Jump to content

  •  


 
Photo

Looks Like Luck Has An MVP Vote


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
100 replies to this topic

#81 chad72

chad72
  • Member
  • 8421 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:53 PM

My two cents on this:
  • Broncos clinched their division last year by backing into the playoffs despite 3 losses from Tebow beating out a few other 8-8 teams with their own record 8-8. This year, they clinch their division emphatically with 4 games to go and eyeing a high AFC seed. Big check for Peyton factor right there.
  • Brady's division clinching situation is similar, Pats clinch their division with 4 games to go. Big check for Brady factor right there.
  • With Luck's turnovers, a case could clearly be made that Colts could be winning those games they have won comfortably if Luck was not turning it over. Yes, Luck comes through in the clutch but he also puts the Colts in bad situations, the defense in bad situations that he comes back to dig them out of and the D has kept games close enough for him to come through in the clutch in those games. Brady and Peyton do way less of that. That is a key difference, IMO.


Game Rewind: Relive every NFL moment…subscribe to Game Rewind.

#82 southwest1

southwest1
  • Member
  • 11926 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

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.

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.


Good points dynasty13. Great coaching makes a word of difference and former HC Jim Caldwell was way over his head and out of his element. Coordinator material at best. It's more than just no backup plan. It's who then GM Bill Polian selected to guide the helm in Peyton's absence...Curtis Painter...who clearly was not prepared to take over the QB reins.

Not all dynasty13. I'm fine if Tom Brady wins the MVP. I may favor Peyton Manning but Tom Brady will have earned it fair & square too IMO.
"Invincibility lies in the defense; the possibility of victory in the attack." Sun Tzu

#83 rdskns4eva

rdskns4eva
  • Member
  • 135 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:47 PM

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.


Good post.

I'm not saying that RG3 is being asked to do more than Luck. Clearly he is in the passing game with throwing the ball all over the field, but RG3 can and has made all the throws you are talking about. And he plays a HUGE role in the Redskins running game. Heck, in the Dallas game, he was fitting the ball in tight windows all over the place. Even Aikman commented on it during the game. Thats not to say that because of the Skins offensive scheme that guys arent open, because clearly they are.

As Ed Reed said today: “He seems to have guys open. I mean, that’s the key to it, really. You see him throwing the ball to guys that don’t have guys on them – tight coverage, I should say. He’s throwing to open guys, you know? I mean, for the most part.
And when he does throw to guys that are covered, he’s putting the ball there accurate. He’s an accurate quarterback and a good decision-maker, and to be running the option and making plays the way he’s made plays, you have to be a good decision-maker.”

And I agree that because of the Colts play style that he is much more prone to making mistakes than Griffin is, but 4 interceptions is still unreal, no matter how much you try to disect it. Just goes back to the decision making that Reed alluded to above.

Coaches and defenses will adjust to the offense, but not to his speed. Teams still try to spy Vick and he can burn them on the edges at 32 years old. Vicks problem is he cant pass with accuracy at all. He has always had this issue. Unlike RG3 who can kill you if you leave guys wide open, Vick routinely misses guys that are wide open. This is an issue that RG3 has shown he does not have. I know people like to say that all he does is throw short and certainly, a large % of his passes are 10 yards or less. But also please remember, he is tops in the league in accuracy on passes of 10+ yards or more. RG3 can play quarterback and so can Luck.

Ohh, and for someone that runs the ball alot, he only had 5 carries on Monday, only two more than Luck on Sunday. On average, RG3 runs the ball about 5 more times than Luck per game.

#84 QwizBoy

QwizBoy
  • Member
  • 6673 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:36 PM

My two cents on this:

  • Broncos clinched their division last year by backing into the playoffs despite 3 losses from Tebow beating out a few other 8-8 teams with their own record 8-8. This year, they clinch their division emphatically with 4 games to go and eyeing a high AFC seed. Big check for Peyton factor right there.
  • Brady's division clinching situation is similar, Pats clinch their division with 4 games to go. Big check for Brady factor right there.
  • With Luck's turnovers, a case could clearly be made that Colts could be winning those games they have won comfortably if Luck was not turning it over. Yes, Luck comes through in the clutch but he also puts the Colts in bad situations, the defense in bad situations that he comes back to dig them out of and the D has kept games close enough for him to come through in the clutch in those games. Brady and Peyton do way less of that. That is a key difference, IMO.

