Are the Colts Undervalued on the NFL Top 100?

[GAColtsFan]

After playing just seven games last year, Andrew Luck came in at No. 92, down 85 spots from his No. 7 rank last year.  Last year, kicker Adam Vinatieri came in at No. 98, cornerback Vontae Davis at No. 59 and wide receiver TY Hilton at No. 35. One would assume that none of the three will be making the jump into the top 20 on this list, especially if Luck is ranked that low. 

[throwing BBZ]

Hilton doesn`t get into the end zone like a 35 player should. So, he isn`t close to that spot till he can score
10 TD`s + a season.
  Plenty of criticism here regarding Vontae`s consistency. So, he must prove himself again.

 Lots a Really good players on the list to this date, it is no big deal if one were ranked 108th, 118th....
 the player would still be a mighty fine player that had to Earn it on the field anyway.
   lol to Chud building a running game and fixing Luck!
 

[Gavin]

I haven't seen the list

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Andrew Luck being rated #92 made me ignore the list pretty much after that. I have seen the list off and on only because I watch the NFL Channel a lot and they talk about it. I can name off at least 20 players that are ahead of Andrew that a GM would not take ahead of Andrew. Andrew should've been at least Top 75 at worse. He was injured last season so I can understand people not putting him in the Top 50. But #92 is a bit whack! - considering he was #7 the season before.

[Bluefire4]

Nope. We overvalue our players because of our love for the team.

[ReMeDy]

5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Andrew Luck being rated #92 made me ignore the list pretty much after that. I have seen the list off and on only because I watch the NFL Channel a lot and they talk about it. I can name off at least 20 players that are ahead of Andrew that a GM would not take ahead of Andrew.

 

But the problem is that list -- if I remember correctly -- is how the players performed last season. Yea, of course a ton of GM's would take Luck over several of the names above him on the list, but in terms of performance, last season he was garbage and he was even more garbage once he got injured because he couldn't even play. He even said it himself he played awful before the injuries. He was an INT-machine.

[crazycolt1]

43 minutes ago, ReMeDy said:

 

But the problem is that list -- if I remember correctly -- is how the players performed last season. Yea, of course a ton of GM's would take Luck over several of the names above him on the list, but in terms of performance, last season he was garbage and he was even more garbage once he got injured because he couldn't even play. He even said it himself he played awful before the injuries. He was an INT-machine.

Not meaning to throw a monkey wrench into this but as I recall Manning made the list without playing one down before. I cant remember what the exact number was but Payton missed the whole year and still made the list. I came to the conclusion that this list was garbage and has no value what so ever. All it is is fill in space for the media during the off season.

[bayone]

48 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Not meaning to throw a monkey wrench into this but as I recall Manning made the list without playing one down before. I cant remember what the exact number was but Payton missed the whole year and still made the list. I came to the conclusion that this list was garbage and has no value what so ever. All it is is fill in space for the media during the off season.

 

I believe Peyton went to 50, list is based on expectations for this year which has to be based on previous plat especially last year, peyton was lessened to 50 based on pre injury play and those that believed he would come back from surgery I imagine

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Not meaning to throw a monkey wrench into this but as I recall Manning made the list without playing one down before. I cant remember what the exact number was but Payton missed the whole year and still made the list. I came to the conclusion that this list was garbage and has no value what so ever. All it is is fill in space for the media during the off season.

Yes Peyton was #50 going into 2012 and didn't play 1 down in 2011. I am very confused about what the list is about because of that alone in Peyton being ranked 50 without playing a down.

[2006Coltsbestever]

I will follow that up with, if one would base the list on a players Career/Potential/and Talent, Andrew should be Top 20 out of the players today. I honestly don't think 1 GM would take 20 other players over Andrew if given the choice. He is at worse a Top 7 QB in the league when healthy, the other QB's being better would be Brady, Rodgers, Ben, Brees, and I will give it to Cam because he won MVP, then between Wilson and Andrew you could flip a coin. Then I am sure there are a few Defensive players some GM's may take over Andrew like Watt for example, and maybe a couple of RB's, WR's/TE's, and O.Lineman, etc.. but that is about it.

[Iancolts]

Grigson did a mighty fine job with FA the past few years that's why we don't even see any of our players crack the top 20.  

[Bluefire4]

18 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yes Peyton was #50 going into 2012 and didn't play 1 down in 2011. I am very confused about what the list is about because of that alone in Peyton being ranked 50 without playing a down.

They based it on the impact he could of had that year. You know, when the Colts went 2-14 without him.. I mean people even wanted to give him the MVP that season.

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 minutes ago, Bluefire4 said:

They based it on the impact he could of had that year. You know, when the Colts went 2-14 without him.. I mean people even wanted to give him the MVP that season.

I know but that contradicts the list if it's based on, on the field performance from the previous season. I get why they did it but if it's partly based on reputation than Andrew should've been much higher. What he did in his first 3 seasons out weighs him being injured last season.

[RockThatBlue]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I know but that contradicts the list if it's based on, on the field performance from the previous season. I get why they did it but if it's partly based on reputation than Andrew should've been much higher. What he did in his first 3 seasons out weighs him being injured last season.

Personally I don't think Luck should have been on any NFL top list because he was injured half the season. I don't think its fair to judge someones year if they miss over 50% of it. JMO though.

 

Regardless, Luck will bounce back and be much higher on these lists next year.

[crazycolt1]

17 hours ago, Iancolts said:

Grigson did a mighty fine job with FA the past few years that's why we don't even see any of our players crack the top 20.  

Performance has zero to do with this list. This list is horse dung. It just looks like you took your opportunity to get your dig in at Grigson. We already have those types of threads so there is no reason for you to hijack this one to make your point.

[Bravo]

Not a fan

 

I don't even watch the lists each offseason anymore. It means nothing at all. It's something that isn't important that people get offended about when it's just suppose to be for fun.

 

Every teams fans think the players on their team are undervalued. Lol TBH luck probably didn't even deserve to be on the list this year. Cool that he even made it! 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Performance has zero to do with this list. This list is horse dung. It just looks like you took your opportunity to get your dig in at Grigson. We already have those types of threads so there is no reason for you to hijack this one to make your point.

Horse Dung is the perfect word for this list  Andrew should've been Top 75 at worse and Pat should've made the Top 100.

[Bluefire4]

13 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I know but that contradicts the list if it's based on, on the field performance from the previous season. I get why they did it but if it's partly based on reputation than Andrew should've been much higher. What he did in his first 3 seasons out weighs him being injured last season.

Well if Luck didnt play badly in the games he played in, he would have be ranked higher.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, Bluefire4 said:

Well if Luck didnt play badly in the games he played in, he would have be ranked higher.

He was playing injured in most of the games he lost and he was outstanding vs Denver. I just think to move a player from #7 to #92 because he was injured is a bit drastic. Having said that I don't like the list anyway as a whole, not just regarding Colts players but I think the whole list stinks so really his ranking on this list doesn't bother me a whole lot.

[Bluefire4]

8 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He was playing injured in most of the games he lost and he was outstanding vs Denver. I just think to move a player from #7 to #92 because he was injured is a bit drastic. Having said that I don't like the list anyway as a whole, not just regarding Colts players but I think the whole list stinks so really his ranking on this list doesn't bother me a whole lot.

Yeah I don't really care about the list either. I just think people give Luck too much of a pass on here over that injury stuff. He just openly admitted he played bad before the injuries. Everybody has stuff they fight through. He just had a down year.. a year where having 250 yards and 2 touchdowns correlates has a "outstanding" game. I know he'll be much better next year though.