Xfiles
-
Posts
287 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Xfiles
-
-
Really? just stop and think about what you just typed....
and look at the "current" team... "protect" and "important" ... and "position"... Indy did not give a darn about the "position" until they spent 4 mil for a QB they in hindsight did not need.
stellar front office work.....
Yeah, they didnt prepare well, and the collins project has looked horrible, but it is what it is now.
-
Hey Jacob.......for the love of God man, can you stop bowe one darn time tonight?
-
It has ALWAYS been about the #1 overall. I have no problem taking a QB...I have no problem taking Luck...I have no problem taking any of the top 4 QBs but I do have a problem with using the #1 overall pick to do it. I would say the same thing about any player at any position...I do not want to use the #1 pick on anyone. I want to trade it for the crapload of picks we'd get in return and add to as many different areas of the team as possible. I never said we should not draft a QB. Several of the pro-Luck'ers are saying that if we trade down then we can't get our QB of the future but that simply isn't true and I and others have pointed it out a number of times. We can still trade down and take Landry Jones, Barkley, Nick Foles, Ryan Tannehill etc etc. Considering we have time to groom the new QB we can take a more calculated risk on an equally intelligent and physically talented QB like the others I mentioned, and coach them in areas like footwork, reading the defense better than they already do and perfecting their throwing motion. These are the types of things you work on when you A) are intending to groom a QB and B) have 2-4 years to do it.
the only reason I've been questioning whether or not he is over-hyped is specifically to determine if he's worth the #1 overall pick for a team like the Colts who don't need him to start right away. It has always been about the value of the #1 pick.
K
We disagree. Have a nice day.
-
I don't agree with handling this as a Rogers/Favre situation. There are many differences as you have pointed out. The front office will do a thorough investigation into Manning's health, and how well he has been able to rehab. If they project that he will be healthy enough to produce at a high level, (obviously he won't be able to produce at the same level he used to prior to surgery, and having aged) they will make a push for the Superbowl with Manning and trade down for more draft picks to surround manning with a better team. As we all know, there are many issues with this team that need to be addressed. Having more picks will allow us to do this.
If Manning's health is considered to be a future issue and he is not projected to play at a high level, they should draft Luck with the intention of starting him sooner rather than later, maybe after 1 year of being with the team. (He will not hold a clip board for 4-5 years.) With Luck, you have made a calculated decision to draft the best quarterback prospect in recent years. We also will get the first pick in every round of the draft. So essentially, we can choose from the best available players in each round and also address some of the holes in the team. In either scenario, you have protected the team and made a sound decision.
For the most part agree with that assessment with the only difference in my mind being that even if you believe Manning will come back effective next year, I think you still Draft Luck as the predecessor to Manning. Its just unfortunate this has happend this way but the team has to protect itself at the most important position on the field.
-
You've proved the point I've been trying to make all along..you don't have to draft a QB #1 overall to get a top of the line talent QB...only the 2 Manning's were #1 overall picks
Of course they all werent drafted number one overall........*facepalm*
That wasnt the debate. The debate was taking luck with the first pick because he projects to be that type A QB, or trading down to get more picks. It was never about the overall number one.
-
Who is suggesting we "throw" games?
I havent read anything suggesting that. Most of the debates are a what if type scenario.
Eat some fresh fruit and hug your lady friend.
-
This debate is old.
I just said exactly that same thing in another thread. I am going to leave it alone before it becomes any more silly.
-
I am thinking these Luck vs. No Luck arguments have gone on far enough. Its starting to take an unhealthy turn in some of these threads. Suffice to say, some of us Believe you take the Franchise QB, some of us believe you rebuild the core with mulitple picks. Lets just leave it at that, or at least I will.
-
The patriots and the steelers did not build their team around their QB, the built their team and then brought in their QB. That you could even suggest the Patriots drafted Tom Brady and then built the team around him is beyond laughable. They already had a good to great team in the works and lucked into Brady in the 6th round. Same with Big Ben...PIttsburgh did not build the team around Ben...they built the team and then drafted Ben.
Ok then, well then view it this way...those teams all PLUGGED IN a top of the line talent quarterback, or built around one, and still to the point, only one of those teams won with a pedestrian QB. So my point is still quite valid, that if the Colts believe Luck is one of those guys(and we already know that is how Irsay views luck) then they wont pass him up if they can get him, because its obvious that 90 percent of the time, a type A QB is needed to win it all.
-
So in other words you were unhappy with him the way he was playing before, and the fact that Sunday he addressed those concerns is to you a cause for additional concern. What, pray tell, does the man have to do exactly to satisfy you?