Exactly. His squeezing balls into tight coverage and staring down his receivers seem to be forgotten completely when wins happen. Kind of like when Flacco checked the ball down on 4th and 29...because they won, the media didn't make a big deal about his horrible decision.

Houston Texans, 2011, 2012 AFC South Champions

 

 


#85 T Y Goodbye

T Y Goodbye

    Formerly known as CF4L

  • Member
  • 1809 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:56 PM

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


I didn't mean to imply that your post had anything to do with Peyton..I was just stating that I believe that Peyton deserves, and more than likely will get CPOY. If I implied something differently, I do apologize.

About whether Peterson deserves to be included or not in the race for CPOY, I guess this is a difference of opinion, and we will have to agree to disagree...

As I said in a previous post, no matter what award is given out this year, there are cases to be made for many this year, as opposed to previous years where there seems to be a clear cut winner, not only for the MVP, but for all of the other major awards. And, whomever wins, will honestly deserve it. Luck will get a few votes, and he is definitely the most valuable player on the Colts, but I don't believe he is the most valuable in the league.

The man no one corner can stop...


#86 dw49

dw49
  • Member
  • 3472 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:58 PM

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.



I mean , you must be trying to be funny... right ? You know more about the Colts than I do ? I've probably missed less than 10 plays in the past 15 years. Been a fan since 1960 and you don't like talking to Colt fans rthat know less than you ? LOL.

You 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"
Plus again above you say "i distinctly remember the Colts having the lead late in the 4th quarter in at LEAST 3 of those first 6 games."


Here are the 4th quarter scores at the beginning of each 4thquarter according to Pro Football Reference .com


1) Houston 34 Colts 0 Enough said here

2) Cleveland 14 Colts 12 Cleveland went up 27-12 with 4 minutes left and the Colts scored with 28 seconds left to close to 27-19.

3) Colts 13 Pitt 10 No "late 4th quarter lead" as Pitt tied at 13 at the 12:15 mark and went up 20-13 at the 5:21 mar


4) Colts 17 TB 17 TB scored with 3:26 left and won 24-17.

5) Colts 24 KC 21 This held until 5:21 mark . KC scored TD and won 28-24. As you said a late 4th quarter lead.

6) Colts 10 Cinn 20 Closed to 20-17 and lost 27-17.


So as you can see there was one late 4th quarter lead. It was 3 points at the 5:21 mark of the KC game. The only other lead in the 4th quarter was the Pitt game where they lead by 3 points for less than 3 minutes of the 4th quarter. I don't know who you were discussing all these late 4th quarter leads with last year , but certainly not with me or any other Colt fan that either saw the games or had proper memory a few weeks after they played.

Here's the link to my source if you like. Just make sure your on the 2011 Colts and click on the box scores.


ww.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/2011.htm

#87 Superman

Superman
  • Forum Moderator
  • 13077 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:03 PM

I didn't mean to imply that your post had anything to do with Peyton..I was just stating that I believe that Peyton deserves, and more than likely will get CPOY. If I implied something differently, I do apologize.

About whether Peterson deserves to be included or not in the race for CPOY, I guess this is a difference of opinion, and we will have to agree to disagree...

As I said in a previous post, no matter what award is given out this year, there are cases to be made for many this year, as opposed to previous years where there seems to be a clear cut winner, not only for the MVP, but for all of the other major awards. And, whomever wins, will honestly deserve it. Luck will get a few votes, and he is definitely the most valuable player on the Colts, but I don't believe he is the most valuable in the league.


I can agree with all that. I don't know who is going to win what, but like you, I think there's plenty of competition for all the different awards. Last year, it was Rodgers all the way. The previous year, it was Brady. The year before that, it was a little bit of a race between Manning and Favre, but not really. This year, I could see four or five people getting votes for MVP, and all of them being deserving.
LET'S HUNT

#88 dw49

dw49
  • Member
  • 3472 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:09 PM

Good post.

I'm not saying that RG3 is being asked to do more than Luck. Clearly he is in the passing game with throwing the ball all over the field, but RG3 can and has made all the throws you are talking about. And he plays a HUGE role in the Redskins running game. Heck, in the Dallas game, he was fitting the ball in tight windows all over the place. Even Aikman commented on it during the game. Thats not to say that because of the Skins offensive scheme that guys arent open, because clearly they are.

