Looks Like Luck Has An MVP Vote

[southwest1]

Adrian Peterson is my NFL MVP. but the NFL will find a way to give it to a QB so it would most likely be Peyton Manning or Tom Brady

I have a question: After CBS broadcast their late afternoon game on Sunday, Vikings vs Packers, they showed The "Geico Play Of The Day" a great run from RB Adrian Peterson. 1 huge problem though. The Vikings lost 23 - 14. It bothers me when TV outlets show plays from a game in which an athlete and their team came up short. You cannot highlight a play no matter how great when that squad loses. A pet peeve of mine.

Not a reflection on you HtownColt or AP. It just infuriates me when broadcasting sporting networks profile individual greatness vs team victories. It seems selfish and counterproductive to me personally.

Yup, the MVP going to either #18 or New England's #12 IMO.

[rdskns4eva]

But they were also THE most valuable players on their team, obviously. Just because someone doesn't put up insane #'s doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered.

Why do people have this misconception that it should automatically go to the player with the best numbers? Who has helped their team more? I guarantee the Broncos and Pats would have more wins than the Colts if all 3 starting QB's were hurt. Who's more valuable to their team?

Schein understands what MOST VALUABLE means, others here don't. When you can start voting for MVP, (which only 50 people do) have a national daily radio show, write stories, etc......., then I'll listen to you more closely.

Btw, I'm not saying Luck should be the MVP. I just have a problem with people's definition of "MVP".

Are you serious right now? people have this perception because for the last 10-15 years, the players that have have won the MVP award have been players that put up ridiculous numbers. Of course they are the most valuable players on their teams, thats a given, but they also have put up crazy numbers. History isnt lying on this. Just look at the trends.

They are not giving MVP to a player that is leading the NFL in turnovers - it doesnt happen.

[dw49]

Are you serious right now? people have this perception because for the last 10-15 years, the players that have have won the MVP award have been players that put up ridiculous numbers. Of course they are the most valuable players on their teams, thats a given, but they also have put up crazy numbers. History isnt lying on this. Just look at the trends.

They are not giving MVP to a player that is leading the NFL in turnovers - it doesnt happen.

If true , it's just silly perception. For example , how would RG3 have ints. when he dinks and donks and throws an occasional long ball to a open receiver after a good play fake ? Luck is throwing 40 times a game in a collapsing pocket to an old man , a cast off and 4 rookies. No running game, no pass protection.He pretty much is willing a bad team to wins. One guy leads the league in 3rd down completions , while the other guy is around last in the league. Yet the stat people think RG3 is having the better year. Truth is one guy is being protected and brought along slowly while the other is being asked to play like a 10 year vet. Of coarse he is going to have some ints under these circumstances. But Luck has produced plenty of scores when you add his rushing TDs to his TD passes. The fact that he has a number of ints really shouldn't disqualify him. Do I think he should get it No but I can see him having a vote or two for the reasons we have discussed.

BTW , I don't think Steve McNair had crazy stats the year he won it. No.. he didn't have 20+ ints but no crazy numbers. Just was responsible for his team winning. BTW... that team had twice the defense the Colts have.

[southwest1]

BTW , I don't think Steve McNair had crazy stats the year he won it. No.. he didn't have 20+ ints but no crazy numbers. Just was responsible for his team winning. BTW... that team had twice the defense the Colts have.

Steve McNair never got enough credit for how smart & tough he really was in the NFL. Bleep Brett Favre! McNair was a thousand times tougher than #4 IMHO. Steve singlehandedly willed the Titans to victory on so many occasions it wasn't even funny. Great point dw49!

[ColtStrong]

Are you serious right now? people have this perception because for the last 10-15 years, the players that have have won the MVP award have been players that put up ridiculous numbers. Of course they are the most valuable players on their teams, thats a given, but they also have put up crazy numbers. History isnt lying on this. Just look at the trends.

They are not giving MVP to a player that is leading the NFL in turnovers - it doesnt happen.

I see you are a RG3 fan, ahhhh. He's doing good too btw

[cranium cramp]

I would say, it's for the most popular(shouldn't be, but mostly is) player. There will be a couple of posters here surprised to see me write this, but Luck should not be the MVP. I suppose there is a case to be made for him and IMO deserves it more than another certain rookie QB that shouldn't even be in the discussion but for some silly reason......is. IMO, Manning should win the MVP as of right now.

I dont get how Manning taking the Broncos to the playoffs, the very same team the Tebow himself took there makes him deserving of MVP. What about Brady? Megatron? Rogers? I have been Mannings biggest fan since his college days. Is anyone really suprised at the numbers he has put up? Not me, I knew "IF" Manning could play again he would still be great. Its how he is programmed, his drive to be the best wont let him fail.

If you say because of him missing last year, thats comeback player of the year not MVP. Love Manning, just look at the screen name. However I can be honest, Manning doing what Manning does, does not make him MVP.

I have witnessed Luck win 5 games, should have been 6. I have watched 300 lb men pulling Luck to the ground and yet somehow manage to get off a pass. I have witnessed him bounce off linemen as he scrambled for a critical 1st down. I have watched a rookie MVP lead a Colts team to the Playoffs. How many current QBs could take this team, with that o line to the playoffs? No way Manning holds up to that beating, no way. Brady with no time to hold the ball or no pocket to step up into. Matt Schaub, LOL LOL.

