godawful in interceptions. The Colts offense is bottom 10 in points scored as well. And if it's the scheme that is producing poor metrics for the Colts, then how can you defend Arians as an OC?

You asked, I answered. I made a specific statement. Show me where I'm making the other arguments you mention above and I'll respond.

Why is it not an apples to apples comparison? We're looking at their play through the prism of individual seasons, not talent or upside. Regardless of Luck's skillset, his production is similar to Grossman's.

I'll start with the obvious Luck is a rookie.

[KCClybun]

Okay, but he does have a SB as an OC correct? And even his lone SB as an OC goes against your 'Arains is terrible' routine.

As me and RGE both pointed out, in 2008, Big Ben was sacked 46 times and put up his worst season as a pro. Their offense was 20th in points, 22nd in total yards, 20th in passing and 23rd in rushing. Even during their playoff run, their offense was pretty "meh". The Steelers defense played out of their minds that season and bailed them out of some bad stretches.

Compare that to 2005, where Ben missed three games, but the Steelers offense was ranked 9th in points, 15th in yards, 24th in passing but 5th in rushing. It's not as flashy, but they were efficient, they ran the ball, they protected Ben (sacked 23 times, 32 sacks overall between all the QBs).

And in '04, Wisenhunt coached Big Ben to one of the best rookie seasons in NFL history. They didn't do it by chucking the ball around a whole lot, but they played smart, efficient offense, didn't turn the ball over, and run the rock. Ben's stats weren't gaudy, but they didn't have to be.

Ultimately, that's my biggest beef with the whole Luck thing; this idea that he's "doing more and is trusted with more and that's why he's playing erratically but he's winning so it's okay". If he's playing erratically and is being asked to do too much, wouldn't the common sense thing be to simplify things for him? Not in an insulting "you're dumb" way, but in a "we wouldn't need to make all this comebacks if you played a smidge better" way. Maybe running more of the concepts Luck ran at Stanford, trying to lean on the run game some more to balance the offense, utilizing the relationship between Fleener and Dwayne Allen more. And then maybe Luck wouldn't have gawdy yardage numbers, but he'd have less turnovers and more efficient play.

Simply making it to the Super Bowl does not make you "great", or even good in some cases. Sometimes people are just along for the ride. Arians is a poor man's Mike Martz. Maybe not even that, because while Martz system was outdated and he was stubborn, the guy came up with some brilliant passing concepts. Arians has the stubborn "I'm going to run 7 step drops with only 5-6 man protection and hardly ever run the ball" mentality without any of the creativity that occasionally makes up for it.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

lol, Cherry picking? You're attempting to discount the facts: The Colts have a top 10 offense and are a 10 win team bound for the playoffs. Nothing you post changes those facts.

And ignoring, as you continue to do, their league lead in turnovers and their bottom 20 scoring offense doesn't change those facts either. Instead of ignoring their 22nd ranked offense and 32nd ranked TO rate, tell me why their raw yardage rate and their win total against mediocre teams is relevant? And while you're at it, tell me why it doesn't matter that the Colts have one win against a winning team?

When all else fails just trot out some strawmen? Show me where I said the above then you'll get a response.

You keep bringing up Arians's SB win as a counter to my assertion that Arians is a bad OC. My response was to point out how absurd that contention is by comparing Matt Cavanaugh of the 2000 Ravens to Kyle Shanahan and Josh McDaniels. If your assertion is true, then Cavanaugh would be better than McDaniels and Shanahan because he has a SB ring as an OC and the latter two do not.

Also the fact that Luck is a rookie is irrelevant, unless you're saying that Luck should be graded on a curve solely because he's a rookie and Grossman wasn't last year.

[darrelgreenie]

Arians is a good coach. I think it's remarkable how he's kept that team together while Pagano was gone. But I do not think his offense is a good fit for Luck and I do not think Arians is a great playcaller because of his failure to adjust here. Your QB is playing very inefficient and turning the ball over a ton, you need to make adjustments to get him comfortable IMO. Luck leads the league in passes over 20 yards. A rookie with 55% completions and a weak running game to support him should not be running that kind of system. It's just bad football.

