VocableLoki
-
Posts
458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by VocableLoki
-
-
Don’t understand why Toub being a Special Teams coach with no head coaching experience is such s negative. Wasn’t BB’s background in special teams? In fact, his team’s special teams play is one of th reasons they are so consistently good. I’m not pulling for Toub, but I wouldn’t discount him for his specific coordinating background.
-
1 minute ago, Flash7 said:
Look, it's simple:
When things go right, it's because of the players. They were playing well, despite the poor coaching.
When things go wrong (even if a player doesn't make a catch in the back of the end zone on a wonderful play call, or fumbles the ball on a simple out route) it's the coaches fault. Clear and simple.
Sarcasm.
Lolz. Sarcasm appreciated
-
1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:
Call it what you want but this team clearly can’t finish. That’s a sign of a weak minded team and that falls on the coaching staff.
Wouldn’t starting the game off so well be an indication of a good game plan? IE good from the coaching staff?
-
It never is.
-
People really need to take a deep breath and relax for a minute. We are a rebuilding team that had sustained injuries to some of our best players and turned the ball over 3 times, with a fourth fumble leading to a safety. That incredibly bad series of events will lead us to being blown out, this is what we know right now. If you were expecting a win in this game then I'm sorry but it seemed like Andrew Luck being out meant that the first part of this season was going to be rough.
Look around our division, the Texans gave up 10 sacks and lost to the Jaguars 29-7. The Jaguars are also the only other team that won today. Even if this is a forgettable season, isn't it ok to potentially get a healthy Andrew Luck paired with whatever Ballard can cook up in the offseason?
-
It's worth pointing out that, despite leaving a touchdown out there, that is a pretty good response from Tolzien.
-
Isn't Turbin our short yardage specialist too? We used Mack twice on the 2.
-
Isn't someone on staff there to literally just watch for opportunities to challenge? Did we just rush the next play too much for him to buzz and push for the challenge?
-
It's worth looking at offensive weapons too when comparing quarterbacks. Manning seemed to develop the same kinds of receivers in his career (Decker, Harrison, Clark, Wayne, Collie, etc all had similar skill sets) while Brady did play with two physically dominant players (Moss and Gronkowski) the likes that Manning never had.
-
3 hours ago, MPStack said:
Represented the NFC in the 2015 SB. Next question?
The Cardinals did not play in the Super Bowl and got blown out in the Championship Game. They also went 7-8-1 last season in the worst division in the league. Arians may be a very good coach, but that doesn't undo warts on his record.
-
54 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:
Yeah I guess you're right about that but the Colts have beaten plenty of good teams over the years.
Denver. Green Bay. Seattle. Baltimore. Cincinnati. Atlanta. Among others.
They never beat Pittsburgh or New England though, and I feel Pagano's time in Indy will come down to how he handles those two opponents in the future.
Not to mention Kansas City.
i feel it's always impossible and unfair to book coaches down to one thing. "Lewis can't win in the playoffs" or "Pagano can't beat NE or PITT" ignores all kinds of circumstances and doesn't address their strengths or weaknesses as a coach.
-
Lewis deserves more respect, consistently competing in a conference with teams that have won four Super Bowls since 2000 and represent two of the five best teams in the AFC for 17 years is nothing to scoff at. He hasn't won a playoff game sure, but he essentially had a few very good Palmer years and Andy Dalton to work with l. He's not the best coach in the league but I think he's done great work in Cindy.
-
17 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:
1.) Slow starts and an 8-8 record
2.) I can't answer this one lol. I guess he's still young in La Confora's eyes.
That just seems to be a double standard. Drew Brees is deservedly in the top tier and he has gone 7-9 for the last three seasons with a team that is either equal to or slightly better than the Colts and he hasn't dropped from that.
Aaron Rodgers started out incredibly slow last season and finished with a pretty miserable NFC Championship game and gets the benefit of the doubt. I just think La Confora is being harsh in his assessment.
-
1) Why would Luck drop after one of his best seasons, where statistically he is a top 10 QB?
2) Why would he (essentially) be in the "up-and-coming" category when he has been consistently good-great when healthy?
-
4 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
You provided some numbers, not concrete proof.
I find this QBR (TQR) rating system is very subjective, and some factors are not entirely specified. I base this on the fact that anybody may review an important play or close game differently than others. So what makes this one the gold standard over other metrics?
You mentioned overall placement for each seaosn (IIRC) by PFF, but you did not specify the parameters that PFF uses to make up each overall rating. Again, weighting of metrics is a debatable platform, but it was ot presented. Just the fional result that suits your agenda.Unless it's pinion stated as fact. Or conjecture with no proof. Do you have such proof? They are close in many areas-
Again, what makes QBR the Gold Standard over Rating?