[Balzer40]

I dont get how Manning taking the Broncos to the playoffs, the very same team the Tebow himself took there makes him deserving of MVP. What about Brady? Megatron? Rogers? I have been Mannings biggest fan since his college days. Is anyone really suprised at the numbers he has put up? Not me, I knew "IF" Manning could play again he would still be great. Its how he is programmed, his drive to be the best wont let him fail.

If you say because of him missing last year, thats comeback player of the year not MVP. Love Manning, just look at the screen name. However I can be honest, Manning doing what Manning does, does not make him MVP.

I have witnessed Luck win 5 games, should have been 6. I have watched 300 lb men pulling Luck to the ground and yet somehow manage to get off a pass. I have witnessed him bounce off linemen as he scrambled for a critical 1st down. I have watched a rookie MVP lead a Colts team to the Playoffs. How many current QBs could take this team, with that o line to the playoffs? No way Manning holds up to that beating, no way. Brady with no time to hold the ball or no pocket to step up into. Matt Schaub, LOL LOL.

You don't have to sell me real hard on Luck being MVP. There is definitely a case to be made for him, but I honestly do not care who wins it. I say it will be Manning simply because the award is so media driven.

[aceinthehouse]

MVP should go to the "Most Valuable Player"

I guess you could give it to P. Manning or Adrian Peterson, as both are putting up great numbers.

But I believe both will be up for "Comeback player of the Year" imo & not win the MVP award.

Petersons injury and crazy return so early & Manning's whole season off from football and now this...

I think the MVP award will go too either Tom Brady, JJ Watt or possibly Rodgers. If Cutler wasn't disliked so much, he would or SHOULD be considered if they make a run in playoffs. But I doubt he is even considered because of that.

Charlie Batch winning knocks out Big Ben. Brees and Ryan 5 pick games knocks them out, imo.

That leaves rookie of the Year

Who I believe are

RG3

Luck

Wilson

Martin (both Martin & Morris are exactly tied in yardage)

Morris

But since the QB class is so strong this year, I don't see how a RB can possibly win it this season, imo.

So that leaves RG3, Luck or Wilson for ROTY, imo.

I honestly believe it goes to whomever, makes it the furthest in the playoffs.

Specially since there will be cases for & against all 3.

And truthfully, I have no problem with that.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Are you serious right now? people have this perception because for the last 10-15 years, the players that have have won the MVP award have been players that put up ridiculous numbers. Of course they are the most valuable players on their teams, thats a given, but they also have put up crazy numbers. History isnt lying on this. Just look at the trends.

They are not giving MVP to a player that is leading the NFL in turnovers - it doesnt happen.

Writers are a funny creature. They can go on just ridiculous numbers, if there is nothing else of note to do otherwise. OTOH, they can and will go outside the box, if someone with really good numbers but demonstates leadership and provides victories is cast into the picture.

Take 2002 baseball mvp. Alex Rodriguez put up ridiculous numbers, but Miguel Tejada (rightfully) won the mvp. Tejada's 2004 numbers were even better than his 2002 mvp season, but mvp isn't solely about numbers. Value... is also a word they do look at at some point before penning in a name. Vlad was more valuable to his team in '04 then Tejada to his.

And this year for college Heisman trophy- give it to a Freshman (they never do) or a defensive player (also they never do). or are they gonna wimp out and toss it to someone on o that has ridiculous numbers and is not a frosh?

There's nothing set in stone, and it can be unpredictable. Luck is a dark-horse with an outside shot. He already has one vote out of 50 cast; unless he totally lays eggs from here on out.

[gspdx]

It feels like people are arguing about nothing here. The MVP doesn't have to have the best statistical year. He needs to provide the most value for his team. That is why I was saying last year - jokingly - that Peyton should be the MVP. He proved without a doubt that this team couldn't function without him. That might be a huge flaw in the team, but it was true.

So one writer has said at this point in the season he thinks Luck has provided the most value to his team. I'm sure other writers feel it is AP, or Manning, or Brady, or RGIII. So what is the controversy. We know Luck is having a pretty strong year, even though there are some that are frustrated with the INTs. But the fact is Luck has quietly taken control of this team and already become a leader that can shrug off his mistakes and go back out and win games. In the final seconds. On numerous occasions already.

I doubt he will win the MVP award, but it shouldn't surprise anyone at this point that someone thinks he deserves a vote.

[bayone]

http://www.nfl.com/n...ianapolis-colts

he is based out of NY so usually that means voting east coast , Brady over Manning, not always, so this says alot about his opinion

[bayone]

It feels like people are arguing about nothing here. The MVP doesn't have to have the best statistical year. He needs to provide the most value for his team. That is why I was saying last year - jokingly - that Peyton should be the MVP. He proved without a doubt that this team couldn't function without him. That might be a huge flaw in the team, but it was true.

So one writer has said at this point in the season he thinks Luck has provided the most value to his team. I'm sure other writers feel it is AP, or Manning, or Brady, or RGIII. So what is the controversy. We know Luck is having a pretty strong year, even though there are some that are frustrated with the INTs. But the fact is Luck has quietly taken control of this team and already become a leader that can shrug off his mistakes and go back out and win games. In the final seconds. On numerous occasions already.

I doubt he will win the MVP award, but it shouldn't surprise anyone at this point that someone thinks he deserves a vote.

he has his falws who doesnt, stats aside as t really are only and indication of some of the aspects of the game

at crunch time he has come up big , making the plays needed, tghats what is important, not his IT's

[dynasty13]

It feels like people are arguing about nothing here. The MVP doesn't have to have the best statistical year. He needs to provide the most value for his team. That is why I was saying last year - jokingly - that Peyton should be the MVP. He proved without a doubt that this team couldn't function without him. That might be a huge flaw in the team, but it was true.

