Taylor703 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The idea that Irsay didn't tank is so laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikered30 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I wonder if he will still get $25 million a year deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The idea that Irsay didn't tank is so laughable. Â I've only seen Colts fans claim this, which says a great deal to me. Â Why deny it? They sucked for Luck and now they only suck against the Patriots. It was a smart move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I've only seen Colts fans claim this, which says a great deal to me. Why deny it? They sucked for Luck and now they only suck against the Patriots. It was a smart move. I don't even know why they argue it? It's not like admitting it will take Andrew Luck away. It was the most obvious tank job that I've personally ever witnessed. The only one that was more obvious might've been the celtics tanking for Tim Duncan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morrison J Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 SportsPickle @sportspickle · 30m30 minutes ago Don't worry, Colts fans. Andrew Luck will get a Super Bowl ring if he gets to play in a Super Bowl against Rex Grossman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 As I said in the other thread, Luck managed to play a worse game against the Pats than the one Tebow effectively had his career ended in. I appreciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Â although Robert was the better QB in 2012. No, no way. Luck should have been the Rookie of the Year, not Griffin. Â Luck was on a 2-14 team. No one predicted that the Colts would make the playoffs, but they did. Â Everyone who was anyone predicted that Griffin would do better because he was on a better team in a better situation. Â Griffin did not have to carry the Redskins. Â The R/O changes the game. Â Teams have to crash in to stop the run and people end up wide open downfield (see Seattle). Â Even in the Seattle game, they are down 2 scores and they are not throwing downfield, they are running the ball and running the R/O which resulted in huge gains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KuNiT21 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 No, no way. Luck should have been the Rookie of the Year, not Griffin. Â Luck was on a 2-14 team. No one predicted that the Colts would make the playoffs, but they did. Â Everyone who was anyone predicted that Griffin would do better because he was on a better team in a better situation. Â Griffin did not have to carry the Redskins. Â The R/O changes the game. Â Teams have to crash in to stop the run and people end up wide open downfield (see Seattle). Â Even in the Seattle game, they are down 2 scores and they are not throwing downfield, they are running the ball and running the R/O which resulted in huge gains. Â What? Â He threw 23 TDs with 18 INT's. Â The Colts were 2-14 because they blew the season on purpose to get Luck. Â If they had any sense of urgency to win, they wouldn't of been starting Curtis Painter every single game. Â We were that much of a better team coming off a 3 win season? Â Come on man that is just crazy talk. Â RG3 deserved rookie of the year fair and square. Â He was the reason this team went 10-6 RO or not. Â I don't drink the RG3 coolaid at all, but he deserved ROTY no doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 No, no way. Luck should have been the Rookie of the Year, not Griffin.  Luck was on a 2-14 team. No one predicted that the Colts would make the playoffs, but they did.  Everyone who was anyone predicted that Griffin would do better because he was on a better team in a better situation.  Griffin did not have to carry the Redskins.  The R/O changes the game.  Teams have to crash in to stop the run and people end up wide open downfield (see Seattle).  Even in the Seattle game, they are down 2 scores and they are not throwing downfield, they are running the ball and running the R/O which resulted in huge gains. They didn't/don't have to throw it downfield because they know their defense will get 3 and outs. There are only 2-3 defenses in the league that can do that on a consistent basis. Their D only gave up 22 points in the game, despite their offense/ST giving the ball away 5 times to one of the most prolific offenses in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 No, no way. Luck should have been the Rookie of the Year, not Griffin. Luck was on a 2-14 team. No one predicted that the Colts would make the playoffs, but they did. Everyone who was anyone predicted that Griffin would do better because he was on a better team in a better situation. Griffin did not have to carry the Redskins. The R/O changes the game. Teams have to crash in to stop the run and people end up wide open downfield (see Seattle). Even in the Seattle game, they are down 2 scores and they are not throwing downfield, they are running the ball and running the R/O which resulted in huge gains. RGIII had the greatest rookie season of all time. Not to mention even Russell Wilson had a better rookie season than Luck. He didn't even deserve to come in second in the voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 RGIII had the greatest rookie season of all time. Not to mention even Russell Wilson had a better rookie season than Luck. He didn't even deserve to come in second in the voting.  Don't agree at all.  I've heard many ESPN/Fox/National media say the same (that Luck should have been RoY).  Just looked up "Greatest Rookie QB seasons on Google" and RG3 is on none of the lists (neither is Luck or Wilson).  Most list Marino or Cam Newton.  Marino only started 9 games but was a beast.  They didn't/don't have to throw it downfield because they know their defense will get 3 and outs. There are only 2-3 defenses in the league that can do that on a consistent basis. Their D only gave up 22 points in the game, despite their offense/ST giving the ball away 5 times to one of the most prolific offenses in the league.  