DougDew

Scheme was not the problem against ATL. Its not like a QB was carving up a zone. Colts personnel simply got manhandled.

Keep all of the players under rookie contracts and any vet that can be signed for $2M over the vet minimum. Trade every player that makes over $10M. Figure out something to do with the players in the middle.

Between Robinson, Allgeier, Patterson, and JT...JT is the 4th best runner on the field today.

Even though it is ATL, its nice to watch RBs like Allgeire, Patterson, and Robinson bounce it to the outside. JT can't ever seem to figure out how to do that.

Its pretty obvious to me. ATL has a much better roster today, but is not as well coached. Arthur Smith let 40 seconds run off the clock before the 2 minute warning, and then screwed up the last part. They probably could have driven for a TD with better clock management. And the Colts O looks bad because ATL simply has better defensive personnel.

That the Colts will be stuck to one dimensional between the OTs running again with JT back. Well, some of us know that.

That's nice. But its also something that could be said for the past 7 years...and probably more than 2 spots. 3 to 5, IMO. The results in any given season can be a little better or a little worse based upon schedule and injuries throughout the NFL. Hopefully things go our way.

ATL's defense is pretty good and consistent. Their offense should be better than what it is, especially the passing game. The QB situation doesn't help, but the passing game problems go deeper than that IMO. Pitts and Bijan Robinson could give our LBers fits, and Allgeier is always tough to tackle. Patterson is returning from injury.

All stats need context....always. I'll let the reader do that. And maybe it was Young who ruined the Panthers, or maybe Young doesn't have more impact than a 5th round rookie. I guess it depends on what a person wants to see.

Week 14: Young: 13/36, 137: 0 TD, 0 INT, Sack 4, RTG 48 Stroud: 10/23 91, 0 TD, 0 INT, Sack 4, RTG 54.8 AR: NA Levis: 23/38, 327; 1TD, 1 INT, Sack 1, RTG 86.2 O'Connell: 21/32 171, 0 TD, 1 INT, Sack 4, RTG 66

I've thought that since his first game. I think he would benefit from taking off running a little sooner, both in converting plays and making himself more of a running threat. Like most QBs, he benefited when the defense seemed to be in prevent mode. His receivers were actually open. Before that, he was having to throw into a lot of tight windows. He looks like the makings of a good QB. He needs more help on offense, IMO.

Its a simple fact. Luck had much better offensive weapons his rookie year than Levis has had, and a last place schedule. Another fact is that Luck had a hand-picked OC in Bruce Arians. It was ripe for stat-making. But it was 10 years ago. I can't speak as to how others view football or what it means to them.

LOL. To you and all of the folks who liked your post, Husker is actually correct. As far as the passing stats...which was huskers point and not moving the goal posts into talking about playoffs.....the difference is that Luck had a MUCH BETTER offense by which to make those stats his rookie year. Luck: TY Hilton (rookie) Reggie Wayne Donnie Avery (vet FA) Anthony Castanzo at LT Dwayne Allen was pretty good his rookie year. (rookie) If you want to count RBs...a stretch....a pretty dynamic RB in Ahmed Bradshaw (seasoned vet FA) And a bunch of decent vet olinemen brought in by a GM that understood positional value Day 1. Levis: DeAndre Hopkins (not as good as either TY or Reggie that year, IMO) If you want to include RBs: Derrick Henry I'm not getting into some Luck vs Levis debate, but the point of what Husker said pertaining to the stats is correct. Luck had much better offensive players around him his rookie year than Levis has had. And a last place schedule.

I think "they" are capable of not stereotyping, in theory. I think they do practicing it in reality. I think they stereotype Qbs as not being physically gifted enough to be a SB winning QB, and they typically make that stereotype when the QB is in college. I think they stereotyped Hurts that way, and Purdy too, but did not with Young. Maybe the success of Hurts and Purdy prompted an immediately different way to think about Young and he was thought of as the franchise type. Their mistake.. I assume they think of Hurts as a franchise QB now because of his success...his W/L record. If so, why wasn't he thought of as a franchise guy in college? He won. If so, should we think of Sam E as an undiscovered franchise QB? He won a ton in college. What held Sam back? Being a running QB and a lack of arm talent....the absence of franchise NFL traits I assume. I think they are all game managers based upon a consistent application of the factors that have historically been applied. Some have and will have different levels of success within that same bucket. "They" seem to apply the factors all over the place in a way that defies explanation, for the most part. Trey Lance or Mac Jones? Which one was thought of as the franchise guy and which one had the game manger ceiling? It wasn't the mental part. It was the physical part, IMO.