So one writer has said at this point in the season he thinks Luck has provided the most value to his team. I'm sure other writers feel it is AP, or Manning, or Brady, or RGIII. So what is the controversy. We know Luck is having a pretty strong year, even though there are some that are frustrated with the INTs. But the fact is Luck has quietly taken control of this team and already become a leader that can shrug off his mistakes and go back out and win games. In the final seconds. On numerous occasions already.

I doubt he will win the MVP award, but it shouldn't surprise anyone at this point that someone thinks he deserves a vote.

Every quarterback means the most to his team. We are putting extra emphasis on Luck simply because of just how bad the Colts were last year...but the problem with that Luck argument is that many Colts fans don't think there's anything between him and Curtis Painter/Dan Orlovsky/Kerry Collins. I said it last year...even a capable quarterback can lead teams to wins. Many Colts fans don't realize this because they went from Peyton Manning to the freshman red shirts last year to the #1 pick phenom this year. You don't know any better...you don't realize that it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. A capable backup could have gotten you more than 2 wins last season...and this year...another quarterback would be fully capable of getting the Colts some wins with that schedule they have. Luck has been great, but people absolutely can not make the claim that the Colts would be 2-14 without him while all these other teams would be just fine without their top guy.

The MVP race this year will be between Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Adrian Peterson. Andrew Luck is a good story this year and the kid will be terrific for a long time going forward...but lets not go ahead and say that he's the only one capable of leading this Colts team to a few W's.

[Qwiz]

Every quarterback means the most to his team. We are putting extra emphasis on Luck simply because of just how bad the Colts were last year...but the problem with that Luck argument is that many Colts fans don't think there's anything between him and Curtis Painter/Dan Orlovsky/Kerry Collins. I said it last year...even a capable quarterback can lead teams to wins. Many Colts fans don't realize this because they went from Peyton Manning to the freshman red shirts last year to the #1 pick phenom this year. You don't know any better...you don't realize that it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. A capable backup could have gotten you more than 2 wins last season...and this year...another quarterback would be fully capable of getting the Colts some wins with that schedule they have. Luck has been great, but people absolutely can not make the claim that the Colts would be 2-14 without him while all these other teams would be just fine without their top guy.

The MVP race this year will be between Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Adrian Peterson. Andrew Luck is a good story this year and the kid will be terrific for a long time going forward...but lets not go ahead and say that he's the only one capable of leading this Colts team to a few W's.

Good post.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Every quarterback means the most to his team. We are putting extra emphasis on Luck simply because of just how bad the Colts were last year...but the problem with that Luck argument is that many Colts fans don't think there's anything between him and Curtis Painter/Dan Orlovsky/Kerry Collins. I said it last year...even a capable quarterback can lead teams to wins. Many Colts fans don't realize this because they went from Peyton Manning to the freshman red shirts last year to the #1 pick phenom this year. You don't know any better...you don't realize that it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. A capable backup could have gotten you more than 2 wins last season...and this year...another quarterback would be fully capable of getting the Colts some wins with that schedule they have. Luck has been great, but people absolutely can not make the claim that the Colts would be 2-14 without him while all these other teams would be just fine without their top guy.

The MVP race this year will be between Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Adrian Peterson. Andrew Luck is a good story this year and the kid will be terrific for a long time going forward...but lets not go ahead and say that he's the only one capable of leading this Colts team to a few W's.

Bull swipe, the talent on this team is at a low point. we had 3 backups last year with more talent and only one of them could mount 2 w's. So what other backup QB's on other teams would do better? Name them! (pure speculation no matter how you answer, though). How about prior backups that got starting job chances? What has happened to K. Kolb? How about M. Flynn? or... M. Cassell in KC (or anywhere but NE system)? If we had an average NFL vet QB, maybe he could muscle out a .500 W-L record. But guess what? We don't/didn't have one, nor do we really want one. We took Luck, and dumped the others 'backup vets'. And he is neither average, nor a vet. He's a rookie that has outperformed many a vet starting QB, let alone their backups. Our team has a lot of holes Grigson and Pagano will fill next year when our cap hit fall off. I feel you'll find Luck has made everyone around him better than they are, much like the only other QB that could actually post a winning record for the Colts in the last15 years.

I can't wait to see what the future holds for Andrew. He's already built back the 'winning feeling and tradition' in Colts country. He'll get consideration for mvp. I've never predicted he would win it, but he will get many to look him over, rest assured. And might even snag a few 1st place ballots along the way.

BTW, your first statement. You mean Ponder and Gabbert mean more to the Vikings and Jags than A. Peterson and MJD? lulz...

[dynasty13]

Bull swipe, the talent on this team is at a low point. we had 3 backups last year with more talent and only one of them could mount 2 w's. So what other backup QB's on other teams would do better? Name them! (pure speculation no matter how you answer, though). How about prior backups that got starting job chances? What has happened to K. Kolb? How about M. Flynn? or... M. Cassell in KC (or anywhere but NE system)? If we had an average NFL vet QB, maybe he could muscle out a .500 W-L record. But guess what? We don't/didn't have one, nor do we really want one. We took Luck, and dumped the others 'backup vets'. And he is neither average, nor a vet. He's a rookie that has outperformed many a vet starting QB, let alone their backups. Our team has a lot of holes Grigson and Pagano will fill next year when our cap hit fall off. I feel you'll find Luck has made everyone around him better than they are, much like the only other QB that could actually post a winning record for the Colts in the last15 years.