But again, when the seahawks are down, they don't throw the ball like most teams to come back (as seen in the GB game), they run the R/O with Lynch and Wilson primarily running.  Wilson is not a pure passer, if he didn't have the option to run, I'm not sure he'd be that effective.  Can't prove it, but in the beginning of the GB game, he was trying to pass more and it didn't work out well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 You don't have to agree with me, Luck didn't have as good a year as Wilson or RGIII. He never should've won RoTY and didn't. All three made the playoffs and two of them had better numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I like Luck but RG3 was absolutely incredible his rookie year. He wasn't just the best rookie, Jimmie Johnson said he was a legit MVP candidate. Obviously his career has gone into the pooper since then but when it comes to rookie years, RG3 has Luck and just about every QB ever beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 You don't have to agree with me, Luck didn't have as good a year as Wilson or RGIII. He never should've won RoTY and didn't. All three made the playoffs and two of them had better numbers. Yeah, but Code googled it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What? Â He threw 23 TDs with 18 INT's. Â The Colts were 2-14 because they blew the season on purpose to get Luck. Â If they had any sense of urgency to win, they wouldn't of been starting Curtis Painter every single game. Â We were that much of a better team coming off a 3 win season? Â Come on man that is just crazy talk. Â RG3 deserved rookie of the year fair and square. Â He was the reason this team went 10-6 RO or not. Â I don't drink the RG3 coolaid at all, but he deserved ROTY no doubt about it. They didn't start Painter every game. Â They benched him for 3rd stringer Orlovsky week 13, who actually got the two wins for them that season. Â They did try to win games, after Collins got injured, Painter got his chance, then was benched for Orlovsky. Â Â What would you exactly have them do differently? Â I don't think they tanked on purpose, to pull something like that off would require too many people to be on board, including players, too many ways to be exposed (i.e. whistle blowers, media leaks, etc.), not to mention all those guys and coaches jobs are on the line, nobody is safe (we saw that when they let Manning go). Â I'm not arguing that RGIII didn't deserve ROY over Luck. Â But I do think our team was in a better position than the Colts. Â Colts had zero running game and a horrible defense. Â On paper that year, our defense was vastly improved, but we got the injury bug early on. Â If you recall, once the defense got it together, we started winning games as it took off a lot of pressure off RGIII. Â Â Not taking away from that miracle 7 game winning streak to take the division. Â But I'd give the Colts, as a team, a slight edge of being a worse overall team that year than we were. Â Both QBs (Luck and RGIII) played incredible, RGIII had better stats and won ROY rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You don't have to agree with me, Luck didn't have as good a year as Wilson or RGIII. He never should've won RoTY and didn't. All three made the playoffs and two of them had better numbers. Â 2 of them had MUCH better teams around them as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 2 of them had MUCH better teams around them as well... How did we have a much better roster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillMusic Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Andrew Luck going back to last years AFC Championship game has been awful... (i dont know the numbers, but they cant be pretty)  it cant be his offensive coordinator thats the problem, thats his boy from Stanford  I know Russell Wilson is not elite, but damn it he plays in a tougher division, and turns the ball over way less, with more comeback victories and higher passer rating in both in the postseason and regular season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 2 TDs and 7 turnovers for Luck his past three games. Â Guess the Colts figure they're never beating the Patriots, so they're wrapping up the season early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 2 TDs and 7 turnovers for Luck his past three games.  Guess the Colts figure they're never beating the Patriots, so they're wrapping up the season early.  At least we know they're actually this bad (so far) as opposed to 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benskins26 Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 This thread might be one of the worst on ES, and that's saying something. Dude isn't a top 10 qb in the league, let alone top 5 (or best for that matter). His stats are overinflated by playing in the weakest division in football. He certainly has the size and tools to be one of the better qbs, but, like our own Rg3=greatest threads, this one was a Biiiiiiitttttt immature haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 This thread might be one of the worst on ES, and that's saying something. Dude isn't a top 10 qb in the league, let alone top 5 (or best for that matter). His stats are overinflated by playing in the weakest division in football. He certainly has the size and tools to be one of the better qbs, but, like our own Rg3=greatest threads, this one was a Biiiiiiitttttt immature haha If you were building a team for one year, what other 10 QBs would you take ahead of him to play on THAT team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Hmmmm. Rodgers Brady Rapistberger Wilson Rivers Romo Beyond that, it gets a little tricky. Flacco, Palmer, Cam....not sure if I would take them over Luck. I think he's probably top 10, but overrated nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Luck is the most overrated player in the league. No question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I won't downgrade the guy, but I guess what I'm thinking is this guy was supposed to be the second coming of Elway. He's now in his 4th year and you'd think he'd stop throwing so many INTs. He can't stop turning the ball over. I'd be concerned if I'm a Colts fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.