I think injury killed them in the second half, and Jim Bob Cooter really raised Stafford play. I beg to differ and time will tell.
Point was, Andrew hasn't progressed as far as he was hyped to be. He's not much ahead of Stafford was my point. I feel the ranking is currently is Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisburger, Wilson, Luck, Ryan, , Rivers, Stafford, Newton (Cam can move back up if run less and throw better), Carr, Prescott, Cousins, Flacco, Mariota, Winston, Bradford, Dalton... .and then the rest.
Your ranking is different, that is fine. We can agree to disagree and end our discussion to each other on the subject. That's fine. But I have not been convinced that my original assessment was off target.
8I find it difficult to understand how you can claim I am tailoring stats to fit my agenda when, again, your only point of debate is that Luck and Stafford have similar volume statistics. That is not a good enough analysis to claim that Luck and Stafford aren't that far apart.
You can take issue with other statistical measurements, but when enough of them are pointing towards the same conclusion, I think it's worth listening to.
The details of how QBR is computed has not been made public, however, it is essentially measuring a bunch of individual qualities:
- "Total QBR incorporates information from game charting, such as passes dropped or thrown away on purpose.
- Total QBR splits responsibility on plays between the quarterback, his receivers, and his blockers. Drops, for example, are more on the receiver, as are yards after the catch, and some sacks are more on the offensive line than others.
- Total QBR has a clutch factor which adds (or subtracts) value for quarterbacks who perform best (or worst) in high-leverage situations.
- Total QBR combines passing and rushing value into one number and differentiates between scrambles and planned runs.
-
Beginning in 2016, Total QBR is now adjusted for strength of opponent. Total QBR on other stats pages (pre-2016) has not yet been updated with opponent adjustment. (Note: Other QB stats pages will be updated with adjusted QBR and a qualifying minimum of 200 passes sometime before the end of February.)"
Their QBR's are also not that close. Take away Andrew's 2015 season (an outlier) and Stafford's first two seasons and you have 68.25 (Luck) vs. 57.98 (Stafford).) If you average out their total then it is 66 vs 56.81.
I'll link two articles on why I think passer rating is a poor measurement
https://www.profootballfocus.com/stat-sheet-misconceptions-passer-rating/
http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2013/12/4/5175398/why-passer-rating-is-not-a-good-stat
Here is an explanation of PFF's grading system: https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/. It's a pretty thorough process that accounts for situation and performance of every play. I think that's pretty thorough and puts things in proper perspective. Those grades place Andrew Luck on a different tier than Matt Stafford.
So it would stand to reason that Andrew Luck is more valuable on a per-play basis gives his team and much better chance to win.
Finally, I think it's a little bit of a strange thing to claim that Andrew Luck isn't as good as the hype, then list him as the 6th best quarterback in the league, with only one guy remotely close to his age ahead. I would say that the difference between the 6th best quarterback and the 10th best quarterback (I'm flipping Newton and Stafford on your list) is significant.
In terms of raw ranking, we aren't that far off, I just think the difference between those spots is pretty significant. I'm all ears if you have some other way of measuring these two that ranks them closer. I just Luck's circumstance and overall package makes him a better player.
-
3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
My point is, they are closer than people think or will admit. And I have shown this via objective metrics for this to be true. A fair amount of the push back has been with subjective criteria and a small amount of objective validation. So I remain convinced Stafford is nearly (but not quite) the QB Luck is. And the Jim Caldwell / Jim Bob Cooter combo seems to be working well for them. The Pack and the Vikes need to look over their shoulder. And I believe Stafford will be mentioned (along with Rodgers, Luck, Newton, and Ryan) as a top QB when the Brady's and Brees of the NFL world are gone. Plus, there is Carr, Winston, Prescott, and Mariota to keep an eye on as well.
Who do you think gets to the Super Bowl first from here, Colts or Lions?
I'm leaning Lions but hoping Ballard 'hits' on a lot of 4-7 draft choices (I am already convinced he will do well in rounds 1-4) that surprise and propel the Colts to upper tier level quickly once more.
Your "objective metrics" are just total passing yards and touchdowns. I keep giving out more advanced statistics (QBR, PFF metric, etc) you just aren't discussing those points. It's also not "subjective criteria" to argue that Stafford has had a better team around him when that can also be backed statistically.
It's fine if don't want to discuss further but don't try to bury other arguments on your way out. They are close in only a few passing statistics, they aren't similar players, don't play on similar teams and have had very different careers.