I can't wait to see what the future holds for Andrew. He's already built back the 'winning feeling and tradition' in Colts country. He'll get consideration for mvp. I've never predicted he would win it, but he will get many to look him over, rest assured. And might even snag a few 1st place ballots along the way.

BTW, your first statement. You mean Ponder and Gabbert mean more to the Vikings and Jags than A. Peterson and MJD? lulz...

What I'm saying is that Peyton Manning concealed flaws on this team for years. And you went from Peyton Manning to Curtis Painter without fixing any of the flaws. So boom, even though you were set up for failure...the Colts were very much in many of the early games last year. You were very much in a position to pull out some victories early last year despite the pitiful quarterback play...and with a capable backup...NOT Curtis Painter....you could have very easily been 3-3 six weeks into the season. We had these discussions last year while many here were trying to use that very argument to make a case for why Peyton was so great...many of you have a bit of revisionist history.

Look, the kids been great, and Colts fans certainly have every reason in the world to be optimistic. I'm just doing my job as a Patriots fan to knock you back a bit. My only point is that I refuse to believe that 'only' Andrew Luck could be winning with this team...because that seems to be the popular sentiment from those making an MVP case.

[ColtsBlueFL]

What I'm saying is that Peyton Manning concealed flaws on this team for years. And you went from Peyton Manning to Curtis Painter without fixing any of the flaws. So boom, even though you were set up for failure...the Colts were very much in many of the early games last year. You were very much in a position to pull out some victories early last year despite the pitiful quarterback play...and with a capable backup...NOT Curtis Painter....you could have very easily been 3-3 six weeks into the season. We had these discussions last year while many here were trying to use that very argument to make a case for why Peyton was so great...many of you have a bit of revisionist history.

Look, the kids been great, and Colts fans certainly have every reason in the world to be optimistic. I'm just doing my job as a Patriots fan to knock you back a bit. My only point is that I refuse to believe that 'only' Andrew Luck could be winning with this team...because that seems to be the popular sentiment from those making an MVP case.

and I said... NAME them!! Name a capable backup that would do better than Painter? Actually. a solid but aging vet, Kerry Collins started off our season. He's better than many backups, even at retirement. Only Dan Orlovsky late in the year showed enough to eek out a W twice.

Then we get rid of Tamme (Peyton's got to guy on Broncs) and D. Clark (J. Freeman's new go to guy in Tampa) Garcon (RG3's go to guy in DC) etc... Addai ( and keep less talented D. Brown) and toss in rookies (Fleener, Hilton, Allen, Brazil) to fill the voids, including that rook at QB spot. Tell me how much more talented and savvy this team is over the putrid 2-14 team last year that only Peyton could cover over; and that Luck has managed to do as well with even less? so what your saying is, J. Sorgi should have been able to step in and win 7-8 games if Peyton went down? I felt Sorgi was as capable a backup as anyone except Billy Volek. I bet could either may have done the job.... maybe.

Waiting on those names of 'capable backups...'

[gspdx]

Every quarterback means the most to his team. We are putting extra emphasis on Luck simply because of just how bad the Colts were last year...but the problem with that Luck argument is that many Colts fans don't think there's anything between him and Curtis Painter/Dan Orlovsky/Kerry Collins. I said it last year...even a capable quarterback can lead teams to wins. Many Colts fans don't realize this because they went from Peyton Manning to the freshman red shirts last year to the #1 pick phenom this year. You don't know any better...you don't realize that it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. A capable backup could have gotten you more than 2 wins last season...and this year...another quarterback would be fully capable of getting the Colts some wins with that schedule they have. Luck has been great, but people absolutely can not make the claim that the Colts would be 2-14 without him while all these other teams would be just fine without their top guy.

The MVP race this year will be between Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Adrian Peterson. Andrew Luck is a good story this year and the kid will be terrific for a long time going forward...but lets not go ahead and say that he's the only one capable of leading this Colts team to a few W's.

Actually we do know better. Many of us have been watching football since the 1960s. Way before Peyton Manning.

8-4 is a bit better than a few W's. And if any capable back up QBs can lead their teams to "a few W's" why are so many teams with starting QBs performing worse than the Colts. Only 6 teams have better records than the Colts right now. And I bet there are a few starting QBs in this league right now that would have posted a worse record as the Colts QB, let alone all the "capable" back ups.

So while I agree he might not be the MVP, for some to say he is the most valuable for his team is not surprising. And I never said he is the only one capable of winning on this team. There are a few other QBs that could. But not very many would have this team in a position to make the playoffs.

[dynasty13]

and I said... NAME them!! Name a capable backup that would do better than Painter? Actually. a solid but aging vet, Kerry Collins started off our season. He's better than many backups, even at retirement. Only Dan Orlovsky late in the year showed enough to eek out a W twice.

Then we get rid of Tamme (Peyton's got to guy on Broncs) and D. Clark (J. Freeman's new go to guy in Tampa) Garcon (RG3's go to guy in DC) etc... Addai ( and keep less talented D. Brown) and toss in rookies (Fleener, Hilton, Allen, Brazil) to fill the voids, including that rook at QB spot. Tell me how much more talented and savvy this team is over the putrid 2-14 team last year that only Peyton could cover over; and that Luck has managed to do as well with even less? so what your saying is, J. Sorgi should have been able to step in and win 7-8 games if Peyton went down? I felt Sorgi was as capable a backup as anyone except Billy Volek. I bet could either may have done the job.... maybe.

