Luck ranked #10 by Jaws in QB rankings

[Superman]

Somehow 18 with his multiple $100 mil contracts and football pedigree gets a pass yet again because his schedule was too tough .. unbelievable...then again maybe not...

 

 

Yeah, I wonder what it'll be next year. His two Broncos personnel guys got suspended so that's the reason why.....I mean come on. I know that Manning is one of the greats but there's no need to coddle him and make excuses for every single time he doesn't bring home the Lombardi. I don't think any other player gets as many free passes as he does. And the ironic thing about it is you'll never see PM himself making any excuses.

 

Oh how I love when people completely misconstrue an argument. I never gave Manning or the Broncos a pass, nor did I say anything about their schedule. Qwiz brought up their schedule.

[Qwiz]

The Patriots started out 3-3, just like the Broncos did. And I'm not giving the Broncos a pass, I'm just saying that they obviously had different challenges to work through than the Patriots (or any other contender last season). And you're pretty much basing your entire argument on the fact that they lost the first game of the playoffs. That is a terrible way to go out, but it doesn't undo the accomplishments they made up to that point. Your skepticism is based on the fact that they underperformed in the playoffs, and that's fine. I'm not worried about what they'll do next year, or about the preseason expectations. I think it's normal for a team that ends the season by winning 11 games in a row to be expected to do something in the playoffs. And I think it's normal for that same team to be expected to be good the following season, especially considering the way they lost last year. It's not like they got dominated. They would have won if not for a mental mistake by a young safety. 

 

The Broncos were a good team last year, and will likely be a good time this year. I don't have a problem with you selling on them, that's fine. What I disagree with is the notion that they didn't get better as the season went on.

I'm not basing it purely off of the playoff loss.But like you said, 11 games in a row, people expect results. The safety is the scapegoat as I think there were a lot of different factors that led to the loss. They may have gotten better as the season went on but we could say that about a lot of teams who went against tougher competition as well.

[amfootball]

Oh how I love when people completely misconstrue an argument. I never gave Manning or the Broncos a pass, nor did I say anything about their schedule. Qwiz brought up their schedule.

"It wasn't convenient at all. The Broncos had a frontloaded schedule, with Falcons and Patriots on the road in the first five weeks, plus a home game vs the Texans."

 

Sounds like an excuse to me ...

[Qwiz]

Oh how I love when people completely misconstrue an argument. I never gave Manning or the Broncos a pass, nor did I say anything about their schedule. Qwiz brought up their schedule.

" The Broncos had a frontloaded schedule, with Falcons and Patriots on the road, plus a home game against the Texans." I may have brought up the schedule but that is your quote. Plus the protocol blaming of the safety. Besides, this isn't just about you, this is the mindset of plenty and it goes back years and years, not just 2012. I don't think we need to argue the Manning gets credit for every win but no blame for every loss thing as I think it's been done to death here on the boards, but that's basically what AM and I are referring to.

[Pelt]

It's funny to go over to the Redskins' board and see how much they've all pooped their collective pampers over RG3 being ranked less than Luck. Just as I feel with any talking head...it's just one person's opinion. But i happened to agree with Jaw's on this one

It's funny to see anybody react to these "rankings" like this, regardless of who your favorite player is.

 

They're rankings. They're meaningless and have no inherent influence or tangibility to them. Reagardless of the level of expertise of the person doing the rankings, does ranking *insert your favorite QB here* in the top five right now assure any team of a Championship? Does having *insert your favorite QB here* ranked in the lower teens right now mean they'll miss the playoffs? We already know the answers to these questions, so I don't get why these rankings produce such a reaction.

 

It's that time of year when there is nothing going on with the NFL and these 24/7 sport media outlets have to come up with anything to fill the time.

 

Man, I can't wait until the season starts so there is something more substantial for the media to report on.

[Superman]

Def. not an apples to apples comparison but interesting that you are arguing Luck as the catalyst and big play guy when the team's success in many cases was in spite of his poor play for most of the game. He was money in the fourth just like Tebow two seasons ago. The reason why he had to engineer so many late comebacks is because he put the team in those situations with his low completion percentage and TOs. I think his intagibles are very high similar to Brady back in the early '00s but he is nowhere as consistent as Brady but I think year two will be fantastic to watch his progression and see what this new OC will do. Luck for sure clicked with Arians which is a tough relationship to lose in year 2.

 

That's not accurate. First of all, Tebow wasn't money in the fourth. Tebow had a couple of games where he made a big play or two in the fourth. He didn't carry his team late in games.

 

Second, the argument for Luck isn't just that he was big in the fourth quarter. Luck was one of the league leaders on third down all year long. He is an advanced passer, despite the mistakes he made last season. Tebow was not and never will be an advanced passer. Whatever his positive attributes are, he doesn't have the ability to carry an NFL offense with his arm.

 

Third, we've already debunked the myth that a quarterback can only stage a comeback if he played poorly earlier in the game. It's just not true. Luck was excellent against the Vikings and the Dolphins, all game long, yet we needed him to play well late in the game, and he did. That argument applies to the Lions game, for instance, but it doesn't undo his work with the game on the line.

