• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

314 Starter

About VocableLoki


  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,124 profile views
  1. Again, the Lions had one of the greatest receivers of his generation, a better running game than the Colts had, better offensive line and a MUCH better defense between 2012-16. I simply don't see how the argument can be made that Luck wouldn't be able to win more games with a better team around him. Their volume passing statistics are similar, yes, but Luck has had to carry a more significant burden offensively and hasn't had as good of supporting cast for his career. Not to mention one of the more baffling attempts at roster construction around a franchise player in recent memory. A few other stats worth points out: 654 Stafford Rushing Yards 59.2 QBR average Luck 1442 Rushing Yards 66 QBR average And their QBR's may even be further apart, as Luck's 2015 season pulls his down and Stafford's 2016 is a big jump from previous numbers.
  2. Yes, the Colts were a much better franchise with Peyton Manning at the helm. The team had bottomed out by the time Andrew arrived, Mathis and Wayne were pretty much the only relevant players from that era. Ergo, they both stepped into bad teams. Division is a fair point but Andrew is 6-2 in his career against that division, while Stafford is 3-5 against South teams. The article you are quoting your arguments from doesn't take into account running stats or supporting casts. Again, give Andrew Luck a defense that good and you would feel that team should be Super Bowl caliber, the Lions lost in the Wild Card.
  3. Luck was drafted to a team that went 2-14 and the next three seasons they are in the playoffs. The Lions have yet to win a playoff game with Stafford. You are ignoring the lions having a top 3 defense that year, and Stafford had one of the greatest receivers of his generation for the better part of his career. The coordinator isn't that relevant, Andrew isn't playing under Mike Martz, one year of Arians is the extent of his coordinating excellence. Throw in a terrible team construction and I think it's fair to say Andrew has had more on his shoulders. I agree Andrew has an edge, I just don't think they're that close overall.
  4. I think it's fair to say that Andrew Luck has carried the Colts more than Stanford has the Lions though. Stafford hasn't even been the best player on his team for most of his career. You think Andrew Luck could've won more with that Lions team (believe it was 2014) where Suh and co lead a very good defense and he would be throwing to Calvin Johnson? I do.
  5. Fans knowing won't help the team. I'm confident the team is handling it.
  6. I would call one of the greatest playoff comebacks of all time special.
  7. This is pure intuition but Butler feels like the classic kind of player people overpay for: a system cornerback who has (really) 1 very good season. I wouldn't give up a 1st for him and a 2nd would be questionable. Why take risks when we feel comfortable with our GM's drafting capabilities? We're not gunning for a Super Bowl this season, I don't think we need to give up draft capital for players. This not getting into the fact that we would need to work out a long-term deal with Butler.
  8. It's very dubious that the Texans are a quarterback from being Super Bowl contenders. It's too early to start making Marino comparisons but I will say there are worse things than Andrew finishing his career regarded as one of the greatest players of all time.
  9. My point was more arguing what Wells wrote, he doesn't mention opponents but talks about our roster being worse. I don't see how that could be the case. To your point: even if the Texans are a QB away from contention (which I don't necessarily agree with) that's still a pretty big piece they need to somehow acquire. Even if Romo lands to them: he's 37 and an injury risk. The Jaguars haven't won more than five games since 2011, seems very generous to say they are two positions away. Given our success against the Titans, they still have more building to do. The division is better but with a better constructed defense we are still a good bet to win.
  10. http://www.espn.com/blog/indianapolis-colts/post/_/id/20110/colts-furthest-theyve-been-to-being-super-bowl-contenders-with-andrew-luck-since-2012 In my mind, Wells contradicts himself in this response. If the Colts offense should get better this year and the defense can only get better in all likelihood, then shouldn't the team be better this season?
  11. 1. My examples were last year's Championship teams. New England essentially has 2 on defense, Atlanta has one very young pass rusher, etc, etc. New England may add one or two free agent rentals a year but can get away with that due to how well the rest of their roster is constructed and having TB play really under-market value. 2. The Giants are not adding playmakers, they had five 1st or 2nd team All-Pros this past season and spent a ton of money on defense. It amounted to giving up 38 points and losing to the Packers in the first round. Contrast that with New England's two, one of which is leaving more than likely. We need a better system and better breadth of quality, 1-2 big name guys won't do that better than 6-7 competent ones. 3. In order to sign high-end free agents you need to commit to some amount of long-term money (usually), I agree it's possible to get a bigger free agent once we have a better idea of the direction our team is going, which is why I think patience is key. If we are looking at his time in KC as a template, nearly all of their stalwart defensive players were drafted. No one may be writing that we need to "break the bank" but that's what the OP is implying by his post. Teams in our situation (rebuilding/struggling defense) have made big, cost eating signings before (Miami with Suh, Jacksonville with any defensive player of the past decade, Eagles with Asomugha, Byrd to the Saints, Redskins with Haynesworth, etc, etc, etc) and it never works out when the team around that player is crap. Then that team ends up eating that contract for years. Even the Broncos had a really good base through the draft before adding Free Agents. 4. Ok, and that amounted to 3 wins. My point is that we just need a defense to competent to win. For that we need to improve at every position, which is why it makes more sense to me to slowly build depth then add someone if needed later. I think we are essentially agreeing so I'll just leave it at that. I understand wanting to sign bigger free agents, it is just crazy to me that people are already frustrated with Ballard.
  12. The most successful clubs in the league don't necessarily need a ton of playmakers to make it through the playoffs. New England, Atlanta, Green Bay and Pittsburgh aren't loaded with playmakers and yet they are all in the Conference Championship games. The Texans and Giants, on the other hand, have plenty of playmakers and went home after the first round. Kansas City is in the same boat. We have a good enough offense that we can emulate Atlanta before Denver. I agree that our defense needs difference makers but breaking the bank to bring in a few just results in a top-heavy roster that can be easily exploited. We need so much help that I don't think throwing money at big free agents will beef up our defense enough. Jacksonville has been doing this for years with no result. I think it's just reasonable to be patient at this point, see how some draft picks pan out. If the defense clearly isn't improved next season, then it's time to re-evaluate.
  13. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but this is factually incorrect no? I thought we had plenty of cap space during several of the Grigson years.
  14. I don't think Pagano stating that is an excuse, just a fact. Ballard used that line in his introductory press conference, it's used often and is a simple statement of fact. It's not a mistake that the same teams win, but that doesn't make it any less difficult. Everyone lauds the Patriots, rightfully so, but look at their margin of victory in Super Bowl wins. It is incredibly difficult to win any one game. I'm reading that your argument essentially is that we haven't had the right mentality about winning and that has lead to us "wasting Luck's career," given that is the topic of the thread. This doesn't add up to me, if anything, we were too aggressive in chasing immediate success and didn't spend enough time developing the full roster.
  15. Sorry, don't want to be rude, but this is an insane conclusion to reach. Do you really think that a guy who's job it is to evaluate talent and bring it in is basing his decisions on "well, they aren't a Colt so what the heck?" Do you also think a guy who has been scouting and working in front offices for as long as Ballard is really just making decisions randomly? His decisions make sense, he's bringing in younger, cheaper and quite frankly more talented players in positions of need. None of them are splashy signings but they really don't need to be. We need to improve in literally every position defensively, I would rather him bring in good depth of talent on sensible contracts than the alternative. And a punter has you worried? With everything else that needs improving? Give the guy time, we aren't even at the draft yet and people are breaking down him based on small free agent signings. Lets see how he drafts and how the 2017-18 Colts look first.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.