Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Narcosys

  1. Mahomes. Won't have one this year, more chances in the future. That's without team being taken into account. Given the trajectory of the team, and the longevity of Mahomes (barring any unforseen career ending injuries), I believe we have a high chance of winning multiples. I also believe with Luck, and the trajectory of the team, we will win at least one, at most two, superbowls. With Mahomes, it could be three or four. However this is clearly speculation.
  2. To the bolded....Which means he isn't pressured, like I said. and that mahomes is pressured more, like I said. Why is Mahomes out of the pocket? Because he is pressured out! But yet KC has a great Oline? If Mahomes is so bad on time to throw and how long he holds on to the ball, and it is related to pressure, the pressure is allowed by the Oline. You are literally supporting my argument and then not even understanding what you are saying. Again, nobody in this discussion cares about the run stats when comparing QBs. This whole discussion is about QBs. You are bringing up things that have nothing to do with the conversation. You are saying top 5, by only looking at one stat (sacks), that doesn't even come close to actually communicating how good the Oline is in protecting the QB and allowing Time to Throw. Show me pressures and show me hits, or you prove nothing that supports your argument. Your best support for your argument is Sacks and run blocking. Slow clap for you.
  3. It was essentially in a vacuum, but with comparable QBs. Luck over Mayfield, Mahomes over Brady, Rodgers over Jackson. I believe that I would, considering I feel quite sure about the future of our team. But you have no way of knowing if I am saying that facetiously or genuinely or not. But with Lucks age, and injury history, I would feel more comfortable with Mahomes than Luck, even if he had won a SB.
  4. Well of course that is true, but the discussion was focused in on the choice between Luck and Mahomes, not Luck and any unnamed future QB. The uncertainty of finding franchise QBs is why it gives validity to the discussion of Luck or Mahomes for the future of the Colts franchise. If we open the discussion to future QBs, then it essentially is moot.
  5. But Mahomes isn't a scrambling QB, he only scrambles when forced. He's not like Cam Newton, RG3, or those other running QBs. He had more hits, therefore pressured even more than his hits. Yet he still threw for more yards, more TDs and ran for more yards and more yards per attempt. Why are you comparing run stats for an O-line when we're talking about QB protection. One has nothing to do with the other. If we were comparing RBs then you'd have a point, but we aren't. That's why you had to subtract the QB from conversation, just so you could continue to argue that KC's line was just as good as the Colts. When it's just not true. Pull up stats for pressures and hits allowed for the lines, pull up scrambles and scramble yards (don't want to take into account QB run plays). Your pass blocking only takes into account sacks, which does not even come close to supporting your statement, when they allowed far more hits and pressures than the Colts. Their 39 hits ranked them 24th while Colts were tied for 2nd. You don't get hits unless you pressure the QB, but a pressure doesn't mean a hit. So it is safe to assume their pressures are even high than their hits. I have brought up the most relevant stat to the discussion, yet you continue to say KC has a similar Oline. Luck was not injured for season was he? He played all 16 games correct? He was practicing all offseason yes? Then you have no point there. You cannot measurably "give him a little break."
  6. And that is something you cannot do when comparing objectively. This is why it is impossible to debate with people who cannot objectively compare things. No I do have a clue...Colts had the better line yes? I still don't get your point. KC had the worse line of the two and Mahomes had to scramble more. Mahomes led the league in TDs when pressured, and 4th for YPA when pressured. Which your FO site does not take into account the amount of hits or pressures Mahomes had. I would like to find a site that shows how many times a QB was hit or pressured for drop backs (for the season) and compare exactly what we're talking about here. What I have found is that from week 9 to week 14 the Colts allowed 19 hits...in that same time span, KC allowed 39 hits, and you want to sit there and tell me that KC had the superior O-line? Hits will correlate with pressures, therefore Mahomes was unquestionably pressured more than Luck. Hence why I say his mobility is better than Lucks.
  7. Number of sacks does not directly correlate with mobility. Luck had a better O-line. However, Mahomes had better scrambles than luck. Mahomes had 272 yards with a 4.5 average while Luck only had 148 for 3.2. Mahomes had to scramble more, and was able to gain more yards than Luck when he had to scramble. You have to put your arguments in to context and weigh them proportionally. And in one of his losses he had 478 yards and 6 TDs. Another loss was against a divisional opponent that held him to 243 yards (his season lowest) and two TDs with 0 INT. At the same time Luck had 4 games under 243 yards. So Mahomes worst game was still better than a quarter of Lucks entire season. Games against the likes of the Redskins (2 TD, 2INT), the Eagles who were 9-7, and the Raiders (where he had only 239 yards while Mahomes had 285 and 291 against them). Nobody is crowning Mahomes anything. The question is not whether he would do better without an A-List cast, it is would he do just as well as Luck on the Colts. I believe the answer is yes. This is because they are near even in skills that are not impacted by their team (Accuracy, Mobility, Arm Strength, Pocket Awareness).