I'm not sure that I agree with your implication that it's simply a matter of effort, as in "he's only trying because his job is on the line". Others have talked about him being a bad fit for our system, and making poor decisions about which holes to attack. I'd actually be interested in hearing some of those people discuss whether or not he played better within our system Sunday, and made better decisions.
With that in mind, if I wanted to spend the time I could probably go back to the preseason and find a quote I remember from Caldwell to the effect that "Donald knows what we expect from him, and he is working on it." Isn't it conceivable that this is actually an example of good coaching (dare I say it), and hard work. Why would you look at Brown's perform and think anything other than "good job. I'm looking forward to the Bengals game to see if he can sustain it". I know I am.
(Mod edit) Dude, Of course I want him to succeed, but not just when he feels like his back is against the wall. I want to see that kind of effort all the time. Just like we get from Joe........dont make this into me not ever accepting him at all no matter what...because that comes off as a fruedian slip on your part. I just want the best players on the roster.
-
I always hope they win....its just looking like they never will.
-
Its concerning to me that in the last game he appeared to be running harder than I have ever seen him run. Its concerning because he should have been doing that from the start, and it took him not playing and almost getting cut to get to that. Not good.
-
Yes, and I stand by that. Some teams prefer to get the franchise QB as the first piece of the puzzle and build the team around the QB. Other teams prefer to build a team and install a scheme and then find the QB that fits what they've built (see San fran this year as simply one example). No one way always works out over the other and neither is more right or wrong than the other.
Last 10 superbowl winners:
Green Bay
New Orleans
Steelers
Giants
Colts
Steelers
Patriots
Patriots
Bucs
Patriots
Of those 10, only ONE had a Quarterback that was fit into an offensive scheme after that fact. The rest have Franchise top notch QB's already in place. So it looks as if my inclination that you START with the Quarterback in this NFL is the way to go my friend. The proof is in the championship pudding.
-
I am in no way against the use of the pick to rebuild many issues, and have never said I was. But they would have to get a kings ransom for it. It just makes more sense to me, in a Quarterback driven league, to insure the MOST important position on the field in the future. I mean after all, we have two of the best Pass rushing DE's in the league and the defense still wreaks every year, but when our Ace QB plays, no matter what the defense does, we have a chance to win. Luck looks like he could be that guy for the next 12 years after Peyton retires.........no Guarantees, but educated guesses are all the scouts can ever go on.
-
It's funny to me that the owner of the team has mentioned there is no doubt that he would be interested in Luck and he is a once in a lifetime talent, but that hasnt been mentioned in this thread today........
-
I love when people put words in my mouth. I didn't say we'd be better off...I said the argument could be made that trading the pick could have been a smart move...especially if you're going to give me the benefit of hindsight because I don't care how good people thought he would be, no one could have predicted that Manning would become the GOAT.
And like I said in direct response to that poster, it was an unfair comparison (much like the Rodgers/Favre comparison some people love so much) for numerous reasons of which I only gave a couple but I can give more if you like:
1. in '98, only 8 QBs were drafted in the entire draft. In 2012 I fully expect 4-6 in the first 2 rounds alone...point being there are far more options this year than there were in '98
2. in '98, after the top 2 picks, the next QB drafted wasn't taken until the end of the second round..again proving there are far more options available in 2012 than were available in '98
3. the '98 Colts were not a decade long playoff team. they were in a 100% rebuilding mode. Some people claim the current Colts team is in full rebuilding mode, but most would disagree
4. the '98 Colts DIDN'T have the GOAT QB waiting in the wings expecting to return to full health in the '99 season (again, it's been said multiple times by most on both sides of the Luck argument, if Manning can't return at all then the argument changes completely)
You made the statement that the arguement could be made. Any argument can be made....very horrible ones too.
-
First of all, to admit biasm againts the suggestion of drafting Luck with a high draft pick, I have to say I am extremly disappointed at the fans who watched Peyton play 13 Straight years without missing a game, have a nerve damage issue off field and write him off as DONE. Peyton Manning and Bret Farve are the 2 Toughest S.O.B. i've ever seen, and if anybody can come back from a surgery Peyton Manning can.
List of Pac 10 Quarterbacks the last 13 years.