Luck is a rookie, and his skillset had led Arains to run a wide open offense that attacks downfield.

The result is a top 10 offense. Could Arains run an offense that possibly produces a higher comp%? Sure; but it would likely come at the expense of the chunk yardage pass plays which would reduce the yards.

The aim isn't to pump up Luck's stats or comp% the goal was to field a productive offense that helps them win games. Its hard to make an argument against the success of Arains offense in those regards.

[Destino]

For a bunch of reasons but for brevity sake (a) peopel confuse comp% with accuracy ( comp% vary based on scheme © comp% by itself doesn't really convey anything meaningful about the passing offense or the QB i.e. a QB could have a high comp% yet lead an inept offense etc...

Comp% is not accuracy. It's more than that. It speaks to decision making, the offense, talent of receivers, and its also a major element in offensive efficiency. If the pass that isn't completed is the same as a rushing attempt that goes for no gain. It's a wasted down.

If anything I'd argue that comp % is under rated. The most over rated passing stat is yardage.

[darrelgreenie]

And ignoring, as you continue to do, their league lead in turnovers and their bottom 20 scoring offense doesn't change those facts either. Instead of ignoring their 22nd ranked offense and 32nd ranked TO rate, tell me why their raw yardage rate and their win total against mediocre teams is relevant? And while you're at it, tell me why it doesn't matter that the Colts have one win against a winning team?

Do the Colts have a top 10 offense? And are they a 10 win team bound for the playoffs? Nothing you post changes those facts. You can beg and bemoan them all you want, those facts remain.

You keep bringing up Arians's SB win as a counter to my assertion that Arians is a bad OC.

Although its not my sole counter it is one them. And quite obviously being the OC for a SB runs carries some cache that goes against the notion that he's 'terrible' no? Or does that suggest that he's a bad OC?

Also the fact that Luck is a rookie is irrelevant, unless you're saying that Luck should be graded on a curve solely because he's a rookie and Grossman wasn't last year.

Now you're on to something. Peyton Manning threw ~27 INTs as rookie very Grossmanesque huh?

[Destino]

Luck is a rookie, and his skillset had led Arains to run a wide open offense that attacks downfield.

The result is a top 10 offense. Could Arains run an offense that possibly produces a higher comp%? Sure; but it would likely come at the expense of the chunk yardage pass plays which would reduce the yards.

The aim isn't to pump up Luck's stats or comp% the goal was to field a productive offense that helps them win games. Its hard to make an argument against the success of Arains offense in those regards.

Top yen in yardage but only 18th in scoring. You know who has offenses in the top ten points per game? RG3 and Wilson.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Do the Colts have a top 10 offense? And are they a 10 win team bound for the playoffs? Nothing you post changes those facts. You can beg and bemoan them all you want, those facts remain.

Are the Colts a bottom 10 SCORING offense?

Are the Colts the worst team in the NFL in turning the ball over?

Nothing you post changes those facts. Ignore those facts all you want, those facts remain.

Although its not my sole counter it is one them. And quite obviously being the OC for a SB runs carries some cache that goes against the notion that he's 'terrible' no? Or does that suggest that he's a bad OC?

So the actual production of the offense (20th in scoring the SB year) is irrelevant?

Now you're on to something. Peyton Manning threw ~27 INTs as rookie very Grossmanesque huh?

He also threw 26 TDs in a league it was much harder to pass in, with arguably less team support (fun fact, Faulk was only slightly more productive running in 1998 than the Colts stable of RBs this year), against the toughest schedule in the NFL at the time. Again, context matters. You don't get to rip numbers out of context or ignore the numbers you don't like because you're wedded to a point.

[darrelgreenie]

Top yen in yardage but only 18th in scoring. You know who has offenses in the top ten points per game? RG3 and Wilson.