Waiting on those names of 'capable backups...'

The Colts certainly havent 'fixed' all their flaws yet...but they've made great progress, and better coaching coupled with a pretty manageable schedule goes a long way in helping to make that transition.

You want names for capable backups? We're not talking about star quarterbacks here...but capable backups? Guys like Matt Flynn last year...even Brian Hoyer. You mentioned Billy Volek...how bout Chris Redmond? Even guys like Charlie Batch or Mark Brunell last year. Not stars by any means...but you brought Kerry Collins out of retirement for gods sake...and then trotted out Curtis Painter.

Did I watch different Colts games than the rest of you last year? Am I just 'making up' these discussions we all had after week 6 last season? The Colts had late 4th quarter leads in 3 of their first 6 games...and we had talks on these message boards about how they could easily be 3-3 if they had a better backup. Most Colts fans were making that argument as a way to further their 'Peyton greatest of all time' points...to use it as justification for why (oddly enough and similar to the Luck arguments now) nobody except who they have could possibly win with that team...but the fact remains that many believed the Colts should have won some of those games despite all the flaws the team still had...and that's all I'm saying here.

I'm seeing a pattern here. Many Colts fans refuse to believe that anyone other than who they have is ever capable of winning there. You made that case for Peyton...and you're making that case now for Luck. All the while there's been precedent after precedent in this league where backup quarterbacks have come in and gotten a win for their team. The Colts are no different than anyone else and backups CAN win in this league...you just don't know any better because they've been spoiled with great quarterback play and you went from one extreme to the other with no in between.

[rdskns4eva]

Every quarterback means the most to his team. We are putting extra emphasis on Luck simply because of just how bad the Colts were last year...but the problem with that Luck argument is that many Colts fans don't think there's anything between him and Curtis Painter/Dan Orlovsky/Kerry Collins. I said it last year...even a capable quarterback can lead teams to wins. Many Colts fans don't realize this because they went from Peyton Manning to the freshman red shirts last year to the #1 pick phenom this year. You don't know any better...you don't realize that it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. A capable backup could have gotten you more than 2 wins last season...and this year...another quarterback would be fully capable of getting the Colts some wins with that schedule they have. Luck has been great, but people absolutely can not make the claim that the Colts would be 2-14 without him while all these other teams would be just fine without their top guy.

The MVP race this year will be between Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Adrian Peterson. Andrew Luck is a good story this year and the kid will be terrific for a long time going forward...but lets not go ahead and say that he's the only one capable of leading this Colts team to a few W's.

It was clear around the NFL that the Colts tanked last year to get the number 1 pick. Which is fine, it is what it is. Jim Irsay is a smart guy.

[indy1888]

It was clear around the NFL that the Colts tanked last year to get the number 1 pick. Which is fine, it is what it is. Jim Irsay is a smart guy.

Yeah all the players just decided to quit and lose on purpose so they could get Luck right? Most of those same guys are not even here so what would they gain by tanking for Luck?

Get real man.

[Big Red]

well theres only one rookie that ever won that award and it was earl campbell

Interesting fact: Earl Campbell is from Tyler, TX and won the MVP as a first year player in the NFL and the Heisman is about to be won by a first year player from Tyler, TX. Any guesses??? Rhymes with Kohnny Nanziel.

[Balzer40]

It was clear around the NFL that the Colts tanked last year to get the number 1 pick. Which is fine, it is what it is. Jim Irsay is a smart guy.

If this was true, why on earth would they have even won the 2 games they did win. Absolutely ridiculous to claim they purposely tanked the season. Just when I was starting to gain a small amount of respect for your posts, you have to go and make some asinine post like this. Now I can't take anything you say seriously.

[bavanlan]

Voting for MVP is easy.

Imagine you take every NFL player off every NFL team and put them in a draft. You have the #1 OVR pick. You get to select one player to repeat their 2012 performance for your team for one year. There are no contract issues, etc. You don't know who else will be on your team.

Which player do you take?

[bavanlan]

It was clear around the NFL that the Colts tanked last year to get the number 1 pick. Which is fine, it is what it is. Jim Irsay is a smart guy.

It was a smart career move for Jim Caldwell and his coaching staff, Bill Polian, Chris Polian, Jeff Saturday, Dallas Clark, Joseph Addai, etc., etc., etc.

[dw49]

Peyton Manning would be a horrible fit wth this Colt team. To play behind this O Line , you have to be mobile , throw into tight windows on the run and have some arm strength. He's still a great QB and if I owned Denver , I would rather have him QB that team over Luck or maybe anyone other than Rodgers. We're not saying Luck is the best QB in football , we're saying that he has pretty much put a 3-4 win team on his shoulders and has willed them to 8 wins in the first 12 games.

[rdskns4eva]

If this was true, why on earth would they have even won the 2 games they did win. Absolutely ridiculous to claim they purposely tanked the season. Just when I was starting to gain a small amount of respect for your posts, you have to go and make some asinine post like this. Now I can't take anything you say seriously.

Yea, becasue teams NEVER tank in any sport for draft picks.

[Balzer40]

Yea, becasue teams NEVER tank in any sport for draft picks.

Thats not what I said, but if you're going to do it, you sure aren't going to win 2 out of the last 3 games you play especially when there were other teams that were vying for the #1 pick too.