As Ed Reed said today: “He seems to have guys open. I mean, that’s the key to it, really. You see him throwing the ball to guys that don’t have guys on them – tight coverage, I should say. He’s throwing to open guys, you know? I mean, for the most part.
And when he does throw to guys that are covered, he’s putting the ball there accurate. He’s an accurate quarterback and a good decision-maker, and to be running the option and making plays the way he’s made plays, you have to be a good decision-maker.”

And I agree that because of the Colts play style that he is much more prone to making mistakes than Griffin is, but 4 interceptions is still unreal, no matter how much you try to disect it. Just goes back to the decision making that Reed alluded to above.

Coaches and defenses will adjust to the offense, but not to his speed. Teams still try to spy Vick and he can burn them on the edges at 32 years old. Vicks problem is he cant pass with accuracy at all. He has always had this issue. Unlike RG3 who can kill you if you leave guys wide open, Vick routinely misses guys that are wide open. This is an issue that RG3 has shown he does not have. I know people like to say that all he does is throw short and certainly, a large % of his passes are 10 yards or less. But also please remember, he is tops in the league in accuracy on passes of 10+ yards or more. RG3 can play quarterback and so can Luck.

Ohh, and for someone that runs the ball alot, he only had 5 carries on Monday, only two more than Luck on Sunday. On average, RG3 runs the ball about 5 more times than Luck per game.



Agree with everything above. He did hit some tight windows in the Dallas game and he is known to be a very accurate passer. I only mentioned Monday's game as he was "off" with a few passes but didn't come close to paying with an INT. As far as running the ball , I think there is a bit more to it than just counting the carries. With that offense the skins are running , he is way more vulnerable to big hits than Luck is. He really needs to work on protecting himself so he doesn't take big shots to the noggin or shoulder. I'm sure that Arians has been instructing Luck to not go crazy tucking it away and running. Seems like Andrew has been throwing a great deal of the time where it appears he has positive lanes to run in. What I said in another post was that saying one guy is better than the other at this point in time is like saying chocolate is a better flavor than vanilla. Fine to say who you would rather have but I don't think you can say RG3 is better because his stats are better.

#89 dw49

dw49
  • Member
  • 3472 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:17 PM

Good points dynasty13. Great coaching makes a word of difference and former HC Jim Caldwell was way over his head and out of his element. Coordinator material at best. It's more than just no backup plan. It's who then GM Bill Polian selected to guide the helm in Peyton's absence...Curtis Painter...who clearly was not prepared to take over the QB reins.

Not all dynasty13. I'm fine if Tom Brady wins the MVP. I may favor Peyton Manning but Tom Brady will have earned it fair & square too IMO.



I would also vote for Brady or Manning. Probably at this point Brady. Hate him and the Pats but that would be my point. What I and some others are saying is that Luck could be considered for all the reasons we have brought up. As far as the 2011 Colts , Yes Caldwell was a lousey coach. Howver that team had far less talent than any team in the NFL. Couldn't stop the run. Gave up passing yardage to the tune of a 106 (approx) passer rating. Couldn't run the ball. Couldn't throw the ball. Horrible special teams. Even the punet was bad as he played with a bad knee. Mathis , Freeney , Wayne (and he took games off) ... and then what. You think Bethea is much more than slightly above average ? Some thought Angerer was their best defensive player other tha the 2 DE's and he is a back up. That team was absolutely horrible. Look at the O line. Best player was an over aged center. Terrible team...

#90 #12

#12
  • Member
  • 711 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:23 PM

If he had better statistics, he would certainly be in the conversation. It's not just about statistics, but with a 26 TD, 14 INT, 90-something QB rating season, he would probably finish second behind Manning, given the circumstances. The Colts would have to win out, win the division, with Luck throwing 9 TDs, no INTs for him to be a serious candidate.

#91 dynasty13

dynasty13
  • Member
  • 425 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:29 AM

I mean , you must be trying to be funny... right ? You know more about the Colts than I do ? I've probably missed less than 10 plays in the past 15 years. Been a fan since 1960 and you don't like talking to Colt fans rthat know less than you ? LOL.

You 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"
Plus again above you say "i distinctly remember the Colts having the lead late in the 4th quarter in at LEAST 3 of those first 6 games."


