Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NewColtsFan

A Question for Everyone: Why was Luck playing in the 4th Quarter?

24 posts in this topic

Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm completely wrong. No one asked Luck this. And, even more to the point, no one asked Arians this. So, perhaps I'm completely wrong on this issue. Wouldn't be the first time.

But, from early in the 4th quarter I kept calling for Arians to take Luck out of the game. Enough.

Put in Stanton. What was to be gained by playing Luck? More experience? A miracle comeback?

IMO, whatever could be gained paled in comparison to what could have been lost. Luck could've been hurt. And what would have happened to our possible playoff run had Luck been hurt? Gronkowski got hurt late in the 4th quarter. That could've happened to Luck.

Sit the kid down. There's way more downside than there is upside in playing him. Sit him down and let him clear his head of that nightmare. He was terrible. All rookie QB's have a game (or more) like that and this was definitely one to forget for Andrew. I just did not understand the reasoning for playing him to the end.

But, since no one asked Luck in the post-game, and no one asked Arians, maybe it's not a big deal and I'm flat-out wrong.

What do you think?

I look forward to reading your views when I wake up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coin has 2 flips IMO.

On one hand, Luck is a rookie, and he needs to gain experience, as much and as fast as he can.

On the other hand, such terrible game is hard to get over, and he may lose confidence. I was rather worried about psychological effects than risk of an injury.

To be honest, I thought for a second that maybe it would be better to bench Luck, but that might have caused bigger lost in confidence than this KO loss.

I' don't know what had been the right call in that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with playing Luck, because I highly doubt we'll reach the Superbowl and it's likely the Texans have won our division, so we may as well go for broke and play Luck as much as possible. Even if he gets injured, I don't know of anyone who would complain at having a better draft pick if we lose games. Our team is rebuilding anyway you slice it.

Regarding Drew Stanton, there may be political mischief happening backdoors where Stanton intends to leave after this season anyways. It'd be pointless wasting playing time on a guy who's leaving.

It could also be Luck wanted to keep playing, so Arians accommodated him. Luck is fiercely competitive like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't pull an NFL QB of Luck's caliber out in that situation. Doing so would be counterproductive. A borderline starter with little job security? Maybe you do. Andrew Luck, Peyton Mannning - no.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a rookie QB the experience and reps are important, especially under difficult circumstances. The fact is Luck could be hurt at any time in any game, any practice, any warm-up, or any non-football-related activity. At the end of the day you have to be willing take some risks to develop your guy and I don't think you pull him in this situation unless you're either a very serious contender on the verge of clinching something (better to live to fight another day in that case) or your guy is getting beat like a red-headed stepchild (or, worse, an Eagles QB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few reasons come to mind, None of which are probably true

Like you said a miracle comeback maybe? we were down 38-17 going into the 4th which given our young team and the fact that we were going against a Tom Brady led offense was pretty insermountable but stranger things have happened and Arians just isn't one to lay down when getting a whippin (One of the things I like about him). I would have taken Luck out but not because of the score, Our O Line ceased to exist (which is getting monotonous, I swear sometimes its like Luck said something about each one of there mommas). Another reason is if you saw Lucks post game interview he was clearly frustrated and angry with the loss and with himself which is a good thing, he needs to remember how that feels and channel that and get better(Maybe thats why Arians left him to, to make let him feel that anger and frustration and to remember what that feels like and to get better. Personally I would have thought long and hard about taking him out, like I said he was playing without an O Line to protect him (seemingly) even when he wasnt getting hit he was being chased from beginning to end of the game it seemed, The O Line should be embarrassed and ashamed of there performance in terms of pass protection, however Luck made some bad decisions thats for sure and some horrible throws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way he played, perhaps we should have benched him before the 1st quarter?

I get your point because he did not play well even with 2 touchdowns and well over 300 yards passing but I dont feel like watching my team lose 59-0, Stanton would have gotten destroyed behind our O Line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't watch the game in the UK, but if we are down by more than 30 in the 4th Quarter Luck and Wayne should not be on the field. It is just wasted minutes with a risk of them getting hurt that we can't afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These kinds of brutal butt kickings are great for a rookie QB. As hard as it was to watch the Patriots laughing as they dismantled our team, the experience is good for the team and given our character, should prove to be both humbling and galvanizing.