Yes, but we're not debating theory. Yes I can see how somebody could see that. I'm saying that the people who use the term don't see other things and are blinded by the lack of physical NFL attributes. You know very well that a strategy for roster building is to take a GM QB and build superior talent around him, or, take a franchise QB and have him strap the team on his back on his way to the SB. (obvious extreme examples to make a point) What did they say about Hurts coming out of college...or his rookie year? That he was limited QB who needed a team built around him, or an offense designed around his skills. Does that sound like how they describe the typical franchise QB...is that how they describe Trevor Lawrence? What was the difference...mental make up or physical attributes? What has changed about Hurts....physically? Why can't anybody admit he's the almost perfect example of a GM QB who went to the SB precisely because Roseman executed the team building around a GM QB very well. Purdy, SF, and Lynch right their too.

Was MH called a game manager...by everybody.... because of his diminished physical skills...despite his mental acumen and moxy? The issue at it root is that the people (other than me) who use the term use it negatively, so they can't attribute the term to a QB with the same skills but a better level of success than what they assume the GM QB can achieve. They just can't bear to call Hurts a GM because of the success he has had...so he must be something other than a GM.

They must stand out because they seem correct to you then. Because saying that MH was considered a GM QB because of his (what was) present level of physical skill is precisely my assertion of why all GM QBs are labeled such by me and 98% of the pundits. Except the pundits use it as a pejorative, so they can't use it to describe a QB who actually has had more success than what they project GM QBs to have.

I recall the characterization of Matt Hasselbeck in his later years by this forum and by talking heads on ESPN that he was relegated to being a game manager precisely because of his diminished physical skills....notably the inability to make all NFL throws consistently. So physical limitations (or what is perceive via stereotype) is a huge component for when they also whip out the term game manager. Sure, others may attribute mental types of things as being part of it too, but the college guys that get the GM label usually make plays based upon "moxy" and such things but lack the physical traits that are attributed to NFL franchise QBs. I think it fair for some to call Hurts a franchise QB because of the success he has had, but in the area of physical QB traits, he's in the GM bucket...as defined by me and how the pundits have used it over the years.

Beats me. I think this is the comment that sparked it. And I was talking about roster in terms of Ballard/backup QB and why Sam E is still here and might be retained. Jalen Hurts does not have the best arm talent amongst NFL QBs. He simply doesn't. He has other things, and I'm not comparing Sam to Hurts (since I've hardly even seen Sam play for one reason), but if Sam is a runner who can't make all of the NFL throws consistently (not a wrong description of Hurts BTW), then what prevents him from being a good back up Qb on a SS team? Then another poster quoted my comment above by saying this: While you’re commenting on Jalen Hurts here, perhaps this is the best opportunity to drop in this fact. Earlier this year you called Hurts a game manager and NOT a franchise quarterback. So the convo with me focused on Hurts for what seems to be an attempted "gotcha" attempt by that poster. When I was simply talking about Sam being a backup in a SS offense and used Hurts as an example.

Good lord. Someone in this thread....not me.... asserted the idea that McDaniels backed out because he was concerned over Luck's health and energy for football. That's not my opinion. I've never thought that. But if that is true....if that is true...accept it on its face for conversation reasons......then it was pretty astute on the part of Josh to bail for that reason, right?...because his concerns turned out to be true. That's pure logic. How is that me selling the idea that Josh was intelligent and Ballard failed? Those things are based upon an opinion that someone else offered that would have to be true, which neither me or you think is true Geez man.

Football is a physical game. Players have to come to the field equipped with a certain level of physical traits. Assuming someone has poor physical traits before even bothering to test them is probably due to stereotyping. What is even weirder is when the tape shows that QBs are short, but make plays, throw hard, throw well, scramble well and extend; are still assumed to have traits not suitable for the NFL beyond game manager traits....before they even test at the combine. I do think that was more prevalent during the years Hurts was drafted and before, and guys like him and Purdy are probably forcing pundits to rethink that in 2023.

Physically talented wise...which is my criteria..,,,I would call Purdy a game manager. I think the pundits essentially said the same things during draft analysis. Eeven though he won games at ISU for three years the same way he does now, they assumed he would be limited because his physical talent would not translate to the NFL. ...so they called him the same thing then as I do now. Now they won't. Because since they use the term pejoratively, they would look stupid if they said it now.

You're talking about winning and starting, I get that. I'm talking about physical talent. Arm talent, velocity, hand size, making all throws, agility, and footspeed. I'd wager that Bennett has superior physical QBing skills than Hurts. Hurts trumps Bennett in strength. And I bet some could never fathom that, or if not better, that Bennett would even be close to Hurts.

Sure I do, they can certainly think of Hurts as a franchise Qb based upon how they define that term. But I would say that the people who use the term "game manager" to describe a QB with limited physical talent (like the entire football pundit world) would be hypocritical to not apply it to Hurts and his physical talents. Stereotyping can drive hypocrisy, but I guess other things can drive it too. Again, Hurts is a great QB and a winner, but having elite....typically franchise.... QB physical skills is not really him. Lawrence, as an example, has those skills, but lacks other things Hurts possesses.