Here are the 4th quarter scores at the beginning of each 4thquarter according to Pro Football Reference .com


1) Houston 34 Colts 0 Enough said here

2) Cleveland 14 Colts 12 Cleveland went up 27-12 with 4 minutes left and the Colts scored with 28 seconds left to close to 27-19.

3) Colts 13 Pitt 10 No "late 4th quarter lead" as Pitt tied at 13 at the 12:15 mark and went up 20-13 at the 5:21 mar


4) Colts 17 TB 17 TB scored with 3:26 left and won 24-17.

5) Colts 24 KC 21 This held until 5:21 mark . KC scored TD and won 28-24. As you said a late 4th quarter lead.

6) Colts 10 Cinn 20 Closed to 20-17 and lost 27-17.


So as you can see there was one late 4th quarter lead. It was 3 points at the 5:21 mark of the KC game. The only other lead in the 4th quarter was the Pitt game where they lead by 3 points for less than 3 minutes of the 4th quarter. I don't know who you were discussing all these late 4th quarter leads with last year , but certainly not with me or any other Colt fan that either saw the games or had proper memory a few weeks after they played.

Here's the link to my source if you like. Just make sure your on the 2011 Colts and click on the box scores.


ww.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/2011.htm


You're right...maybe it wasn't always a 'late 4th quarter lead'...but you can't say the Colts weren't in some of those games, and that's what my point was initially. But you were being disingenuous in the way you were describing the Colts chances in many of those game and that's what I was responding to. The way you made it sound earlier...you'd have me believe that they were getting destroyed week in and week out and never stood a chance and NO quarterback could have possibly led them to victory. That's hogwash and you know it. My point remains the same and in many of those first 6 games, the Colts were in positions to win and people were here talking about how bad the quarterback play was in the 4th quarter and many of those games were winnable.

"Tonight, a dynasty is born, baby" - Rams receiver Ricky Proehl, February 3, 2002

g0ew.jpg


#92 dw49

dw49
  • Member
  • 3472 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:45 AM

You're right...maybe it wasn't always a 'late 4th quarter lead'...but you can't say the Colts weren't in some of those games, and that's what my point was initially. But you were being disingenuous in the way you were describing the Colts chances in many of those game and that's what I was responding to. The way you made it sound earlier...you'd have me believe that they were getting destroyed week in and week out and never stood a chance and NO quarterback could have possibly led them to victory. That's hogwash and you know it. My point remains the same and in many of those first 6 games, the Colts were in positions to win and people were here talking about how bad the quarterback play was in the 4th quarter and many of those games were winnable.




Hogwash. Here's my entire post that you speak of.




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 said they "played a few teams tough early on" in the 0-13 streak. Perfectly fair and accurate statement. I pointed out that they had very little talent. I've seen on one even try to dispute that. Did you watch the Colts play the Saints ? I , in 52 years of watching pro football , have never seen a team look so helpless on defense. The statements about the run defense and pass defense are IMO accurate. In any event , if you disagreed with all or some of the above , you came back with nothing but a curt insult (you hate it when you know more about the Colts than I do) and restated your untrue premise that the Colts led late in the 4th quarter in half of their 6 games. You didn't say something like " Beathea " is a great DB and you don't mention him." I would have come back with "probably half the DB's on that 2011 roster are out of football in 2012. " As far as the QB situation in 2011 , I make no mention of how I thought the team could have done with someone like Brady. I do mention that I don't think that a good or decent QB would have elevated this team past being the 32 best team in the league. But , no big deal I'm good with you as I think most of your points are normally good. You just made a bad post to me and it's OK. If you ant to continue it ... cool but I think maybe we've covered it .

#93 dynasty13

dynasty13
  • Member
  • 425 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:19 PM

Hogwash. Here's my entire post that you speak of.