I also don't think their future is that bright going forward. They are a 9-7 team with no wins against a team with a winning record and needed a comeback in a significant amount of wins and got soundly beaten in the playoffs.
To to be honest, I'm not sure what the argument even is at this point. My stance is that Luck at his best now can be a top 5 QB and has the potential to get better, Stafford caps out at the lower end of top 10.
-
17 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
OK, I did that too-
And-
This is close to how feel about the two ^^^
Stafford in year 8 had his definitively best season and ranked 8th, top ten consensus this season.
Luck had one of his 3 best seasons and was a consensus top five in year five. This represents the gap between the two in my mind, if that's what you are thinking then we are in agreement.
-
14 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
So, what does that mean?
2860 Cam Newton Rushing Yards 60.5 QBR average (34 rushing TD's to Luck's 14 and Stafford's 11 ) !!!
While luck was mostly throwing just over 4000 yds/year, Stafford was near or over 5000 yards a couple of times. Lets add passing yards to rushing yards for each of the 3 players per season, then total those., Only then will we see a broader picture.
And yes, I still prefer Luck over Stafford by a margin but it's not enormous at this time. Though I do not see an enormous difference, but I do see differences), However, I would take Stafford over many NFL QB's currently being trotted out as starters.
1The point is that he has value as a runner, something Stafford doesn't. I also provided other stats and arguments backing up my point that I believe Luck is a significantly more valuable player.
It's also worth noting that comparing the two from 2012-16 doesn't account for the fact that Stafford has three years of experience over that frame and more time to develop. Luck is a better player from a shorter sample.
To clarify: yes, I believe that Stafford is a very good quarterback, certainly top 15. What I take issue with, and what the article you quoted earlier specifically posits, is the idea that Luck and Stafford are the same, yet Luck is merely "perceived" to be better. From a brief statistical analysis, yes they have similar stats, Luck's overall value just runs deeper.
-
16 minutes ago, NFLfan said:
I don't think he did that purposely. I have seen that happen at other times, including once with me. It's some kind of computer glitch.
As for the original question, it is too early for Luck to be Marino as in "No Super Bowl Championships". Luck has at least 10 more years to bring a SB to Indy.
As for the Stafford comparison, I don't see why that should upset anyone. It is not like being compared to Tim Couch or Sam Bradford. Stafford this year did play a lot like Luck has, bringing his team from behind several times as Luck has done. While I prefer Luck over Stafford, I would take Stafford on my own team any day.
Sure, I wrote the first sentence harsher than I should have.
-
2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
So you are saying Stafford MADE the Lions bad, when based upon the above, they should have won many more games than the Colts did i that time frame. OK, got it.
So the deduced corollary is, if Luck was QB of the Lions instead, he would already have a SB trophy or two in his trophy case and not the dismal record Matthew Stafford has posted. Right?
Stafford is closer to Luck than people will admit, and I predicted this backlash in the OP.
Your position is duly noted, though. But I stand on my assessments.
First, I am not sure why you are quoting a different poster to comment on my argument.
No, that is not what I am arguing. Stafford did not make the Lions worse but my bolded argument is true. The Lions had a better team around him.
Again, no. I have not suggested that Andrew would have won a "SB trophy or two," I just pointed out that Andrew Luck would have had a better team around him from 2012-16, so it stands to reason that he would have a chance of greater success if you put him on a better team.
I don't understand why are stretching reasonable points out to unreasonable extremes. Yes, Stafford and Luck have similar passing statistics and yes Stafford plays in a division with the Packers but there is more nuance to being a good quarterback than that. I addressed the fact that Stafford is 3-5 against the AFC South and Luck is 6-2 against the NFC North, it's also been argued more than a few times in this thread that Stafford had a better team and Luck produced more for the offense on the whole.
In terms of PFF focus rankings, Stafford has been 21st, 11th, 18th, 21st and 7th from, 2012-2016 (in order)
Luck has been 13th, 9th, 5th, 37th, and 4th in the same time span.
I think once you get into deeper statistics, there is a significant difference between the two.
I think Stafford is a very good quarterback, I just don't think passing statistics alone put him and Andrew on the same level.
-
1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
Answer this honestly then, please. If in 2012, we swap Andrew Luck to the Lions and Matthew Stafford to the Colts. Who has the better record since then?
Before the (hypothetical) swap, stats are nearly identical. Only wins is way off, and TD% is slightly lower (5.0 vs. 4.5), other wise.... mirror mirror.
