rm1369 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I haven't been following your discussion, but I can't say I've had that problem in my own experience with the a rare exception of a new poster here and there, but others in the community will back up respected opponents including Cowboys fans. I've certainly had some discussions with very good knowledgeable posters here, but way to often I get told nobody cares or wants to hear it. I was suspended at one point for telling someone to grow up and quit reading my posts if he didn't want to hear my opinion - after he followed several of my posts telling me to essentially shut up and go away. I post infrequently because of that mentality. Of course the majority of my posts are related to Luck, the Colts, or the development of RG3 - all very emotional topics. I've never tried to be inflammatory and always tried to be respectful. Maybe the topics I have an opinion on just lend themselves to that treatment. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 It's obviously not an argument anymore. Luck is vastly superior. Although I wonder if RG III never had the 2nd ACL tear, what he would have been. At this point, Luck is superior, although Robert was the better QB in 2012. Each year is different. What happens if Luck suffers a devastating knee injury like Carson Palmer and Dante Culpepper? Will he be the same player after that? You also have to factor in that Robert is learning a new system too. That said, as of right now, Luck is the better QB and looks to be the better QB in the future, barring a major injury to Luck or Robert somehow getting his mojo back under Gruden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Fans want to compare Luck and Wilson with RG3. Rather you all should be comparing the Colts and Seahawks organizations with ours - Not even in the same discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Fans want to compare Luck and Wilson with RG3. Rather you all should be comparing the Colts and Seahawks organizations with ours - Not even in the same discussion. Comparing Luck and Wilson is really not fair. Wilson benefitted from falling in the draft. He went to a good team with a great defense and running game. He is not required to carry the team the same way Luck is. If you take the two of them and put them on the other's team, it would be a farce. Wilson would not have the same success on the Colts. In general, I think QB's get too much credit and blame in a lot of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Comparing Luck and Wilson is really not fair. Wilson benefitted from falling in the draft. He went to a good team with a great defense and running game. He is not required to carry the team the same way Luck is. If you take the two of them and put them on the other's team, it would be a farce. Wilson would not have the same success on the Colts. In general, I think QB's get too much credit and blame in a lot of cases. and neither of them would have success with our abomination of a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Comparing Luck and Wilson is really not fair. Wilson benefitted from falling in the draft. He went to a good team with a great defense and running game. He is not required to carry the team the same way Luck is. If you take the two of them and put them on the other's team, it would be a farce. Wilson would not have the same success on the Colts. In general, I think QB's get too much credit and blame in a lot of cases. I agree with what you said about the Seahawks, but the Colts are in the easiest division in football. They will win that division every year by default. Their only threat in that division, and it's a very minor threat, is Houston. The Colts will be going to the playoffs every year for the next several years and neither of them would have success with our abomination of a team. I agree with this. I think if we had Luck, we'd be an 8-8 team. I think if Russell went to Cleveland, he wouldn't even be discussed in the headlines. We'd probably never hear from Wilson again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Comparing Luck and Wilson is really not fair. Wilson benefitted from falling in the draft. He went to a good team with a great defense and running game. He is not required to carry the team the same way Luck is. If you take the two of them and put them on the other's team, it would be a farce. Wilson would not have the same success on the Colts. In general, I think QB's get too much credit and blame in a lot of cases. I agree with first paragraph. But watching the games this weekend, they can't get enough credit, IMO. Some of the throws that the QBs were making were incredible, and really show the difference between a consistent contender and the rest of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I like Luck but just wish he wasn't a Colt. Does it tick anyone else off that the Colts basically get once in a lifetime type QBs back to back? I mean we can't even seem to find one, they get two pretty much back to back. It isn't even like the 49ers or Packers with Montana to Young or Favre to Rodgers because those teams didn't luck into the #1 picks the exact years the studs we're available. That fanbase simply has no clue what life is like without