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 said they "played a few teams tough early on" in the 0-13 streak. Perfectly fair and accurate statement. I pointed out that they had very little talent. I've seen on one even try to dispute that. Did you watch the Colts play the Saints ? I , in 52 years of watching pro football , have never seen a team look so helpless on defense. The statements about the run defense and pass defense are IMO accurate. In any event , if you disagreed with all or some of the above , you came back with nothing but a curt insult (you hate it when you know more about the Colts than I do) and restated your untrue premise that the Colts led late in the 4th quarter in half of their 6 games. You didn't say something like " Beathea " is a great DB and you don't mention him." I would have come back with "probably half the DB's on that 2011 roster are out of football in 2012. " As far as the QB situation in 2011 , I make no mention of how I thought the team could have done with someone like Brady. I do mention that I don't think that a good or decent QB would have elevated this team past being the 32 best team in the league. But , no big deal I'm good with you as I think most of your points are normally good. You just made a bad post to me and it's OK. If you ant to continue it ... cool but I think maybe we've covered it .


I think I confused you with some of what other people were saying and for that I apologize. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was responding only and directly to you and say 'YOU said that no other quarterback would have made a difference' or 'YOU said that they never had a chance in any of those games'...but others did and that is what I meant to be responding to. I do, however, think that the Colts had a lot better of a chance in some of those games than you seem to want to believe, and that's fine...but the team was right there in many of them. I truly believe that they could have very easily been 3-3 with someone other than Collins/Painter quarterbacking, and we did have conversations about it last year. They weren't a good team, and they had many holes and seemingly no backup plan for life without Peyton....but I do think they were better than a 2-win team.

I just want to re-iterate this point so that nobody thinks I'm trying to undermine the unbelievable job that Luck has done. I think the kid has been fantastic and Colts fans have every reason to be optimistic and excited about not only this season, but the forseeable future as well. I just refuse to believe that 'only he' could do what he's doing. I just think things were so bad last year in terms of quarterback play after being so used to Peyton Manning's play, that any success is a shock to the system for the collective Colts fanbase. Many of you do have the tendency to believe that 'only your guy' is capable of doing what is done when you find success...and that's great...to a point. You guys love your team and love your players...but a little objectivity goes a long way and there ARE other guys in this world that are capable.

"Tonight, a dynasty is born, baby" - Rams receiver Ricky Proehl, February 3, 2002

g0ew.jpg


#94 King Colt

King Colt

    Colt fan for 53 yrs. now!

  • Member
  • 941 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:29 PM

Manning would be my favorite but looking at RGIII's numbers not wins he has to be a high contender. Luck should not win because there are 42 new players (a roster turnover of 69%) on his team so the team needs to be recognized.
"Build The Monster, Then Turn It Loose"

#95 dw49

dw49
  • Member
  • 3472 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:34 PM

I think I confused you with some of what other people were saying and for that I apologize. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was responding only and directly to you and say 'YOU said that no other quarterback would have made a difference' or 'YOU said that they never had a chance in any of those games'...but others did and that is what I meant to be responding to. I do, however, think that the Colts had a lot better of a chance in some of those games than you seem to want to believe, and that's fine...but the team was right there in many of them. I truly believe that they could have very easily been 3-3 with someone other than Collins/Painter quarterbacking, and we did have conversations about it last year. They weren't a good team, and they had many holes and seemingly no backup plan for life without Peyton....but I do think they were better than a 2-win team.

I just want to re-iterate this point so that nobody thinks I'm trying to undermine the unbelievable job that Luck has done. I think the kid has been fantastic and Colts fans have every reason to be optimistic and excited about not only this season, but the forseeable future as well. I just refuse to believe that 'only he' could do what he's doing. I just think things were so bad last year in terms of quarterback play after being so used to Peyton Manning's play, that any success is a shock to the system for the collective Colts fanbase. Many of you do have the tendency to believe that 'only your guy' is capable of doing what is done when you find success...and that's great...to a point. You guys love your team and love your players...but a little objectivity goes a long way and there ARE other guys in this world that are capable.



Won't take issue with any of the above and agree with everything other than the" Colts were more talented than a 2 win team." I think you can probably always make that case when your talking about a horrible team. Look at it this way. They ended up tied with the Rams and I think just 1 game ahead of the Vikes. IMO , they were considerably worse than both these teams and that's not even considering the "Polian Puppet" that coached the team. Anyway.. all is good.