[ColtsBlueFL]

It was clear around the NFL that the Colts tanked last year to get the number 1 pick. Which is fine, it is what it is. Jim Irsay is a smart guy.

Yup. all those guys in the front office, coaches, and players on the team wanted to lose their jobs just to make sure Irsay and any few remaining Colts get Luck. Get real.

[rdskns4eva]

If true , it's just silly perception. For example , how would RG3 have ints. when he dinks and donks and throws an occasional long ball to a open receiver after a good play fake ? Luck is throwing 40 times a game in a collapsing pocket to an old man , a cast off and 4 rookies. No running game, no pass protection.He pretty much is willing a bad team to wins. One guy leads the league in 3rd down completions , while the other guy is around last in the league. Yet the stat people think RG3 is having the better year. Truth is one guy is being protected and brought along slowly while the other is being asked to play like a 10 year vet. Of coarse he is going to have some ints under these circumstances. But Luck has produced plenty of scores when you add his rushing TDs to his TD passes. The fact that he has a number of ints really shouldn't disqualify him. Do I think he should get it No but I can see him having a vote or two for the reasons we have discussed.

BTW , I don't think Steve McNair had crazy stats the year he won it. No.. he didn't have 20+ ints but no crazy numbers. Just was responsible for his team winning. BTW... that team had twice the defense the Colts have.

People think that RG3 is having a better statistical year because he is. I dont care what kind of offense you play in the NFL, if you have only thrown 4 pics in 12 games, that is phenomenal for a 10 year vet, let alone a rookie.

Truth is, one guy has an offense catered to his strengths as an athlete while the other is being thrown to the wolves. Both ways can work.

And what is this stuff about being brought along slowly? RG3 was given full access to the entire playbook on day 1. The Redskins are running a hybrid offense that has elements of Kyle Shanahans version of the West Coast passing game, Myke Shanahans Stretch zone running game/play action game, Baylors Zone Read option attack with a little bit of Triple option every once in a while. It may look "gimiky", but thats only because they run out of Pistol which is nothing more than a modified shotgun. The funny thing is, we saw formations against the Giants that we hadnt seen all year. Kyle is constantly adding new concepts and formations for RG3 to learn and they are adding new plays to the offense every week.

Also, you HAVE to take into account RG3's impact as a runner. He has accounted for a total of 3300 yards, 23 TD's and 6 total turnovers. Luck has accounted for 3800 yards and 22 total TD's. We already know his issues with turning the ball over.

You also have to take into account the impact of playing each of these players. RG3 is just more feared than Luck right now at this moment. This can change over the course of their careers of course, but right now RG3 is more feared because of entire skill set. Simply put, RG3 can do everything that Luck can do, but Luck cant do everything that RG3 can do, just because of his physical limitations.

[ColtsBlueFL]

dynasty 13 said-

"Did I watch different Colts games than the rest of you last year? Am I just 'making up' these discussions we all had after week 6 last season? The Colts had late 4th quarter leads in 3 of their first 6 games...and we had talks on these message boards about how they could easily be 3-3 if they had a better backup. "

But there aren't any. Maybe Matt Flynn last year, No way Redmond, no way his game gets anything but many 3 and outs with our (non existent) running game. Here's some Int stats on backups this year-

C. Batch 5.71

R. Lindley 4.85

J. Campbell 4.76

B. Quinn 3.77

where Luck is at 3.17 with most ATT in league. Good backups that can win just aren't to be had, and those that are, they usually get a starting gig somewhere and fail epically, at least recently that seems to be the case. And I feel backups would do worse with out talent than with other teams talent, until Grigson rights the sinking ship from our last 5 years of huge contracts and poor drafts. BTW, where is Matt Flynn these days, and how is he doing?

and the capable backups list seems really short...

[dynasty13]

dynasty 13 said-

"Did I watch different Colts games than the rest of you last year? Am I just 'making up' these discussions we all had after week 6 last season? The Colts had late 4th quarter leads in 3 of their first 6 games...and we had talks on these message boards about how they could easily be 3-3 if they had a better backup. "

But there aren't any. Maybe Matt Flynn last year, No way Redmond, no way his game gets anything but many 3 and outs with our (non existent) running game. Here's some Int stats on backups this year-

C. Batch 5.71

R. Lindley 4.85

J. Campbell 4.76

B. Quinn 3.77

where Luck is at 3.17 with most ATT in league. Good backups that can win just aren't to be had, and those that are, they usually get a starting gig somewhere and fail epically, at least recently that seems to be the case. And I feel backups would do worse with out talent than with other teams talent, until Grigson rights the sinking ship from our last 5 years of huge contracts and poor drafts. BTW, where is Matt Flynn these days, and how is he doing?

and the capable backups list seems really short...

I'm talking about last year, bud. This discussion is based on whether or not a capable backup could have gotten the Colts more than 2 wins last year. You are making the case that nobody could have done better than Collins/Painter/Orlovsky....I'm saying that list blows and a capable backup could have done better.

Comparing any of their statistics to what Luck is doing this year doesn't matter. I'm making the case that even Colts fans themselves last year were sitting here in week 7 talking about how they could be 3-3 if they had a better backup.

[gspdx]

I'm talking about last year, bud. This discussion is based on whether or not a capable backup could have gotten the Colts more than 2 wins last year. You are making the case that nobody could have done better than Collins/Painter/Orlovsky....I'm saying that list blows and a capable backup could have done better.