Destino, have read my posts concerning ROY? If so what do you think they are?

[Going Commando]

Luck is a rookie, and his skillset had led Arains to run a wide open offense that attacks downfield.

The result is a top 10 offense. Could Arains run an offense that possibly produces a higher comp%? Sure; but it would likely come at the expense of the chunk yardage pass plays which would reduce the yards.

The aim isn't to pump up Luck's stats or comp% the goal was to field a productive offense that helps them win games. Its hard to make an argument against the success of Arains offense in those regards.

I think a lot of that success in the W/L column comes from dumb luck with the scheduling. When the Colts played Houston and the Pats, they got stomped and the offense ground to a total halt. That outcome would have been much more common against a schedule like ours.

If they played a harder schedule that offense would not be working with Luck IMO. His inefficiency and turnovers and his offense's inability to run the ball, sustain drives, and control ToP would have become acute problems that would have led to far more losses. Their competition hasn't been strong enough to capitalize on those serious weaknesses.

But as often happens for teams that overachieve in the W/L department one year, they fall back to Earth against the much harder schedule that usually awaits them the next season. I bet it happens with Luck next season and people will be wondering why Luck hasn't progressed like he should if the Colts keep Arians.

[KCClybun]

Luck is a rookie, and his skillset had led Arains to run a wide open offense that attacks downfield.

The result is a top 10 offense. Could Arains run an offense that possibly produces a higher comp%? Sure; but it would likely come at the expense of the chunk yardage pass plays which would reduce the yards.

The aim isn't to pump up Luck's stats or comp% the goal was to field a productive offense that helps them win games. Its hard to make an argument against the success of Arains offense in those regards.

It's easy to make an argument against it.

They're sixth in the league in passing attempts and 16th in rush attempts. If you take away Andrew Luck's scrambles, they'd ranked 27th in the league.

So they've got 600 pass attempts and 350 rushing attempts. Basically, they're passing it twice as many times as they're running it. Luck averages 40 pass attempts a game. What you have here is exactly what happened with Rex and Beck last year, and McNabb the year before; a high number of attempts artificially inflating the yardage total and masking the inefficiency of an otherwise stagnant offense.

Yardage (particularly passing yardage) is a bad indicator of whether any offense is productive.

If your argument is "it doesn't matter because they're winning", fine. I know you like Arians more "aggressive" style of offense over the more constrained offense Kyle has run with RG3.

Ironically enough, we've had the exact inverse of this argument numerous times before Kyle got RG3, wherein you'd argue that because Rex wasn't playing well the fact that our pass-to-run ratio was about 1.7-to-1 was too much, and Kyle needed to run the ball more and was ignoring things Mike did in Denver because he was a pass happy coordinator, and that the yardage didn't matter. Now you're arguing the exact opposite. What a difference a year makes.

---------- Post added December-25th-2012 at 01:30 AM ----------

I think a lot of that success in the W/L column comes from dumb luck with the scheduling. When the Colts played Houston and the Pats, they got stomped and the offense ground to a total halt. That outcome would have been much more common against a schedule like ours.

If they played a harder schedule that offense would not be working with Luck IMO. His inefficiency and turnovers and his offense's inability to run the ball, sustain drives, and control ToP would have become acute problems that would have led to far more losses. Their competition hasn't been strong enough to capitalize on those serious weaknesses.

But as often happens for teams that overachieve in the W/L department one year, they fall back to Earth against the much harder schedule that usually awaits them the next season. I bet it happens with Luck next season and people will be wondering why Luck hasn't progressed like he should if the Colts keep Arians.

It's like the 2010-2011 Bucs.

In 2010, the Bucs went 10-6, even beat New Orleans. The next season, they got off to a good start, then fell off a cliff and lost 9 straight games.

[darrelgreenie]

I think a lot of that success in the W/L column comes from dumb luck with the scheduling. When the Colts played Houston and the Pats, they got stomped and the offense ground to a total halt. That outcome would have been much more common against a schedule like ours.