 

Lastly, you keep bringing up Arians. BA did a great job leading the Colts last season, and he and Luck did click on a personal level. But BA's play calling and game planning were simply awful in certain spots. For instance, we needed a late game touchdown to beat the Chiefs, and up to that point, Luck had been very inconsistent. There was a stretch in the second half where, with the lead, Arians called pass plays on something like 14 out of 17 plays, with only two completions, a sack, and only one first down, off of a penalty. The couple run plays we did call during that stretch were productive, but Arians kept going back to the pass. Many of those pass plays were the signature Arians' vertical attack plays. With a rookie quarterback, on the road, and again, with the lead.

 

When we got the ball for the final drive, we went back to a balanced attack, took the ball downfield, and got a late TD pass to Reggie. I'm not excusing Luck's play, but Arians' play calling didn't make life any easier. And that's why I think his departure will be a net positive for the Colts. He was a much better head coach than offensive coordinator, and I'm glad he got his shot in Arizona. I think he'll make an impact, but I think the Colts' offense will be much more efficient moving forward.

[Superman]

I'm not basing it purely off of the playoff loss.But like you said, 11 games in a row, people expect results. The safety is the scapegoat as I think there were a lot of different factors that led to the loss. They may have gotten better as the season went on but we could say that about a lot of teams who went against tougher competition as well.

 

Scapegoat? He blew the game. They were up by a touchdown with less than a minute left, at home, and his mistake cost them the lead. Sure, there were other factors, but his mistake was crucial, and pivotal. The game should have been over.

 

As to the bolded, so what? That doesn't make it any less true in the Broncos case.

[Superman]

"It wasn't convenient at all. The Broncos had a frontloaded schedule, with Falcons and Patriots on the road in the first five weeks, plus a home game vs the Texans."

 

Sounds like an excuse to me ...

 

That's not an excuse. If you care to look at Qwiz's comment before that, he claimed the Broncos conveniently got better after they played their best competition. My point is that it would have been much better for them to play that tougher competition later in the season, once they had worked out some of their issues. Who knows what the results would have been, but there's no question that they played better as the season went on.

 

By the way, there isn't a lot of need for excuses for a team that won 13 games last season.

[Qwiz]

Scapegoat? He blew the game. They were up by a touchdown with less than a minute left, at home, and his mistake cost them the lead. Sure, there were other factors, but his mistake was crucial, and pivotal. The game should have been over.

 

As to the bolded, so what? That doesn't make it any less true in the Broncos case.

The game could have been over several times in OT as well, but we all know how that went. We could look at every play of every game and say, Hey, that could have been the changing point, so I'm not sure why all the blame is placed on Rahim Moore. There were plenty of mistakes to go around. As for the tougher competition thing. Let's just settle on the fact that the Broncos were heralded as the best, didn't live up to it, and are now heralded as the best again in the AFC. They can prove their worth next season. Or, we will be having this discussion again in February.

[Superman]

" The Broncos had a frontloaded schedule, with Falcons and Patriots on the road, plus a home game against the Texans." I may have brought up the schedule but that is your quote. Plus the protocol blaming of the safety. Besides, this isn't just about you, this is the mindset of plenty and it goes back years and years, not just 2012. I don't think we need to argue the Manning gets credit for every win but no blame for every loss thing as I think it's been done to death here on the boards, but that's basically what AM and I are referring to.

 

Is there anything inaccurate about that? Wasn't their schedule frontloaded? Wasn't that your point to begin with?

 

I already addressed the blame of the safety. Please explain to me what that has to do with them losing to the Falcons, Texans and Patriots in the first five weeks of the season.

 

Lastly, argue about Manning getting credit for every win with someone who gives him credit for every win. I'm the one who vehemently protests when Colts fans claim that he was the only reason the Colts had any success, that he was the de facto coach on the field, that there were no other good players on the team. Pick that fight with someone else. This was never about Manning until you tried to compare Blaine Gabbert on the Packers to a "decent quarterback" on the Broncos.

[amfootball]

That's not accurate. First of all, Tebow wasn't money in the fourth. Tebow had a couple of games where he made a big play or two in the fourth. He didn't carry his team late in games.

 

Second, the argument for Luck isn't just that he was big in the fourth quarter. Luck was one of the league leaders on third down all year long. He is an advanced passer, despite the mistakes he made last season. Tebow was not and never will be an advanced passer. Whatever his positive attributes are, he doesn't have the ability to carry an NFL offense with his arm.

 

Third, we've already debunked the myth that a quarterback can only stage a comeback if he played poorly earlier in the game. It's just not true. Luck was excellent against the Vikings and the Dolphins, all game long, yet we needed him to play well late in the game, and he did. That argument applies to the Lions game, for instance, but it doesn't undo his work with the game on the line.

 

Lastly, you keep bringing up Arians. BA did a great job leading the Colts last season, and he and Luck did click on a personal level. But BA's play calling and game planning were simply awful in certain spots. For instance, we needed a late game touchdown to beat the Chiefs, and up to that point, Luck had been very inconsistent. There was a stretch in the second half where, with the lead, Arians called pass plays on something like 14 out of 17 plays, with only two completions, a sack, and only one first down, off of a penalty. The couple run plays we did call during that stretch were productive, but Arians kept going back to the pass. Many of those pass plays were the signature Arians' vertical attack plays. With a rookie quarterback, on the road, and again, with the lead.