21 gimmie points on the road won't win games, nor even allow you to be competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about benching one player, We should have benched the whole dang team. I cant believe people on here you dont ever bench a player you have such high hopes for unless you are stomping a team in the ground. Its never just one players fault this was a team reality check. Let it go we have plenty to learn from it. Oh ya and you dont pay players what they get paid to sit them down and give up! Wow I am diappointed by these all these crazy comments. The Pats just showed us we are not there yet. Brighter days are comming we have to take it on the cheek and move on that is all a young team can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get him some experience of being in a walk-over position. Not the first time it'll happen in his career, let's not hide him from it and pretend it'll be all rosy. Also, he had to get that 300+ yard game record!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More important: Why play Brady?! If Luck gets hurt they lose a rookie, if Brady gets hurt they lose a Hall of Fame, four time Super Bowl champion. I was amazed he stayed until the whistle blew.

A rookie getting his berains beat in needs to stay in and absorb that feeling of how far one has to go in the NFL when you are your first year. What would motivate you more for revenge, a single punch in the head or a royal, non-stop whoopin'? Call it "A Lesson Learned".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm completely wrong. No one asked Luck this. And, even more to the point, no one asked Arians this. So, perhaps I'm completely wrong on this issue. Wouldn't be the first time.

But, from early in the 4th quarter I kept calling for Arians to take Luck out of the game. Enough.

Put in Stanton. What was to be gained by playing Luck? More experience? A miracle comeback?

IMO, whatever could be gained paled in comparison to what could have been lost. Luck could've been hurt. And what would have happened to our possible playoff run had Luck been hurt? Gronkowski got hurt late in the 4th quarter. That could've happened to Luck.

Sit the kid down. There's way more downside than there is upside in playing him. Sit him down and let him clear his head of that nightmare. He was terrible. All rookie QB's have a game (or more) like that and this was definitely one to forget for Andrew. I just did not understand the reasoning for playing him to the end.

But, since no one asked Luck in the post-game, and no one asked Arians, maybe it's not a big deal and I'm flat-out wrong.

What do you think?

I look forward to reading your views when I wake up....

No....Luck is a rookie and he needs every snap he can get.......Why take that away from him. we may play them again in January..

Playing in a game where you are down 3 or 4 TDs is also experinece....

I dont want to only put Andrew in a position where he can succeed....failure is a teacher. too

Luck wasnt hurt..so play him...all the way....I would also play him is we ever get up 3 TDs....

I agree with Lolly...the question is: Why was Tom Brady playing when they were ahead 4 TDs...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucks needs to feel the weight of games like this to be molded into a great Qb. I know injury is always a concern.

But....

If Luck is to be a good General some day.. he needs all the wars he can take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm completely wrong. No one asked Luck this. And, even more to the point, no one asked Arians this. So, perhaps I'm completely wrong on this issue. Wouldn't be the first time.

But, from early in the 4th quarter I kept calling for Arians to take Luck out of the game. Enough.

Put in Stanton. What was to be gained by playing Luck? More experience? A miracle comeback?

IMO, whatever could be gained paled in comparison to what could have been lost. Luck could've been hurt. And what would have happened to our possible playoff run had Luck been hurt? Gronkowski got hurt late in the 4th quarter. That could've happened to Luck.

Sit the kid down. There's way more downside than there is upside in playing him. Sit him down and let him clear his head of that nightmare. He was terrible. All rookie QB's have a game (or more) like that and this was definitely one to forget for Andrew. I just did not understand the reasoning for playing him to the end.

But, since no one asked Luck in the post-game, and no one asked Arians, maybe it's not a big deal and I'm flat-out wrong.

What do you think?

I look forward to reading your views when I wake up....

There is no 100% right or wrong answer. I can see pros & cons in leaving him in and pros & cons in pulling him.

Obviously any team would regret a player being injured in a game in which the outcome has been decided whether it's Gronkowski/Belichick or McCoy/Reid. Either coach if they had a do-over would likely make a substitute.

What is gained by leaving him in? You don't embarrass him by putting in QB2, you let him finish the game knowing that he was a key contributor to the result and in my opinion from a mental standpoint it would be better to have him on the field playing, as opposed to standing there simmering over looking at the scoreboard and seeing 59-24. Obviously that works both ways, some might do better by standing on the sideline for the final 5 minutes or so, but I think most competitors would do better with riding the loss out on the field.

A player has to be smart in those situations and understand there aren't any 25 points plays that can alter the game in one play.

I also think it's about the team mentality moving forward. You ride & die with the starter. You win with him, you lose with him. If it were a team like last year where there was no clear cut starter, then obviously you might make a change midway through the 3rd quarter in hopes of a change up that can spark the team, but Stanton isn't going to be a spark.