#96 Thewholefnshow28

Thewholefnshow28
  • Member
  • 2022 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:45 PM

It more than likely will go to Brady or Peyton, but my vote for MVP is also AP, and he's starting to make me believe that he should be Comeback Player of the Year as well..Minnesota's whole team, esp when Harvin is out injured, is all Peterson. Teams constantly stack 8-9 in the box, they all know where he is going, and yet he is having one of the best years of his career just 9 months after all the reconstructive surgery on his knee..What he is doing is simply amazing..I can guarantee that without Peterson, the Vikes would be one of the bottom teams in the league this year. Calvin Johnson is in the same category this year as well with him approaching the record for most yards by a WR

This is one year where many candidates truly deserve the end of season honors, including Rookie of the Year. It could go many different directions...but at least we know that whomever wins whatever award, this year, they truly will have earned it.


I agree that AD is not getting enough attention for MVP. He has carried that team on his back the entire year, he is their only consistent weapon, and is doing it only 9 months removed from ACL injury. Heck Megatron is on pace to break a record and he is the only real receiving threat that team has. Heck their second best WR was trying to sabotage the offense because he was not getting the ball enough.

I think Luck needs to be in the discussion as well. To lead a team from the worst record to a potential playoff team and be the main reason for that turn around is the definition of most valuable. You take him away from this team and give us Painter and we are probably right back to worst team in the league.

The thing is the media views the MVP award as more of most outstanding player award nowadays and that is why the best player on the best team typically gets it.
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain

"Always borrow money from a pessimist. He won’t expect it back." - Oscar Wilde

#97 GoColts8818

GoColts8818
  • Member
  • 12893 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:01 PM

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.

yet the colts beat that defense twice that season.

I can see your point though and it's valid because the MVP award has two different view points that people use.

1. The best player in the league.

2. The player who means the most to his team.

Peyton Manning won two MVPs thanks in large part to the later. McNair is another example of a guy who won a share of it for that reason.

Honestly Manning became kinda the defacto MVP for the league because you could make strong cases he fit both view points really well.

As for Luck and RG3 if we are talking best player in the league no chance in the world right now. However if talking about meaning more to their teams success than any other player in the league there is an argument to be made for both.
Thank You Peyton! I look forward to the day you come home and we get to do this good bye thing right!

#98 ColtsBlueFL

ColtsBlueFL
  • Member
  • 2607 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:02 PM

I do, however, think that the Colts had a lot better of a chance in some of those games than you seem to want to believe, and that's fine...but the team was right there in many of them.


I looked at some of those 4th quarters! The old adage the score was a lot closer than the game doesn't come close at times! As an example, check this 4th quarter-

http://www.nfl.com/g...lyze=playbyplay

Our Offense play gave no Colts fan confidence. I DO remember that. :( Wow, a Pick, two 3 and outs, and a fumble. finally garbage time TD vs soft zone prevent to end game. Nice. Not. We were in it. Not.

I truly believe that they could have very easily been 3-3 with someone other than Collins/Painter quarterbacking, and we did have conversations about it last year. They weren't a good team, and they had many holes and seemingly no backup plan for life without Peyton....but I do think they were better than a 2-win team.


Not unless they totally rewrote the playbook, and practiced it with the 'decent' backup we evidently didn't have. Or stole an elite QB like Brady, Brees, Rodgers...etc...

I just want to re-iterate this point so that nobody thinks I'm trying to undermine the unbelievable job that Luck has done. I think the kid has been fantastic and Colts fans have every reason to be optimistic and excited about not only this season, but the forseeable future as well. I just refuse to believe that 'only he' could do what he's doing. I just think things were so bad last year in terms of quarterback play after being so used to Peyton Manning's play, that any success is a shock to the system for the collective Colts fanbase. Many of you do have the tendency to believe that 'only your guy' is capable of doing what is done when you find success...and that's great...to a point. You guys love your team and love your players...but a little objectivity goes a long way and there ARE other guys in this world that are capable.


No I think others could do well for the Colts this year, if we did what other teams did for their choice, like Wilson at Seattle and RG3 in DC, Tannehill in Miami, etc. OTOH, Luck's W-L is better than all of those others, that had their teams optimize for them. In then end, that's what counts, and I'll take it.

When it comes to last year, lost cause. If it was known earlier Peyton would never play and a new playbook devised and practiced early and ofter. Yes. Otherwise I don't feel any other decent QB could come in and learn/run Peyton's offense. He took it out of the game in 2011, and he took it to Denver where they modified it in 2012.