 

When we got the ball for the final drive, we went back to a balanced attack, took the ball downfield, and got a late TD pass to Reggie. I'm not excusing Luck's play, but Arians' play calling didn't make life any easier. And that's why I think his departure will be a net positive for the Colts. He was a much better head coach than offensive coordinator, and I'm glad he got his shot in Arizona. I think he'll make an impact, but I think the Colts' offense will be much more efficient moving forward.

Tebow had the second highest QBR with nine minutes or less to go in the fourth. His play was stellar whether he was running which was the majority of the time or throwing. He also led the number one rushing offense on an absolutely putrid team. There is more than one way to win at football and my comparison of Luck to Tebow is just that  - both guys found ways to win and often overcame their own poor play to do it.

 

Tebow also had games where he played well, i.e. Vikings and regular season game against Pats only to see his defense or RBs let him down. Luck as you said had games where he too played good and still had to engineer a comeback but many times his defense kept him in the game so he could come back.

In terms of Arians, I think you can always nitpick at certain games during the year but he won COY for a reason. He was the best coach all year on a team that was not picked to win many games and he was only supposed to be the OC to boot. He was given the keys to the kingdom unexpectedly and did a job no one was expecting. He was the MAIN reason Luck had the success he had. When he was not there calling plays against the Ravens in the playoffs both Luck and the O looked lost IMO.

 

You may be right that the offense may be more efficient this season as the Steelers were more efficient last year but alas no playoffs. Efficiency does not necessary translate into wins. Arians has been a success in his last two stops and his QBs love him. We will see how this new OC does and Pagano for that matter. I am looking forward to it.

[Qwiz]

Is there anything inaccurate about that? Wasn't their schedule frontloaded? Wasn't that your point to begin with?

 

I already addressed the blame of the safety. Please explain to me what that has to do with them losing to the Falcons, Texans and Patriots in the first five weeks of the season.

 

Lastly, argue about Manning getting credit for every win with someone who gives him credit for every win. I'm the one who vehemently protests when Colts fans claim that he was the only reason the Colts had any success, that he was the de facto coach on the field, that there were no other good players on the team. Pick that fight with someone else. This was never about Manning until you tried to compare Blaine Gabbert on the Packers to a "decent quarterback" on the Broncos.

The safety has to do with my point of the Manning excuse camp, not with the good-team losses. I never said you are one of the perpetrators, but your argument in this case adheres to those same ones used by the excuse-makers. Heck, put someone like Ponder (who is decent) on the Packers and we don't see the same success they have under Rodgers. Tebow got the Broncos to the playoffs and won a game and he is constantly being criticized and some believe that he is a lesser QB than Gabbert. But this debate is pointless.

[Superman]

The game could have been over several times in OT as well, but we all know how that went. We could look at every play of every game and say, Hey, that could have been the changing point, so I'm not sure why all the blame is placed on Rahim Moore. There were plenty of mistakes to go around. As for the tougher competition thing. Let's just settle on the fact that the Broncos were heralded as the best, didn't live up to it, and are now heralded as the best again in the AFC. They can prove their worth next season. Or, we will be having this discussion again in February.

 

Yeah, if Ed Reed had blown a deep coverage to a Broncos receiver.

 

All of the blame doesn't get placed on Moore. Manning deserves blame for his late interception. John Fox deserves blame for his conservative coaching (and has accepted some of that blame). It's not JUST Moore's fault that they lost. But that doesn't change the fact that Moore's mistake cost them the game. They were ahead with less than a minute left, he blew his assignment, and it cost them the lead. It was the single biggest play in the game. 

 

The Broncos were playing very well at the end of the season. They had just beaten the Ravens in Baltimore, pretty definitively, with a nice all around game. They had homefield throughout the playoffs. I don't why you consider it hype that they were favored going into the playoffs. I think they had earned most of that hype. And if they have another strong season, I think they'll be considered a legitimate contender going into the 2013 playoffs. If you want to write off their chances based on a playoff loss last season, that's fine. I find that a tad unreasonable. You say they can prove their worth, as if they deserve no credit at all for winning 13 games last year.

 

Yeah, they'll be judged by what they do in the playoffs, fair or not, but as always, I disagree with the notion that what you do in the regular season doesn't matter.

[jvan1973]

The game could have been over several times in OT as well, but we all know how that went. We could look at every play of every game and say, Hey, that could have been the changing point, so I'm not sure why all the blame is placed on Rahim Moore. There were plenty of mistakes to go around. As for the tougher competition thing. Let's just settle on the fact that the Broncos were heralded as the best, didn't live up to it, and are now heralded as the best again in the AFC. They can prove their worth next season. Or, we will be having this discussion again in February.

if not for Houston crapping their pants in Indy again last year, maybe things would have turned out differently

[Qwiz]

Yeah, if Ed Reed had blown a deep coverage to a Broncos receiver.

 

All of the blame doesn't get placed on Moore. Manning deserves blame for his late interception. John Fox deserves blame for his conservative coaching (and has accepted some of that blame). It's not JUST Moore's fault that they lost. But that doesn't change the fact that Moore's mistake cost them the game. They were ahead with less than a minute left, he blew his assignment, and it cost them the lead. It was the single biggest play in the game. 