a stud QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo'sRangers Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 ...Of course the majority of my posts are related to Luck, the Colts, or the development of RG3 - all very emotional topics. I've never tried to be inflammatory and always tried to be respectful. Maybe the topics I have an opinion on just lend themselves to that treatment. I don't know. Therein lies the rub. We are a very disgruntled, demoralized, and kind of irate fan base at this moment (hell, for YEARS), and while your intent is noble, I'm sure, it's just not what we want to hear at this juncture. We kind of get tired of Luck posts and posts regarding RGIII. We get it. I am in no way being hostile to you, but just giving you the perspective from our, or at least my side, of the fence. We've had kind of a tough row to hoe, you know? Warhead36 described, very well, how many of us (myself to a T) may feel: "I like Luck but just wish he wasn't a Colt. Does it tick anyone else off that the Colts basically get once in a lifetime type QBs back to back? I mean we can't even seem to find one, they get two pretty much back to back. It isn't even like the 49ers or Packers with Montana to Young or Favre to Rodgers because those teams didn't luck into the #1 picks the exact years the studs we're available. That fanbase simply has no clue what life is like without a stud QB." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Luck is a beast. He will own the AFC for a decade with Manning and Brady at the end of their careers and Ben aging. Who is goingn to stop him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Luck is a beast. He will own the AFC for a decade with Manning and Brady at the end of their careers and Ben aging. Who is goingn to stop him? Balt will provide some action, but I agree, the conference is his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I like Luck but just wish he wasn't a Colt. Does it tick anyone else off that the Colts basically get once in a lifetime type QBs back to back? I mean we can't even seem to find one, they get two pretty much back to back. It isn't even like the 49ers or Packers with Montana to Young or Favre to Rodgers because those teams didn't luck into the #1 picks the exact years the studs we're available. That fanbase simply has no clue what life is like without a stud QB. haha yes! Although, I find the Packers even more annoying because they were like, "oh here's this guy that no one else seems to want, so what the hell let's take a flyer on him to see how he does...". This year's QB selection in the draft doesn't seem like it is going to help many teams either. I will be surprised if Mariota or Winston is even a top 15 QB in 3-4 years. They are most likely going to get thrown to the wolves early, and Mariota especially needs some developing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I agree with what you said about the Seahawks, but the Colts are in the easiest division in football. They will win that division every year by default. Their only threat in that division, and it's a very minor threat, is Houston. The Colts will be going to the playoffs every year for the next several years I agree with this. I think if we had Luck, we'd be an 8-8 team. I think if Russell went to Cleveland, he wouldn't even be discussed in the headlines. We'd probably never hear from Wilson again. Great points. Luck would do fine with us IMO. The colts O line has been terrible all year. Our o line is terrible. We have a running game, the colts do not. The colts TE's are probably better and WR is close, leaning towards colts. Luck would do fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I actually think Luck is going to be better than Peyton Manning. Luck can play in the cold weather without ****ting himself. **** you Irsay, **** you Colts. Assholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaTwelve Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I agree with first paragraph. But watching the games this weekend, they can't get enough credit, IMO. Some of the throws that the QBs were making were incredible, and really show the difference between a consistent contender and the rest of the league. Indeed. on 3rd downs, RW was 8/8 for 199 yards and 3 TDs re: the Luck vs. Wilson comparison - despite the "better team" argument - still quite a difference . . . Wilson 98.6 regular season rating 72/26 TD/INT 109.6 postseason rating 9/1 TD/INT Luck 86.6 regular season rating 86/43 TD/INT 77.8 postseason rating 9/10 TD/INT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I've addressed this so many times. Not sure why I bother anymore. It's easy to through out ignorant statements. I'll just ask one question and won't get into the rest that I usually do. Who is it you think tanked? The GM and son who were fired? Maybe it wasn't them. Maybe it was all of the coaches that were fired? Or was it the all the players that were let go - Freeney, Clark, Gary Bracket, etc? I want to know who it was that tanked so I can see how they benefitted? Because damn near everyone was let go. So who was it SPECIFICALLY that tanked? Let's just look at the numbers. Find a NFL team anywhere in NFL history that has statistics like this? So, for just one year they sucked? Find any team with the number one pick in the draft with numbers like these? 