I am in agreement with dw49 where he does state to you- "As far as the QB situation in 2011 , I make no mention of how I thought the team could have done with someone like Brady. I do mention that I don't think that a good or decent QB would have elevated this team past being the 32 best team in the league."

“There’s no question he’s (Luck) a complete football player and one of the top quarterbacks in this league already. He has a great career in front of him but I think he’s already established himself as a very poised and talented player that can do a lot of things to beat you and he manages his team well and plays good situational football.”       -New England Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick

 


#99 dynasty13

dynasty13
  • Member
  • 425 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:06 PM

I looked at some of those 4th quarters! The old adage the score was a lot closer than the game doesn't come close at times! As an example, check this 4th quarter-

http://www.nfl.com/g...lyze=playbyplay

Our Offense play gave no Colts fan confidence. I DO remember that. :( Wow, a Pick, two 3 and outs, and a fumble. finally garbage time TD vs soft zone prevent to end game. Nice. Not. We were in it. Not.



Not unless they totally rewrote the playbook, and practiced it with the 'decent' backup we evidently didn't have. Or stole an elite QB like Brady, Brees, Rodgers...etc...



No I think others could do well for the Colts this year, if we did what other teams did for their choice, like Wilson at Seattle and RG3 in DC, Tannehill in Miami, etc. OTOH, Luck's W-L is better than all of those others, that had their teams optimize for them. In then end, that's what counts, and I'll take it.

When it comes to last year, lost cause. If it was known earlier Peyton would never play and a new playbook devised and practiced early and ofter. Yes. Otherwise I don't feel any other decent QB could come in and learn/run Peyton's offense. He took it out of the game in 2011, and he took it to Denver where they modified it in 2012.

I am in agreement with dw49 where he does state to you- "As far as the QB situation in 2011 , I make no mention of how I thought the team could have done with someone like Brady. I do mention that I don't think that a good or decent QB would have elevated this team past being the 32 best team in the league."


But you're proving my points by showing how bad the offense actually was while still being close in many of those games. With a better backup (and coaches who realize you have to change your game plan depending on available personnel), some of those close losses could have been close wins. Nobody expects a backup to come in and 'run Peyton's offense'...and that's why the Colts were so bad: because they didn't adapt their style of play to play to the quarterback's strengths.

Against Cleveland in week 2, the Colts were only down 14-12 in the 4th quarter, but turnovers killed them from there on out. I think that's an example where the game actually WAS closer than the score showed...even with a garbage Indy touchdown at the end.

A week later against Pittsburgh, the Colts had the lead going into the 4th quarter. But a turnover gave the Steelers the lead, the Colts came back to tie, and Pitt won on a field goal. The Colts were absolutely in that game.

In week 4 against Tampa...the Colts were tied going in to the 4th quarter, but the offense couldn't score a single point from there on out and the Bucs won by a touchdown. You're going to tell me that the score made it seem closer than it actually was? No. The Colts were in that one too.

A week later against Kansas City, the Colts didn't score a single point in the 2nd half, and the Chiefs scored 21 unanswered points to win another close one...which speaks as much to the troubles on offense as it does to defense. But the Colts were ahead that entire game, and their offense just couldnt put a point on the board for the final 30 minutes of the game.

In week 6 against Cincinnati, the Colts were only down by a field goal in the 4th quarter...but once again, a Colt turnover gave the Bengals a clinching touchdown...which once again made the score look like it wasnt as close as it actually was.

The Colts offense just didnt get it done, and thats becuase they had no backup plan for life without Peyton Manning. They expected a 40+ year old retired guy in Collins and a bad bad BAD backup in Painter come in and try to run Peyton's offense. That doesnt even make any sense. They could have been 3-3 six weeks in, and a 5-11 record looks a heck of a lot better than a 2-14 one.

"Tonight, a dynasty is born, baby" - Rams receiver Ricky Proehl, February 3, 2002

g0ew.jpg


#100 ColtsBlueFL

ColtsBlueFL
  • Member
  • 2607 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:32 PM

That's the issue... NO QB could come in and right the ship because we DID NOT have a non Peyton playbook, nor did they expect to NEED one! They weren't going to develop one while Peyton had a chancce to return. He NEVER did! And when they realized that scenario was permanent, it was too late. So don't tell me they should have dumped the playbook and got a decent backup immediately at the beginning of the season and toss Painter/Orlovsky and hopes of Manning's return to the cut zone.