 

The Broncos were playing very well at the end of the season. They had just beaten the Ravens in Baltimore, pretty definitively, with a nice all around game. They had homefield throughout the playoffs. I don't why you consider it hype that they were favored going into the playoffs. I think they had earned most of that hype. And if they have another strong season, I think they'll be considered a legitimate contender going into the 2013 playoffs. If you want to write off their chances based on a playoff loss last season, that's fine. I find that a tad unreasonable. You say they can prove their worth, as if they deserve no credit at all for winning 13 games last year.

 

Yeah, they'll be judged by what they do in the playoffs, fair or not, but as always, I disagree with the notion that what you do in the regular season doesn't matter.

We're going in circles here. Yes they get credit for 13 wins. My team won 12 and we're around team #8 or 9 in some people's minds. Wins don't necessarily mean you should be automatic favorites. The Patriots went further in the playoffs than the Broncos and they are ranked lower, even before the Hernandez thing. I don't think I'm being unreasonable but then again it is my point of view lol.

[Qwiz]

if not for Houston crapping their pants in Indy again last year, maybe things would have turned out differently

Houston has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm trying to have a civil debate here, I don't want this to veer to the Texans v.s. Colts, Andy v.s. Matt thing again lol. So I will refrain from my usual witty comeback.

[Superman]

Tebow had the second highest QBR with nine minutes or less to go in the fourth. His play was stellar whether he was running which was the majority of the time or throwing. He also led the number one rushing offense on an absolutely putrid team. There is more than one way to win at football and my comparison of Luck to Tebow is just that  - both guys found ways to win and often overcame their own poor play to do it.

 

Tebow also had games where he played well, i.e. Vikings and regular season game against Pats only to see his defense or RBs let him down. Luck as you said had games where he too played good and still had to engineer a comeback but many times his defense kept him in the game so he could come back.

 

So what? QBR is weighted toward plays in the fourth quarter. If a quarterback completes two passes for 30 yards and a touchdown in the fourth quarter, he'll have a higher QBR than he would on those same two passes in the third quarter. QBR doesn't equal "better." 

 

Talk about hype. Tebow isn't a good quarterback, despite his positive attributes. The Broncos caught lightning in a bottle for a few weeks, but that doesn't make Tebow a good quarterback. The Colts also caught lightning in a bottle last season, but Luck doesn't need luck to be successful. He's a good passer, and can carry an offense for four quarters with his arm. 

 

In terms of Arians, I think you can always nitpick at certain games during the year but he won COY for a reason. He was the best coach all year on a team that was not picked to win many games and he was only supposed to be the OC to boot. He was given the keys to the kingdom unexpectedly and did a job no one was expecting. He was the MAIN reason Luck had the success he had. When he was not there calling plays against the Ravens in the playoffs both Luck and the O looked lost IMO.

Well if I'm choosing between Arians and Christensen as my coordinator, I'm choosing Arians. But that's not the conversation we're having. The Colts offense didn't do very well against the Ravens, but that was much more than just Arians not being there. On the road, a good defense, a rookie quarterback, all those things mattered in that game. Maybe Arians being there would have helped, but that's just one factor.

And me pointing out the flaws in Arians' play calling isn't nitpicking. It's analysis. He's a boom or bust coordinator. He's a stubborn play caller, a coach who doesn't adjust his offensiive gameplan to minimize his team's weaknesses. Go look at the difference between the Week 15 game against the Texans and the Week 17 game against the Texans. One features a doomed from the start offensive gameplan, and the other shows adjustments made to address some weaknesses.

I've said several times that I think Arians makes a much better head coach than offensive coordinator, and I think that if he surrenders play calling in Arizona, that will continue to be the case. He deserves a ton of credit for leading his team last year under difficult circumstances, and Luck benefited from his presence tremendously. But his offensive philosophy, his game planning and his play calling, all leave something to be desired. And at this point, I think Luck and the Colts are better off without Arians, since the positives that come from him being a head coach aren't as pronounced when he's not operating in that capacity.

 

You may be right that the offense may be more efficient this season as the Steelers were more efficient last year but alas no playoffs. Efficiency does not necessary translate into wins. Arians has been a success in his last two stops and his QBs love him. We will see how this new OC does and Pagano for that matter. I am looking forward to it.

There's a lot that's unknown. But I'd rather have an efficient offense than a boom or bust offense, particularly when we have a quarterback that has proven that he can make plays. And here we are, back at the original topic, and the reason I prefer Luck over Schaub. I think Luck's efficiency will improve, but he'll still be a superior playmaker.

[Superman]

We're going in circles here. Yes they get credit for 13 wins. My team won 12 and we're around team #8 or 9 in some people's minds. Wins don't necessarily mean you should be automatic favorites. The Patriots went further in the playoffs than the Broncos and they are ranked lower, even before the Hernandez thing. I don't think I'm being unreasonable but then again it is my point of view lol.

The Texans didn't finish the regular season as strongly as the Broncos did. And their playoff exit came with less drama and excitement. I think the Texans are a very good team, but I think Manning over Schaub is the difference there.