Again, the Lions had one of the greatest receivers of his generation, a better running game than the Colts had, better offensive line and a MUCH better defense between 2012-16. I simply don't see how the argument can be made that Luck wouldn't be able to win more games with a better team around him.
Their volume passing statistics are similar, yes, but Luck has had to carry a more significant burden offensively and hasn't had as good of supporting cast for his career. Not to mention one of the more baffling attempts at roster construction around a franchise player in recent memory.
A few other stats worth points out:
654 Stafford Rushing Yards 59.2 QBR average
Luck 1442 Rushing Yards 66 QBR average
And their QBR's may even be further apart, as Luck's 2015 season pulls his down and Stafford's 2016 is a big jump from previous numbers.
-
20 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
Duly noted, and still disagree.
To close, I counter your presentation bolded statement above with this-
Matthew Stafford was drafted first overall to a team that had only 12 winning seasons since 1967 and had gone 0-16 the year before.
Luck was drafted first overall by a team that had won seven of last ten AFC South championships, was three years removed from a Super Bowl appearance and two years removed from their last division championship.
Ummm, yes indeed. There's quite a bit of a difference there. And...
"With the exception of 2013, Matthew Stafford plays in a division that's had two playoff teams in it every year since 2009, one of which won a Super Bowl recently. Andrew Luck plays in a division that hasn't had two playoff teams since his rookie year and has only one team who has ever won a Super Bowl, the Colts. If the places were switched, would Stafford have the same success as Luck has had? Would Luck have the same troubles and stigmas that Stafford has had? "
Its point - counterpoint... with the same conclusion in my mind... at least for now.
Yes, the Colts were a much better franchise with Peyton Manning at the helm. The team had bottomed out by the time Andrew arrived, Mathis and Wayne were pretty much the only relevant players from that era. Ergo, they both stepped into bad teams.
Division is a fair point but Andrew is 6-2 in his career against that division, while Stafford is 3-5 against South teams. The article you are quoting your arguments from doesn't take into account running stats or supporting casts. Again, give Andrew Luck a defense that good and you would feel that team should be Super Bowl caliber, the Lions lost in the Wild Card.
-
17 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
No, I don't think it is fair to say Luck has carried the Colts more. Andrew was drafted #1 overall by a perennial playoff team hat had Peyton Manning as the QB. Stafford was drafted #1 overall to guide a Lions team that went 0 - 16. He was 2-8 in games he started in his rookie year, and threw a lot of picks learning. But he also became the youngest QB to toss 5 TD passes in a game, doing so almost a full year younger than Dan Marino was when he threw 5.
The more I look, the more I see similarities, not differences. As far as seasons, if their 11 - 5 2014 season is what you refer too, I feel any team trying to get wins past 11 is very difficult... for P. Manning, T. Brady, D. Brees, A. Luck, etc.. Also, Megatron was hurt some that season. But the biggest issue Stafford might have had was the new philosophy of Joe Lombardi at OC. Stafford seems to gel much better under Jim Bob Cooter.. All of these things play into to it, So no, I cannot say A. Luck under J. Lombardi scheme at Detroit would have collected more than 11 wins in 2014.
Comps-
http://football-players.pointafter.com/compare/12698-19572/Andrew-Luck-vs-Matthew-Stafford
I still give my QB the edge, maybe homerism. Maybe ceiling height, maybe intangibles... don't know, but to me they are close with A.Luck having an edge.
Luck was drafted to a team that went 2-14 and the next three seasons they are in the playoffs. The Lions have yet to win a playoff game with Stafford.
You are ignoring the lions having a top 3 defense that year, and Stafford had one of the greatest receivers of his generation for the better part of his career. The coordinator isn't that relevant, Andrew isn't playing under Mike Martz, one year of Arians is the extent of his coordinating excellence. Throw in a terrible team construction and I think it's fair to say Andrew has had more on his shoulders.
I agree Andrew has an edge, I just don't think they're that close overall.
-
6 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
TD % is there.
But as I mentioned earlier, team victories mean little.
I might even add Matthew Stafford would have many more victories if he QB'd for the Colts in his career rather than the Lions. So you can't use team victories unless you can prove the Lions were a better fit for Stafford and would give him more team victories than if playing for the Colts.
I think it's fair to say that Andrew Luck has carried the Colts more than Stanford has the Lions though. Stafford hasn't even been the best player on his team for most of his career.
You think Andrew Luck could've won more with that Lions team (believe it was 2014) where Suh and co lead a very good defense and he would be throwing to Calvin Johnson? I do.
Favorite Colt of All Time
in Colts Football
Posted
I would say Bob Sanders, he was really incredible.