Now if you are saying they should have done it early in the year despite Mannings's possible return, you are nuts, but it would have turned out better in the long run.

We lost 13 straight games, and got Luck because of the pain I'm OK with that. There was no magic elixir to help it, and no denying Lucks 8 wins and counting.

“There’s no question he’s (Luck) a complete football player and one of the top quarterbacks in this league already. He has a great career in front of him but I think he’s already established himself as a very poised and talented player that can do a lot of things to beat you and he manages his team well and plays good situational football.”       -New England Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick

 


#101 dw49

dw49
  • Member
  • 3472 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:43 PM

But you're proving my points by showing how bad the offense actually was while still being close in many of those games. With a better backup (and coaches who realize you have to change your game plan depending on available personnel), some of those close losses could have been close wins. Nobody expects a backup to come in and 'run Peyton's offense'...and that's why the Colts were so bad: because they didn't adapt their style of play to play to the quarterback's strengths.

Against Cleveland in week 2, the Colts were only down 14-12 in the 4th quarter, but turnovers killed them from there on out. I think that's an example where the game actually WAS closer than the score showed...even with a garbage Indy touchdown at the end.

A week later against Pittsburgh, the Colts had the lead going into the 4th quarter. But a turnover gave the Steelers the lead, the Colts came back to tie, and Pitt won on a field goal. The Colts were absolutely in that game.

In week 4 against Tampa...the Colts were tied going in to the 4th quarter, but the offense couldn't score a single point from there on out and the Bucs won by a touchdown. You're going to tell me that the score made it seem closer than it actually was? No. The Colts were in that one too.

A week later against Kansas City, the Colts didn't score a single point in the 2nd half, and the Chiefs scored 21 unanswered points to win another close one...which speaks as much to the troubles on offense as it does to defense. But the Colts were ahead that entire game, and their offense just couldnt put a point on the board for the final 30 minutes of the game.

In week 6 against Cincinnati, the Colts were only down by a field goal in the 4th quarter...but once again, a Colt turnover gave the Bengals a clinching touchdown...which once again made the score look like it wasnt as close as it actually was.

The Colts offense just didnt get it done, and thats becuase they had no backup plan for life without Peyton Manning. They expected a 40+ year old retired guy in Collins and a bad bad BAD backup in Painter come in and try to run Peyton's offense. That doesnt even make any sense. They could have been 3-3 six weeks in, and a 5-11 record looks a heck of a lot better than a 2-14 one.




What makes your argument a little weak , IMO anyway , is that it's just a lot of coulda .. woulda ... shoulda. Yes there is no doubt we were in some of those early games , but fact is that we stunk big time. This was due to not having any talent. Part of that no talent was indeed horrible play at the QB position as you rightfully point out. But what your failing to realize is that Polian and his boy Chris put together 5 horrible drafts one right after the other. So bad was it that it lead to Irsay firing Bill Polian. Who would have ever thought that possible 2-3 years prior ? Getting back to those close early games ... you don't know how those teams would have game planned if the Colts had a little better QB in fold. Maybe they play a little more wide open ? Dunno... what I do know is that we had the worst statistical pass defense I've ever seen. I just it's really a stretch to think this was a 5-6 win team with a good back up QB. I mean ... man gives us the "average" back up QB which would be the 16th best and we would be a 5-6 win team with that 2011 talent ? God no..

You have a good football mind but you are just so far off on this one . I'm sure if you look at the Lions 0-16 team , you can make a similar argument where they were in games and somehow constrew how they could have been 5-11. This 2011 Colt team was terrible in just about every aspect of the game. No offense , no defense , bad special teams , horrible coaching ... what else could be stinky.






COLTS TICKETS!

Join the Season Ticket Wait List!

Sign up today
Game Rewind: Indianapolis Colts

Recent Status Updates

  • Photo
      18 Apr
    Bogie

    The Fender Stratocaster turned 60, Happy Birthday to the man's best friend. You can never go wrong with a good strat, never.

    Show comments (3)
  • Photo
      16 Apr
    ColtsBTM12

    I saw in the Colts mailbag that Nicks will wear number 14. That's weird. I wish they would have just given him 88. Marvin was great, but you don't have to retire everyone's number that's ever been good on your team.

    Show comments (3)
View All Updates