Jake Locklear - Washington 1st round 2011
Trent Edwards - Stanford 3rd round 2007
Matt Lienart - USC 1st round 2006
Kellen Clemens - Oregen 3rd round 2006
Aaron Rodgers - California 1st round pick 24 2005
Andrew Walter - Arizona State 3rd Round 2005
Cason Palmer - USC 1st round 1st overall 2003
Kyle Boller - California 1st round 2003
Joey Harrington - Oregen 1st round 3rd overall 2002
Akili Smith - Oregen 1st round 1999
Cade McNown - UCLA 1st round 1999
RYAN LEAF - WASHINGTON STATE - 1ST ROUND 1998
DO I NEED TO CONTINUE 12 QUARTERBACKS, 9 HOF COLLEGE PLAYERS, 11 GARBAGE NFL PLAYERS. 1 WINNER. I HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO TROY AIKMEN OUT OF UCLA FOR PROOF OTHERWISE THAT SUCK FOR LUCK IS foolish.
This is nominated for thread of the year, its full of win.
-
Agreed, however the whole point that got me started down the trade down path was when I first asked myself if Luck is the best looking because he's that much more talented, or because he benefits from a system that is setup for him to succeed.
I have no doubt they're going to draft a QB this coming year, none at all. But again, if they're going to spend the #1 overall on the guy then they better be absolutely sure he looks as good as he does because of talent, and not because of system.....the same system that turned Alex Smith from mediocre to top 3 in efficiency.
I am still trying to figure out what you have seen from Luck that gives you reason to believe he isnt as good as advertised. The rest of that Stanford squad is not that great. Luck makes them special. I do understand its very hard to predict pitfalls from College to pros, but its not like we are seeing any signs with Luck comparable to the questionable smarts and accuracy type questions that accompanied a guy like Jamarcus russell. Luck looks like an NFL ready QB to almost anyone who watches what he does on the field.
-
The argument could be made that trading that #1 pick could have been a smart move. However, the facts that the only other QB from that class that amounted to anything was Matt Hasselbeck and that only 8 QBs were drafted in that entire class vs. the 4-6 I expect to be drafted in the first 2 rounds alone in the coming draft provide considerable differences to the 2 situations. ;)
Any argument that is attempting to suggest we would have been better off trading Peyton's rights in the 98' draft to another team is rediculous, and I know you are smart enough to know that. It was a great point made by that poster.
-
Of course they dont like it...so they were going to go out and Prove they could win without Peyton.......oops.
Then they were going to stay respectable without Peyton.......oops.
Then they could still remain competitive, which they have, but suck for luck is more of a fan thing anyway...so why are players spending time talking about it rather than trying to become better at football?
-
I have watched him play and what I saw was confirmed when I checked the stats for Alex Smith. I'm not trying to take away from Smith and say he's a horrible QB. But he's clearly no Peyton Manning and that's what people are trying to say Andrew Luck is. Maybe Luck isn't quite as special as some people want to believe he is. Again I'm not saying he's not a good to great QB, but imo it changes things if he's just the next good or great QB as opposed to the next Peyton Manning...again like some people are trying to say he is. This is why I've been questioning all along whether he's truly worth the #1 pick for us and losing the ability to trade for a king's ransom of draft picks.
I also agree that Luck's stats are very good, but all stats in college are inflated to some degree. Nick Foles, Kellen Moore, Matt Barkley, Brandon Wheedon and RG3 have similar or higher completion percentage.
True, but I have seen that the recent Colts late first round picks have been just as much of a crapshoot, so maybe taking what could potentially be a stone to build another decade of playoff runs on isnt as much of a gamble as letting him walk. Said it before, valid arguments to both sides.
-
Shame on most of you people! I am never one to say "I told you so!" But...I TOLD YOU SO!
I knew all along that Curtis Painter could play and you people shouldn't have doubted him either!
Patchwork offensive line, no running game to help him, Dallas Clark slapping passes away like rabid possums flying at him...NO PROBLEM! Curtis was still droppin' dimes on P-Garcon and Reggie and even Collie got into the act with a couple of nice grabs!
QB ain't the problem no mo'!
Did you like Painters 2nd half production vs. the Cheifs?
I think its best rephrased as "painter is only PART of the problem"
-
Peyton's touch and unbelieveable accuracy leading recievers into and out of routes perfectly has made a LOT of recievers look pretty Good. Dallas's main attribute has always been his matchup speed vs. LB's and Safety's, and he is good at finding the holes in zone, but if he is not catching the ball, and appears to hear footsteps at times, might be time to see what Tamme can do with Painter. Why not? Heck, we arent going to the PO's anyway.
-
!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Irsay Views Andrew Luck As The "aaron Rodgers" Project
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
What does that have to do with Luck? Are you really trying to imply just because they are both from Stanford that will happen again? wow.