Wins don't make you an automatic favorite, but consensus is that the Broncos offseason made them better overall. Compared with the Patriots, who have injury concerns (Gronkowski, specifically), lost a very key player in free agency, and still didn't do much to address their pass defense. And now they lost Hernandez, and maybe Dennard. Going further in the playoffs doesn't make you an automatic favorite, either, which is why people are questioning the Ravens.

Me personally, I don't think the Ravens had as bad an offseason as people say. Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are older, and needed to be replaced. Kruger vs. Dumervil is probably a wash. Cary Williams and Ellerbe might hurt. Boldin was big in the playoffs, but hadn't been very dependable overall. I think the Ravens will be strong again, but I don't think they have the same amount of success in the playoffs.

The Patriots had a bad offseason, all things considered. But they'll still contend because of Brady and Belichick.

The Broncos added a pretty good guard, added the best slot receiver in the game, added two veteran cornerbacks and some beef in the middle, and grabbed a veteran pass rusher. The only notable defection is Dumervil, and that was a pay grade move. They also had a pretty good draft. This is for a team that already had a strong season last year, and took the eventual champs to double OT. It's reasonable that they are considered a preseason favorite. We'll see what happens.

[amfootball]

 

So what? QBR is weighted toward plays in the fourth quarter. If a quarterback completes two passes for 30 yards and a touchdown in the fourth quarter, he'll have a higher QBR than he would on those same two passes in the third quarter. QBR doesn't equal "better." 

 

Talk about hype. Tebow isn't a good quarterback, despite his positive attributes. The Broncos caught lightning in a bottle for a few weeks, but that doesn't make Tebow a good quarterback. The Colts also caught lightning in a bottle last season, but Luck doesn't need luck to be successful. He's a good passer, and can carry an offense for four quarters with his arm. 

 

Well if I'm choosing between Arians and Christensen as my coordinator, I'm choosing Arians. But that's not the conversation we're having. The Colts offense didn't do very well against the Ravens, but that was much more than just Arians not being there. On the road, a good defense, a rookie quarterback, all those things mattered in that game. Maybe Arians being there would have helped, but that's just one factor.

And me pointing out the flaws in Arians' play calling isn't nitpicking. It's analysis. He's a boom or bust coordinator. He's a stubborn play caller, a coach who doesn't adjust his offensiive gameplan to minimize his team's weaknesses. Go look at the difference between the Week 15 game against the Texans and the Week 17 game against the Texans. One features a doomed from the start offensive gameplan, and the other shows adjustments made to address some weaknesses.

I've said several times that I think Arians makes a much better head coach than offensive coordinator, and I think that if he surrenders play calling in Arizona, that will continue to be the case. He deserves a ton of credit for leading his team last year under difficult circumstances, and Luck benefited from his presence tremendously. But his offensive philosophy, his game planning and his play calling, all leave something to be desired. And at this point, I think Luck and the Colts are better off without Arians, since the positives that come from him being a head coach aren't as pronounced when he's not operating in that capacity.

 

There's a lot that's unknown. But I'd rather have an efficient offense than a boom or bust offense, particularly when we have a quarterback that has proven that he can make plays. And here we are, back at the original topic, and the reason I prefer Luck over Schaub. I think Luck's efficiency will improve, but he'll still be a superior playmaker.

If Tebow caught lightning in a bottle then so did Luck as all we have is one season to go on and both had lousy stats and dramatic 4th quarter wins on teams not picked to do much.

 

Your opinion of Arians surprises me. You seem like you have a keen football mind. Ben R. was more than irate when Arians left and he has two rings. Not to mention Tomlin as well. So his OC capabilities are very well endorsed in the league which is why he got another job offer so quickly. It remains to be seen what the new OC will do but he has enormous shoes to fill as expectations are sky high for a team that over achieved in most everyone opinions outside of Indy...and that has everything to do with Arians whose offense was more boom then bust.

[House]

If Tebow caught lightning in a bottle then so did Luck as all we have is one season to go on and both had lousy stats.

One of them had lousy stats.

It was the guy wearing orange.

[Dustin]

Lol at comparing Tebow to Luck. Some people here must not watch football.

[Superman]

If Tebow caught lightning in a bottle then so did Luck as all we have is one season to go on and both had lousy stats and dramatic 4th quarter wins on teams not picked to do much.

See, that's my point. Luck didn't have lousy stats. He had a lousy completion percentage. Even his interceptions, while too many, aren't that far off the norm. An interception rate of 2.9% isn't troubling at all for a rookie passer (Drew Brees' interception rate was 2.8%). On the other hand, show me when Tebow is able to throw for 4,400 yards and 23 touchdowns.

Tons of room for improvement with Luck, but he's a far superior passer.

And yes he did catch lightning in a bottle. I acknowledged that. But again, he is a superior passer, and with polish and experience will come greater efficiency. Tebow will never be a 4,000 yard passer, he'll never throw for 23 touchdowns, and he'll never lead a team with as many holes as the 2012 Colts to an 11 win season.

 

Your opinion of Arians surprises me. You seem like you have a keen football mind. Ben R. was more than irate when Arians left and he has two rings. Not to mention Tomlin as well. So his OC capabilities are very well endorsed in the league which is why he got another job offer so quickly. It remains to be seen what the new OC will do but he has enormous shoes to fill as expectations are sky high for a team that over achieved in most everyone opinions outside of Indy...and that has everything to do with Arians whose offense was more boom then bust.