I think people do disservice to the NFL when they claim teams win because of luck. Its hard to score a TD in the NFL let alone win A game.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I think people do disservice to the NFL when they claim teams win because of luck. Its hard to score a TD in the NFL let alone win A game.

So you think that the Jaguars, Chiefs, Bills and Titans are as good as the Niners, Patriots, Steelers, Bengals or Ravens? If not, then why is it controversial to say that the Colts have more wins because they've played easier teams? You're implying that the schedule doesn't matter in determining the "worth" of a 10-5 record, but that could only be true if there was little difference in quality between "bad teams" and "good teams".

[darrelgreenie]

If your argument is "it doesn't matter because they're winning", fine. I know you like Arians more "aggressive" style of offense over the more constrained offense Kyle has run with RG3.

Another false assumption.

Ironically enough, we've had the exact inverse of this argument numerous times before Kyle got RG3, wherein you'd argue that because Rex wasn't playing well the fact that our pass-to-run ratio was about 1.7-to-1 was too much, and Kyle needed to run the ball more and was ignoring things Mike did in Denver because he was a pass happy coordinator, and that the yardage didn't matter. Now you're arguing the exact opposite. What a difference a year makes.

This too is false. You can go back and look. Rex wasn't a rookie and had long since established himself as turnover machine. On the other hand Kyle had the keys to a scheme that produced 100 yard rushers seemingly at whim given a willingness to stick to the run. In short our run game and scheme were better then the pieces to our passing game. Yet, we passed the ball far more then we ran.

Do you see the difference?

And if you remember Kyle started added and doing some of the very things that were absent in the Kyles offense that were present in Mike's Denver offenses like the toss/pitch.

BTW-What is our pass-run ratio this year?

Also, you're fabricating me saying yardage doesn't matter.

I can appreciate more then one style offense. In the end I appreciate production and results (W/L).

---------- Post added December-25th-2012 at 01:44 AM ----------

So you think that the Jaguars, Chiefs, Bills and Titans are as good as the Niners, Patriots, Steelers, Bengals or Ravens?

Even though I haven't said anything remotely close to this it must be what I mean right? Obviously this must be my intent.

[KCClybun]

Even though I haven't said anything remotely close to this it must be what I mean right? Obviously this must be my intent.

You could always answer his question.

Are you not taking the quality of the Colts opponents into account when judging whether or not Luck/Arians/the Colts are having a good season?

[darrelgreenie]

Are you not taking the quality of the Colts opponents into account when judging whether or not Luck/Arians/the Colts are having a good season?

No. I'm judging them based on the W/L record the same way I judge any team.

Until they start adjusting W/L based on strength of schedule I'll continue to look at W/L record. An easy strength of schedule (like we had in 2011) doesn't mean a team is going to have a good season e.g. the Bills. tLook at the Patriots they have an easier sos then the Colts does that take away from their W/L record?

Teams can only play whomever is on their schedule.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

No. I'm judging them based on the W/L record the same way I judge any team.

So that would mean that one 10-6 team is equal to another 10-6 team, correct? After all, you're judging the team by W/L, divorced from context. It doesn't matter if Team X played 16 Super Bowl contending teams and beat them and Team Y played 16 bottomfeeders.

Until they start adjusting W/L based on strength of schedule I'll continue to look at W/L record. An easy strength of schedule (like we had in 2011) doesn't mean a team is going to have a good season e.g. the Bills.

PFR rates our 2011 schedule as #6 in the NFL in terms of SoS. The Bills had a slightly below average schedule but it was one of the best schedules in the AFC. The Colts, in contrast, had the worst SoS in football.

tLook at the Patriots they have an easier sos then the Colts does that take away from their W/L record?

Untrue, the Patriots have a poor SoS but nowhere near as bad as the Colts. The difference is that the Patriots generally blow out weak teams on their schedule, though not this week.

[Disco Dave]

I think that RG3 should win offensive rookie of the year but I have a feeling Luck is going to win it.