Comparing any of their statistics to what Luck is doing this year doesn't matter. I'm making the case that even Colts fans themselves last year were sitting here in week 7 talking about how they could be 3-3 if they had a better backup.

A capable back up could have done better - but again, there were starters in this league last year that didn't do much better than the Colts and there are starters this year that are doing much worse than the Colts. Luck is on a team with a bunch of rookies and 2nd year players with all new coaches, system, front office, etc.

If we want to talk about capable back ups how about Matt Cassel. He did great with the Pats. Do you think he would have won many games with the Colts last year? Just wondering...

[Superman]

I understand your points, and they are valid, well thought out, and lucid. But on your point that AP should not qualify as comeback player of the year is just wrong. imo. He missed 1/4 of the season, and came back after only 9 months from an injury it takes a year and half to recover from, (and some never recover from), and came back even better than he was before he left, with basically no supporting cast, teams stuffing the box, knowing he's coming, and still they can't stop him. To me, he is the best player in the league right now.

AP got hurt in the second to last game of the season. He missed two games a month before that. So really, he wasn't out very long.

I do agree that his recovery is remarkable, but I don't think that makes him a candidate for CPOY. This is just my opinion, but I think a CPOY should have missed a significant part of the previous season. AP didn't.

I love Peyton, and I will always think he is the greatest to ever play the game, and proving everyone wrong that he was washed up, etc, is truly amazing, and he deserves the award. But to say that Peterson shouldn't even be considered for CPOY is ludicrous, to say the least.

I don't think my opinion on AP's qualification for CPOY has anything to do with Peyton Manning.

[dw49]

People think that RG3 is having a better statistical year because he is. I dont care what kind of offense you play in the NFL, if you have only thrown 4 pics in 12 games, that is phenomenal for a 10 year vet, let alone a rookie.

Truth is, one guy has an offense catered to his strengths as an athlete while the other is being thrown to the wolves. Both ways can work.

And what is this stuff about being brought along slowly? RG3 was given full access to the entire playbook on day 1. The Redskins are running a hybrid offense that has elements of Kyle Shanahans version of the West Coast passing game, Myke Shanahans Stretch zone running game/play action game, Baylors Zone Read option attack with a little bit of Triple option every once in a while. It may look "gimiky", but thats only because they run out of Pistol which is nothing more than a modified shotgun. The funny thing is, we saw formations against the Giants that we hadnt seen all year. Kyle is constantly adding new concepts and formations for RG3 to learn and they are adding new plays to the offense every week.

Also, you HAVE to take into account RG3's impact as a runner. He has accounted for a total of 3300 yards, 23 TD's and 6 total turnovers. Luck has accounted for 3800 yards and 22 total TD's. We already know his issues with turning the ball over.

You also have to take into account the impact of playing each of these players. RG3 is just more feared than Luck right now at this moment. This can change over the course of their careers of course, but right now RG3 is more feared because of entire skill set. Simply put, RG3 can do everything that Luck can do, but Luck cant do everything that RG3 can do, just because of his physical limitations.

My point is that the throws Luck is asked to make are far more prone to being intercepted than those that RG3 is being asked to make. I watched every play of that Monday night game and saw plenty of passes that were off target. None were even close to being intercepted mostly because RG3 is not throwing into tight coverage where a slight mishap can result in an Int. Just a little different scheme when you are running all that option stuff , loaded with play action. He is not making throws where there is coverage that requires the accuracy that some off the throws Luck makes requires. A few of Luck's ints have been on balls that were just slightly over thrown.

Also could you tell me how many games RG has been asked to throw on every down to try to make up a big deficite ? A good number of Luck's ints have come as a result of this. Bear game... Pat game and Jet game are examples of this. When teams just pin their ears back and play the pass , int's often come in bunches. I don't think RG has been subjected to that much this year.

My opinion is that RG3 is a very unique QB and with the offense they are running , he will not throw as many int's as a QB in a more conventional offense. I do agree that you could say RG3 is more dangerous than Luck at this point in time. Will defenses adjust to what we have seen ? Probably yes , to some extent anyway. Will RG3 stay in one piece ? Dunno. Who will be better long term ? I tend to think Luck , but no doubt I'm biased.

[dynasty13]

A capable back up could have done better - but again, there were starters in this league last year that didn't do much better than the Colts and there are starters this year that are doing much worse than the Colts. Luck is on a team with a bunch of rookies and 2nd year players with all new coaches, system, front office, etc.

If we want to talk about capable back ups how about Matt Cassel. He did great with the Pats. Do you think he would have won many games with the Colts last year? Just wondering...

He may not have. The problem with the Colts last year is that they didn't seem to adapt their game plan to mirror their quarterback's strengths. When Cassel came in for us in 2008, not only had he been in the system for years, but the team changed the way they played. He didnt have the pocket presence and awareness that Brady had, but he was able to scramble for many first downs that when the pocket was collapsing...we rarely had him throw for big yardage down the field. It all changed. Players had to change the way they played in order to adapt to the quarterback's strengths.

I just remember last year being on these boards when the Colts were 0-6 and we were all talking about how easily they could be 3-3 'if only' they had a better backup. The Colts had late 4th quarter leads in a few of those games, but clearly Collins and Painter were not the answer. The simple fact is that the Colts had no backup plan. None. They just weren't prepared for life without Peyton Manning...and because of it, many close, winnable games became close losses. Nobody expected the Colts to do much last year...but they should have been able to win 4 or 5 games with a better quarterback...which would have given them about a 5 or 6 game dropoff without Peyton...exactly the same dropoff the Patriots had in 2008 without Brady.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I'm talking about last year, bud. This discussion is based on whether or not a capable backup could have gotten the Colts more than 2 wins last year. You are making the case that nobody could have done better than Collins/Painter/Orlovsky....I'm saying that list blows and a capable backup could have done better.