The Colts surprised even people in Indy. Local writers and Colts fans were primed for another top pick. Much credit to Bruce Arians. But his job was made a little easier due to the foundation that Pagano laid in the offseason, before his sickness. Pagano instilled a fighter's spirit, galvanized a team against the world, and made everyone believe that anything was possible. Arians picked up where Pagano left off. I'm not sure what Pagano will be as a head coach over time, but I am certain that Arians wouldn't have been as successful if not for Pagano's leadership.

Besides that, though, I don't care that Roethlisberger was upset about Arians leaving. Ben's efficiency improved significantly without Arians. (By the way, Mike Tomlin made the decision to get rid of Arians, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say he was upset about it.) I don't care that he's well endorsed throughout the league. None of that covers up his flaws. He's a great guy, and his players love him. But his offensive philosophy and his rigid play calling are problematic, and that's only exacerbated on a team with a tunrstile offensive line. He was the right guy for this team last year; he's not the right coordinator moving forward.

Arians' offense was more boom than bust, in some respects (still didn't score enough points though, which is the primary factor). But that's partly a function of having a quarterback who can make those boom plays. You take that quarterback and put him an offense that promotes efficiency, and now you have a more disciplined attack with the same big play capability. I think Arians' influence will have a residual effect, and we'll still be able to attack downfield, but the scoring and efficiency will be improved.

[BOTT]

What was wrong with the Broncos season? They came closer to beating the Ravens than anyone else in the playoffs....but hey, let's conviently forget that part. Like there season would have been a rousing success if they beat teams like the Vikings or Bengals in the first round? Or they had beaten a mediocre Tim tebow led team to reach the AFC championship game?

Stop playing dumb.

[Qwiz]

The Texans didn't finish the regular season as strongly as the Broncos did. And their playoff exit came with less drama and excitement. I think the Texans are a very good team, but I think Manning over Schaub is the difference there.

Wins don't make you an automatic favorite, but consensus is that the Broncos offseason made them better overall. Compared with the Patriots, who have injury concerns (Gronkowski, specifically), lost a very key player in free agency, and still didn't do much to address their pass defense. And now they lost Hernandez, and maybe Dennard. Going further in the playoffs doesn't make you an automatic favorite, either, which is why people are questioning the Ravens.

Me personally, I don't think the Ravens had as bad an offseason as people say. Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are older, and needed to be replaced. Kruger vs. Dumervil is probably a wash. Cary Williams and Ellerbe might hurt. Boldin was big in the playoffs, but hadn't been very dependable overall. I think the Ravens will be strong again, but I don't think they have the same amount of success in the playoffs.

The Patriots had a bad offseason, all things considered. But they'll still contend because of Brady and Belichick.

The Broncos added a pretty good guard, added the best slot receiver in the game, added two veteran cornerbacks and some beef in the middle, and grabbed a veteran pass rusher. The only notable defection is Dumervil, and that was a pay grade move. They also had a pretty good draft. This is for a team that already had a strong season last year, and took the eventual champs to double OT. It's reasonable that they are considered a preseason favorite. We'll see what happens.

Fair enough. We added a lot of key free agents but are still ranked low but I'm used to it lol. You're right, we'll see what happens when the season rolls around.

[Superman]

Fair enough. We added a lot of key free agents but are still ranked low but I'm used to it lol. You're right, we'll see what happens when the season rolls around.

It's a quarterback driven league and media. Manning and Brady lead to the Broncos and Pats being ranked higher than the Texans. Your team will never get that kind of respect until they really challenge in the playoffs.

There's a bunch of revisionist history, but the Colts didn't get that kind of respect until after they finally started making noise in the postseason in 2003. Going into the playoffs that year, the question was "will Manning finally win a playoff game?" And he had just won his first MVP. It was the second year under Dungy. Still lots of naysayers in the national media, and Manning was held in much higher regard back then than Schaub is now. He was also younger, and thus expected to get better, whereas Schaub is already 32.

By the way, the Texans had an(other) excellent offseason, including the draft. But the skepticism is really about your head coach and quarterback. Similar to the Cowboys with Wade Phillips and Tony Romo.

[Qwiz]

It's a quarterback driven league and media. Manning and Brady lead to the Broncos and Pats being ranked higher than the Texans. Your team will never get that kind of respect until they really challenge in the playoffs.

There's a bunch of revisionist history, but the Colts didn't get that kind of respect until after they finally started making noise in the postseason in 2003. Going into the playoffs that year, the question was "will Manning finally win a playoff game?" And he had just won his first MVP. It was the second year under Dungy. Still lots of naysayers in the national media, and Manning was held in much higher regard back then than Schaub is now. He was also younger, and thus expected to get better, whereas Schaub is already 32.

By the way, the Texans had an(other) excellent offseason, including the draft. But the skepticism is really about your head coach and quarterback. Similar to the Cowboys with Wade Phillips and Tony Romo.