2014 - 11 wins 2013 - 11 wins 2012 - 11 wins 2011 - 2 wins - First pick in the draft 2010 - 10 wins 2009 - 14 wins 2008 - 12 wins 2007 - 13 wins 2006 - 12 wins 2005 - 14 wins 2004 - 12 wins 2003 - 12 wins 2002 - 10 wins 2001 - 6 wins 2000 - 10 wins 1999 - 13 wins Lastly, you need to explain when the coaches and players were let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rm1369 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Let's just look at the numbers. Find a NFL team anywhere in NFL history that has statistics like this? So, for just one year they sucked? Find any team with the number one pick in the draft with numbers like these? 2014 - 11 wins 2013 - 11 wins 2012 - 11 wins 2011 - 2 wins - First pick in the draft 2010 - 10 wins 2009 - 14 wins 2008 - 12 wins 2007 - 13 wins 2006 - 12 wins 2005 - 14 wins 2004 - 12 wins 2003 - 12 wins 2002 - 10 wins 2001 - 6 wins 2000 - 10 wins 1999 - 13 wins Lastly, you need to explain when the coaches and players were let go. Here is a copy of a reply I made in this thread previously -responding to your taking accusations: "Man this gets old.......Ok, let's start with who you think tanked specifically - the president who was fired, the GM who was fired, the coaches that were all fired, or all the players that were released? One of those guys had to be in on it, right? But all of them got canned for their effort and haven't said a word - including Bill Polian who is extremely pissed about the situation and had some verbal sparing with Irsay over Jim's comments about how he wanted to build his team this time. Next let's go to the fact they completely changed their offensive and defensive philosophy - switching from 4-3 to a 3-4 defensively. If you were secretly good and just tanked why do you change the coaches and, especially, the philosophy. I mean you realize that the switch requires completely different personnel right? 3rd, please tell me all of those great players the Colts kept around - I'll spot you Wayne, Mathis, Bethea, and the two kickers. How many more starters can you name? I'd guess none. You know why? Because those are the only starters that ever played with Manning. A WR, a DE that had to convert to OLB, a FS, and two kickers - sounds like the makings of a great team. I mean how have all those released players faired? The Colts have completely turned over there roster, so surely there are a bunch of former Colts out there tearing it up considering they were so talented. No? 4th, you do realize they won 2 of their last 3 games, only secured the pick the last week of the season, and only got the #1 pick by tie breaker, right? Why in the world do you cut it that close if you are tanking? It's really not that hard to understand - the Colts were 100% built around manning. He had surgery, they hoped / expected him back and signed the best option they could get to hold the fort down while he was out. They never carried a top backup during mannings tenure as the philosophy was to spend the money elsewhere and not many guys wanted to come to Indy as a backup because manning took all the snaps in practice and pretty much never came out of games. The Indy coaching staff was a joke (Caldwell), the D was 100% built around protecting a lead, and the offensive lined sucked - couldn't run block or pass protect without manning's recognition and quick decision making. Basically everything was built around one of the GOAT being under center and when he wasn't, the talent level sucked. Collins predictably got hurt behind the poor line and then it was the Curtis Painter / Dan Orlovsky show. It's funny hearing this from Skins fans considering the coaching staff and a knee injury took them from Division winners to 3 -13. You'd think you guys would understand how fragile it all is - especially when it comes to an injury at the QB position. Or are you guys tanking too? Edited to also say go look at the last 4 or 5 Colts drafts prior to the 2-12 year and tell me how many difference makers you see. Bill Polian's son had started having more and more input into decision making as bill pulled back. Bill and Chris also began running several longtime respected coaches out of Indy if they didn't bow down to the almighty and his son. Veteran respected coaches like Tom Moore and Howard Mudd. Again, you'd think a skins fan would understand the results of nepotism and total blind authority. The Colts just had it in a different position and it was the coach that was nothing but a figure head. Everyone knew who was making all the decisions - even who started. It was tolerated while Manning was here to cover it all by winning 10+ games! but the **** imploded when he was out." I think that should cover the questions you asked. Jim Irsay spent $8 million on Kerry Collins (best available FA QB remaining) when it was realized Manning likely wouldn't be back for the season opener. Collins sucked, but also was injured rather quickly - I believe week 3. That left Painter and Orlavsky. A great QB covers a lot of sins - those three QBs couldn't. If the Colts just plugged in Luck and kept winning 11 -13 games a season I could understand the thought they tanked. But they didn't. They changed