Comparing any of their statistics to what Luck is doing this year doesn't matter. I'm making the case that even Colts fans themselves last year were sitting here in week 7 talking about how they could be 3-3 if they had a better backup.

OK, maybe Flynn, Redmond and who else last year? Our running was horrid last year too. Since you can speculate, I can too. I say with Wayne, Garcon, Collie, Clark, Tamme, Addai/Brown, Luck would win 11 games. How about that? Heck, there's a small chance he could do it with this years crop of rookies as well. How about that? No way Flynn or any other backup gets us more than 5-6 win total; IMHO. And would have kept us from getting a real QB, like Luck. Though we would have gambled on Peyton, but our O-line would get him killed.

You know, most people don't even know who the #2 QB is on most teams. I knoe I don't. Self test quiz-

Who is the baqk up QB on-

Raiders?

Chargers?

Panthers?

Packers?

Vikings?

Lions?

Giants?

Cowboys?

do I need to keep going?

[dw49]

He may not have. The problem with the Colts last year is that they didn't seem to adapt their game plan to mirror their quarterback's strengths. When Cassel came in for us in 2008, not only had he been in the system for years, but the team changed the way they played. He didnt have the pocket presence and awareness that Brady had, but he was able to scramble for many first downs that when the pocket was collapsing...we rarely had him throw for big yardage down the field. It all changed. Players had to change the way they played in order to adapt to the quarterback's strengths.

I just remember last year being on these boards when the Colts were 0-6 and we were all talking about how easily they could be 3-3 'if only' they had a better backup. The Colts had late 4th quarter leads in a few of those games, but clearly Collins and Painter were not the answer. The simple fact is that the Colts had no backup plan. None. They just weren't prepared for life without Peyton Manning...and because of it, many close, winnable games became close losses. Nobody expected the Colts to do much last year...but they should have been able to win 4 or 5 games with a better quarterback...which would have given them about a 5 or 6 game dropoff without Peyton...exactly the same dropoff the Patriots had in 2008 without Brady.

Colts started 0-13. If having one 4th quarter lead in those 13 losses qualifies for " having late 4th quarter leads in a few of those games " then uh...OK. They played a few teams tough early , but other than Mathis , Wayne and Freeney , they were pretty talentless. Offense... horrible. Defense was ridiculous. Couldn't stop the run while opposing QB's had something like a 106 passer rating against them. If teams didn't let up , God knows how bad some of those losses could have been. Saints probably could have scored 80 points if they wanted in their nationaly televised game.Just no talent.. simple as that. Our best defensive player besides Freeney and Mathis was Angerer. He doesn't even play this year. For sure the least talented team in the NFL. This is why EVERY talking head , ESPN , NFL network .. etc , etc picked them 3st in power polls and figured them to be a 2-3 win team. This team was horrible . I've watched football for 52 years now. I saw every game and every play. They were the worst team in football with or without a decent back up QB. You are so far off on this that it is laughable.

[dynasty13]

Colts started 0-13. If having one 4th quarter lead in those 13 losses qualifies for " having late 4th quarter leads in a few of those games " then uh...OK. They played a few teams tough early , but other than Mathis , Wayne and Freeney , they were pretty talentless. Offense... horrible. Defense was ridiculous. Couldn't stop the run while opposing QB's had something like a 106 passer rating against them. If teams didn't let up , God knows how bad some of those losses could have been. Saints probably could have scored 80 points if they wanted in their nationaly televised game.Just no talent.. simple as that. Our best defensive player besides Freeney and Mathis was Angerer. He doesn't even play this year. For sure the least talented team in the NFL. This is why EVERY talking head , ESPN , NFL network .. etc , etc picked them 3st in power polls and figured them to be a 2-3 win team. This team was horrible . I've watched football for 52 years now. I saw every game and every play. They were the worst team in football with or without a decent back up QB. You are so far off on this that it is laughable.

I don't like when I know more about the Colts last season than its fan base. I've been talking this whole time about discussions we had here after the first 6 games last season. I distinctly remember the Colts having late leads in at least 3 of those first 6 games, and having conversations here after they turned into losses. Look...they were bad last year. Real bad. I think it was a combination of poor coaching and the lack of a backup plan should they be without Peyton Manning. If they had a good plan...any plan for that matter, they wouldn't have signed a 40 something year old a week before the season to be their starting quarterback. For some reason they were caught off guard and they never recovered. But lets not act like it was because 'all of a sudden' the Colts organization had no talent after years and years and years of their fan base self proclaiming them as the best team in the league.

Every talking head picked them to struggle again because 1)the worst team in football is always predicted to struggle again the following season, 2)nobody knows what to expect with a rookie quarterback, 3)they would be going from the success under Peyton Manning to a team making a total changeover in coaching, personnel, and strategy, and 4) their opponents at the beginning of the year looked like they would be a heck of a lot better than they turned out being. The Colts have a very favorable schedule and they have managed to squeak by sub .500 teams all year due to the terrific play of their quarterback. All added up together, its been a great season so far...but we need to be a little realistic here.

[hawkeyes]

Theyll probably give manning comeback player of the year and mvp to tommy boy .... blah!