Yeah true. I didn't realize it took Manning till 03 to start making noise in the postseason. It's time to put up or shut up for a couple of teams now. I hope my guys at least can do the former

[dw49]

I'm not the one who called the opposing team's QB garbage. Or a terrible player. Or anything. But I suppose the opposing fan takes all the blame whenever threads like this happen. Whatever. We'll see who wears the crown of the AFC South at the end of the year. Guess who's the two-year reigning champion? I'm pretty sure it's that team whose board you mention you like hanging out on.

 

 

I know you like stats , so here's one to file away in your memory bank.

 

 

 

Kyle Rodriguez at Colts Authority took a week-by-week look at how Andrew Luck performed after the two-minute warning. Rodriguez discovered, "he's one of just two quarterbacks (rookie or veteran) since 2000 to lead at least 10 successful sub-two-minute drives in one season." 

[Björn Werner 92]

Whatever you say. Call me back when you sign up, rookie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFy3OVn2UNg 3rd and 23. Hope that secondary gets better, Andrew doesn't play dink n' dunk. I guarantee you the Colts are going to have a better secondary than the Texans, mark my words.

[Qwiz]

I know you like stats , so here's one to file away in your memory bank.

 

 

 

Kyle Rodriguez at Colts Authority took a week-by-week look at how Andrew Luck performed after the two-minute warning. Rodriguez discovered, "he's one of just two quarterbacks (rookie or veteran) since 2000 to lead at least 10 successful sub-two-minute drives in one season." 

Nice. I'll keep that in mind.

[Qwiz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFy3OVn2UNg 3rd and 23. Hope that secondary gets better, Andrew doesn't play dink n' dunk. I guarantee you the Colts are going to have a better secondary than the Texans, mark my words.

 I'll take Reed and JoJo over Landry and Toler anyday. But that's just my preference. To each his own.

[amfootball]

See, that's my point. Luck didn't have lousy stats. He had a lousy completion percentage. Even his interceptions, while too many, aren't that far off the norm. An interception rate of 2.9% isn't troubling at all for a rookie passer (Drew Brees' interception rate was 2.8%). On the other hand, show me when Tebow is able to throw for 4,400 yards and 23 touchdowns.

Tons of room for improvement with Luck, but he's a far superior passer.

And yes he did catch lightning in a bottle. I acknowledged that. But again, he is a superior passer, and with polish and experience will come greater efficiency. Tebow will never be a 4,000 yard passer, he'll never throw for 23 touchdowns, and he'll never lead a team with as many holes as the 2012 Colts to an 11 win season.

 

The Colts surprised even people in Indy. Local writers and Colts fans were primed for another top pick. Much credit to Bruce Arians. But his job was made a little easier due to the foundation that Pagano laid in the offseason, before his sickness. Pagano instilled a fighter's spirit, galvanized a team against the world, and made everyone believe that anything was possible. Arians picked up where Pagano left off. I'm not sure what Pagano will be as a head coach over time, but I am certain that Arians wouldn't have been as successful if not for Pagano's leadership.

Besides that, though, I don't care that Roethlisberger was upset about Arians leaving. Ben's efficiency improved significantly without Arians. (By the way, Mike Tomlin made the decision to get rid of Arians, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say he was upset about it.) I don't care that he's well endorsed throughout the league. None of that covers up his flaws. He's a great guy, and his players love him. But his offensive philosophy and his rigid play calling are problematic, and that's only exacerbated on a team with a tunrstile offensive line. He was the right guy for this team last year; he's not the right coordinator moving forward.

Arians' offense was more boom than bust, in some respects (still didn't score enough points though, which is the primary factor). But that's partly a function of having a quarterback who can make those boom plays. You take that quarterback and put him an offense that promotes efficiency, and now you have a more disciplined attack with the same big play capability. I think Arians' influence will have a residual effect, and we'll still be able to attack downfield, but the scoring and efficiency will be improved.

That is your opinion on Tebow. He has only started a total of 16 games in the NFL and won his division and a playoff game so he has more success than Luck. Luck is the better passer but not the better runner. Tebow's potentially is largely unknown until he gets a chance again possibly with the Pats down the line. He did show that when a team committed to him and his strengths he could win so that is what do know everything else is conjecture.

 

In terms of Luck, I do think he will improve but am not sold on his new OC. You also seem to give a lot of credit to Pagano for a season in which he was not even in the facility. He did not build the team, the GM did.

 

In terms of the Steelers, BOTH Ben and Tomlin were upset about the Arians release. It was the Owner that made the decision to keep Ben from getting hurt which didn't see to matter in retrospect as he got injured anyways. And like I said, efficiency is fine and dandy if it produces wins so far the Steerlers have not been to the playoffs since Arians left so we shall see what year two brings for them.

[amfootball]

One of them had lousy stats.

It was the guy wearing orange.

Number one rushing offense says otherwise ...

[Dustin]

Luck is the better passer but not a better runner..

The difference is marginal. Luck gets more YAC, breaks tackles at a higher rate, and doesn't run himself into sacks like Tebow does.

[braveheartcolt]

That is your opinion on Tebow. He has only started a total of 16 games in the NFL and won his division and a playoff game so he has more success than Luck. Luck is the better passer but not the better runner. Tebow's potentially is largely unknown until he gets a chance again possibly with the Pats down the line. He did show that when a team committed to him and his strengths he could win so that is what do know everything else is conjecture.