nearly everything - coaches, players, and philosophy. The turnover in the organization was unbelievable. You just wouldn't do that if you were actually a good team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Indeed. on 3rd downs, RW was 8/8 for 199 yards and 3 TDs re: the Luck vs. Wilson comparison - despite the "better team" argument - still quite a difference . . . Wilson 98.6 regular season rating 72/26 TD/INT 109.6 postseason rating 9/1 TD/INT Luck 86.6 regular season rating 86/43 TD/INT 77.8 postseason rating 9/10 TD/INT Not a fair comparison. Wilson has one of the top three RB's in the game, probably the best D in the game. Luck has thrown the ball WAY more because he has NO running game and no O line and usually no defense. Luck has the burden of carrying his team on his shoulders. Wilson is doing a fantastic job, but, he has it easy compared to what Luck has to do. Think of it this way: When teams play the Colts, they know they are going to throw the ball and can't run well. They gameplan for Luck. When they play the Seahawks, the first thing they have to gameplan for is Lynch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaTwelve Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Not a fair comparison. Wilson has one of the top three RB's in the game, probably the best D in the game. Luck has thrown the ball WAY more because he has NO running game and no O line and usually no defense. Luck has the burden of carrying his team on his shoulders. Wilson is doing a fantastic job, but, he has it easy compared to what Luck has to do. Think of it this way: When teams play the Colts, they know they are going to throw the ball and can't run well. They gameplan for Luck. When they play the Seahawks, the first thing they have to gameplan for is Lynch. Maybe so but, even if that works, then they have to handle RW (see the Panthers game). No question that a huge key to the Hawks success is Lynch and the DEE but, despite not being much of and "air team" they still lead the league in explosive plays differential . . . http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/toxic-differential/2014/ So, even when a team is able to contain Lynch, they have to deal with RW who can get it done in more ways than one. Anyway - should be two great games this weekend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Maybe so but, even if that works, then they have to handle RW (see the Panthers game). No question that a huge key to the Hawks success is Lynch and the DEE but, despite not being much of and "air team" they still lead the league in explosive plays differential . . . http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/toxic-differential/2014/ So, even when a team is able to contain Lynch, they have to deal with RW who can get it done in more ways than one. Anyway - should be two great games this weekend! When you have a running game (Lynch), it forces teams to come up to the line of scrimmage and try to shut that down which makes it much much easier for Wilson. Explosive plays result because more resources are used to stop the run and it opens the door for big passing plays. I'm not saying Wilson sucks, I'm just saying his success is largely because he has so much focus not on him, but on the running game and he has the luxury of the best D in the NFL. Luck has neither of those. Teams know Luck has to throw the ball and he still has success. If the colts don't put more talent around him, he's going to be the next Dan Marino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Andrew about to strike it rich: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12188779/indianapolis-colts-working-parameters-blockbuster-deal-andrew-luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Andrew about to strike it rich: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12188779/indianapolis-colts-working-parameters-blockbuster-deal-andrew-luck The crazy thing is, you can argue he's getting underpaid. In a real open market with no salary cap he could get $300 Million and would be deserving of every penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Definitely the new Peyton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arftech Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 His play is putrid! HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If the Colts just plugged in Luck and kept winning 11 -13 games a season I could understand the thought they tanked. But they didn't. They changed nearly everything - coaches, players, and philosophy. The turnover in the organization was unbelievable. You just wouldn't do that if you were actually a good team. Not really going to comment about your entire post as you prove many of my points. People knew this, philosophy changed, didn't have the personnel etc., kind of proves my point if you stop and turn it around. But, all I will do is reference your last point. They DID just plug in Luck and have three consecutive 11 win seasons. That they changed everything just continues my point. They tanked, and then rebuilt. Exactly like one would expect. What do you think they would do, continue to tank after they drafted their next franchise QB? You can't do that, you have to win in this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.