My perspective on a one-sided game like this is that I think you have to use it as a building block. Try to get something positive or work on a certain situation/grouping/concept, experiment with new plays that you want to run against a 100% live defense. I'm not sure we saw that yesterday, but once the outcome is decided, you have to use that time to learn & progress. Even if it means taking out 87 and other starting receivers just to get the QB more time with other receivers. At that point any small goal you can accomplish is a positive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably gets back to the condition of the offensive line, too...

If the 1st string line was still in...and not getting overrun (i dont think they were) I want a rookie player to play..

Luck wasnt ineffective....He just made a couple of drive killing throws..that dont hurt as much in a game that's already lost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be nothing to explain it correctly, because Luck would feel it to be punitive and not protective. Getting pulled while playing less than stellar on the wrong side of a blowout. Let him finish... good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused. We rest our starters when a perfect season is on the line, then we play 'em all when we have zero at stake. I'm glad we now have the play 'em mentality....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look we found something out by this,there is still more than enough work to be done in all parts of the game,and Mr Luck learned a vauable lesson.IMO better now than further down the road,hes got a good head on his shoulders,and he will rebound and probably play well this week,but i must also say it eliminates the possibility for the Big Head so all is well and good in Colts land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comeback was VERY Possible till Luck threw that back breaking pick 6 to Dennard. After that the game was over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Woman has to know her place....
    • As far as I know, Eminem is the only rapper to list his favorite rappers in a song.   His top rappers are:   1.  Reggie  (His uncle) 2.  Jay-Z 3. Tupac 4.  Biggie 5.  Andre 3000 6.  Jada 7.  Kurupt 8.  Nas 9.  Eminem   Being last does not offend him, he made the list.   Either way, the spirit of God lives in us.
    • Very sad... He was a part of so many amazing tunes.   
    • I don't like anything about Frank Sinatra, tbh.    His music was before my time, but I enjoy a lot of other music and film from that era. I'm from the Midwest and it's hard for me to relate to those songs. They all seem to have a New York/Vegas feel to them (and not in a good, Sonic Youth way). A lot of it seems... insincere, for lack of a better word. I kind of compare it to today's teen bop bubble gum type music where the personality and public persona and "coolness" factor of the artist are as important as the actual music. However, like I said, I wasn't alive at the time to know whether that is the case or not.   Maybe I just don't get it (like many people don't get rap or jazz) but what Sinatra did doesn't sound like singing to me. He didn't seem to have any vocal range. He didn't play instruments (that I know of) or dance. It's really bewildering to me that he is such a cultural icon.    His persona is grating, to me. I never like performers whose image is rich/smooth/connected. Just not my cup of tea.    It also seems to me that Sinatra wasn't that great of a guy, either. I know that there is a culture gap between his generation and mine, so I won't judge him too harshly about what his social views were w/ regard to race and gender equality, but his coziness with organized crime figures ( ie murderers) is troubling.   All of this is just my opinion, of course. I'm not a Frank Sinatra expert, by any means. He just appears, to me, as the antithesis of everything that I enjoy about art.   He's on my short list (along with Gene Simmons, Andy Warhol, L. Ron Hubbard, Ronald Reagan) of sainted cultural icons who didn't actually contribute anything of value to their respective fields. Again, jmo... your definition of value might differ from mine. 
    • Not to mean this in an argumentative way but the changes in the Colts winning ways was started by Harbaugh. We were one play from reaching the super bowl against the Steelers. Take away the illegal TD that Stewart caught and that game may have had a different turn out.
  • Welcome New Members

    •   Sorry to keep harping on the Irish thing, but did you know the horseshoe has seven points on it?  (The Colts horseshoe, anyway.  Actual shoes for horses depend on the farrier).   Seven is considered a lucky number...  Lucky.  Luck.  I'm telling you, you picked the right team to root for.   7    
    •   Don't hold Boston against the Irish.  It's not our fault.    We love our green, which makes Indiana a tearmann.   I love it that you chose to root for an underdog instead of the Pats.  I don't think it's coincidence that you became a fan around the time Luck got drafted to the Colts.  That's providence.     Horseshoe?  Luck?  Four-leaf clover?  Come on.  Hoosier Hospitality has roots in Irish fun-lovery.  If you're lucky enough to be Irish, you're lucky enough!  May the luck of the Irish be with you!  
  • Members

    • Nadine

      Nadine 4,899

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CR91

      CR91 4,947

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • WoolMagnet

      WoolMagnet 1,135

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BOTT

      BOTT 9,406

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ClaytonColt

      ClaytonColt 195

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • coltsfeva

      coltsfeva 322

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Peterk2011

      Peterk2011 32

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cdgacoltsfan

      cdgacoltsfan 216

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.