  8. Dude, that wasn't the argument at all. You are going off a tangent. The debate was whether or not Mahomes could offer just as many or more chances to get to the SB than Luck. Which again, if they are even in skill, and Mahomes has six more years than Luck, then Mahomes gives us more chances.
  9. That is all contextual, if you swap Luck and Mahomes last year to their respective teams, then we could probably assume that their performance would be similar. You argue that we held Mahomes to 66 yards under his average, however the Chiefs held Luck to 84 yards under his average. If you are going to make one point, you need to compare evenly. What you cannot argue is Mahomes abilities. As I mentioned above Mahomes has just as good mobility as Luck, if not better. Mahomes has better arm strength than Luck. He has similar pocket awareness and accuracy. That will translate over to the Colts. So with all things being considered, and Mahomes being the same as or slightly less in skill as Luck, Mahomes would be the better long play for the Colts to reach multiple SBs.
  10. This is not a debate over who is more talented over the other. All things considered, Luck probably has a slight edge over Mahomes currently (we'll see if he has a sophomore slump). Regardless though, that slight edge is not enough to push Luck over the top when it comes to how many chances we will get, considering Mahomes has 6 more years to play over Luck. If Ballard builds an actual balanced team, then Luck nor Mahomes would need a star studded team to play in the SB. You severely discount and underestimate Mahomes' ability as he has great pocket awareness, arm strength, accuracy, and mobility. This is not something that other people on the team affect when it comes to measuring his abilities.
  11. You know what fan is short for right? Are you a fan of luck or the team? A logical, non-emotional, decision would be to choose mahomes over luck if the option was available. There's no changing words or numbers, mahomes came in after and therefore, logically, he will leave the league after. Meaning we would have more chances with him.
  12. No I'm proving a point that it is a valid argument and should not be dismissed based on your blind devotion to Luck.
  13. why not trade our 2nd and 3rd for bell then...? Also...we don't need a RB.
  14. The "what if" is if he gets injured or retires before the normal time span of a QB. First round draft picks and pro-bowl QB's (of which they both are) average 9-12 years playing time. Mahomes just got into the league while Luck has been in since 2012. Looking at the average expectation of a professional QB, we can confidently assume that Luck will finish his career in 5 years (12 seasons) with 8 years at best if he plays to 15 seasons. Meanwhile, Mahomes (with all things being equal) will finish his career 11-14 years under the same assumptions of average play time and max of 15 seasons. This means Mahomes has 6 years more expected playing time than Luck. It is a bigger "what if" to believe that Luck will play longer than Mahomes, than it is to believe that Mahomes will play longer than Luck. Simply looking at the numbers, and common sense, proves this.
  15. Dang, when did that happen? Google his name and he's still listed as a Colts player. He's a free agent though and we didn't offer a contract extensions then? I thought he wanted to retire a Colt, maybe I heard wrong though. Why we would not offer a contract, he played great for us.
  16. If Ballard can give luck those shots, he can give Mahomes those same ones as well. Currently Mahomes has had just as many as Luck as both have made it to the AFCCG once. And you can't work off of what if scenarios, because you can do that for anyone. What if Luck dies tomorrow? Work within known parameters.
  17. Ok I must have not gotten the memo, why hasn't anyone mentioned Inman?
  18. I wouldn't take Carr, keep Brissett. It would take more than just two 1st rounders, and I would not stack the picks in a single draft. I've not made it a secret by any means that I would trade luck, but you gotta be smart about it. Two 1st and two 2nds at least, if not three 1st and a 2nd spread over two to three years.
  19. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38790.htm I read enough, but don't expect it from people here. Legally, he paid for sex and could get off on technicality
  20. That is probably the saddest and most shameful thing I have read in a long time. It is not anywhere near the majority of them. Most don't realize what they're getting into and once in, they are stuck. Some may enter willingly, but then become trafficked. Of those that enter willingly they are almost forced due to poverty, inability to get jobs, and home life situation. Few, if any, go into it thinking it's the career they want for their lives.
  21. No ya that's totally true, but it's more prevalent in under developed countries, explicitly for human/sex trafficking, not just sexual motives which could include rape and molestation without the intent of selling them.
  22. His crime is solicitation, but all solicitation abet human trafficking. It is illegal to pay for sex for that reason. Just like buying illegal drugs abet its trafficking. Sorry, but you just don't do it. So no rich person has ever risked their fortunes doing illegal stuff? Come on now, be the smart person you say you are and not the willfully ignorant one you're portraying. He didn't have to be explicitly told they are sex slaves, it comes with the territory of solicitation and prostitution and even more so with Asians engaged in this. Do you have to be explicitly told as an adult that boiling water is hot? No because you know the processes behind it that cause water to boil. He knew what he was doing is illegal, you simply have to think it through to its logical conclusion. Solicitation and prostitution is the result of human trafficking.
  23. I think he means that the category itself entails more than just "missing children." Kids in under developed countries disappear all the time and are sold into sex trafficking.
  24. Live: wherever work sends me. Currently England. Watch: Gamepass Rewatch: no, cause I've watched it
  • Create New...