 

In terms of Luck, I do think he will improve but am not sold on his new OC. You also seem to give a lot of credit to Pagano for a season in which he was not even in the facility. He did not build the team, the GM did.

 

In terms of the Steelers, BOTH Ben and Tomlin were upset about the Arians release. It was the Owner that made the decision to keep Ben from getting hurt which didn't see to matter in retrospect as he got injured anyways. And like I said, efficiency is fine and dandy if it produces wins so far the Steerlers have not been to the playoffs since Arians left so we shall see what year two brings for them.

So if Brady decided to retire tomorrow, you would rather have Tebow as your starting QB over Luck? Is that what you are saying?

[House]

Number one rushing offense says otherwise ...

What does the team rushing have to do with their stats? Was Tebow throwing blocks that I missed?

[House]

That is your opinion on Tebow. He has only started a total of 16 games in the NFL and won his division and a playoff game so he has more success than Luck. Luck is the better passer but not the better runner. Tebow's potentially is largely unknown until he gets a chance again possibly with the Pats down the line. He did show that when a team committed to him and his strengths he could win so that is what do know everything else is conjecture.

In terms of Luck, I do think he will improve but am not sold on his new OC. You also seem to give a lot of credit to Pagano for a season in which he was not even in the facility. He did not build the team, the GM did.

In terms of the Steelers, BOTH Ben and Tomlin were upset about the Arians release. It was the Owner that made the decision to keep Ben from getting hurt which didn't see to matter in retrospect as he got injured anyways. And like I said, efficiency is fine and dandy if it produces wins so far the Steerlers have not been to the playoffs since Arians left so we shall see what year two brings for them.

Tim is not a better runner lol. He is much less athletic than Andrew. Luck is bigger, and faster than Tim. It's just not beneficial for Luck to be running like it was for Tim. Because Tim passing more than he ran was a liability. If Tebow was in an offense that required him to throw as much as Andrew did, AND be a dynamic running threat when the plays break down, he wouldn't last.

Though I'm not sure you would call him doing at the moment "lasting."

[dw49]

Nice. I'll keep that in mind.

 

 

Thought you would like that one. 

[House]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/971739/simul.gif

Never seen this before. A gif of Luck, Newton, and RG3 running the 40 at once.

RG3 can fly, but our guy is no slouch lol.

[Superman]

That is your opinion on Tebow. He has only started a total of 16 games in the NFL and won his division and a playoff game so he has more success than Luck. Luck is the better passer but not the better runner. Tebow's potentially is largely unknown until he gets a chance again possibly with the Pats down the line. He did show that when a team committed to him and his strengths he could win so that is what do know everything else is conjecture.

Call it what you want. Tebow isn't a good passer, never will be.

 

In terms of Luck, I do think he will improve but am not sold on his new OC. You also seem to give a lot of credit to Pagano for a season in which he was not even in the facility. He did not build the team, the GM did.

Pagano was hired in late January. He was diagnosed in late September. That's eight months of work he put in, and that work had already started to pay off. For you to say he wasn't even in the facility is nuts. Look at the way the team rallied around his "Build the Monster" slogan, or the power rankings t-shirts. None of those things equal wins, but Pagano set the tone in the offseason and the preseason, and early in the year. The team's identity was forged largely from Pagano's influence.

 

In terms of the Steelers, BOTH Ben and Tomlin were upset about the Arians release. It was the Owner that made the decision to keep Ben from getting hurt which didn't see to matter in retrospect as he got injured anyways. And like I said, efficiency is fine and dandy if it produces wins so far the Steerlers have not been to the playoffs since Arians left so we shall see what year two brings for them.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/03/coach-tomlin-says-he-made-steelers-calls-on-firinghiring/1#.UeRWY9K1HkY

Did Rooney II tell him to make the change, as has been speculated?

"He didn't," said Tomlin. "I don't know where some of these perceptions come from. I don't break my neck and try to combat them in any way. I don't know where they come from, I don't. And I hired Todd Haley as well. Was that your next question?"

It's also worth noting that there had been calls for a couple years to get rid of Arians as the coordinator in Pittsburgh. His flaws are obvious, and us Colts fans got a close-up look at them in 2012.

[amfootball]

Call it what you want. Tebow isn't a good passer, never will be.

 

Pagano was hired in late January. He was diagnosed in late September. That's eight months of work he put in, and that work had already started to pay off. For you to say he wasn't even in the facility is nuts. Look at the way the team rallied around his "Build the Monster" slogan, or the power rankings t-shirts. None of those things equal wins, but Pagano set the tone in the offseason and the preseason, and early in the year. The team's identity was forged largely from Pagano's influence.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2012/03/coach-tomlin-says-he-made-steelers-calls-on-firinghiring/1#.UeRWY9K1HkY

It's also worth noting that there had been calls for a couple years to get rid of Arians as the coordinator in Pittsburgh. His flaws are obvious, and us Colts fans got a close-up look at them in 2012.

Wow. Colts fans are a tough crowd to please. First it was Caldwell and his 14 win season which would have been 16 if he was allowed to play his starters and now Arians and his 11 wins on a team that lost its HC and was supposed to win only a handful of games. What are you going to say about Pagano if the team does take a step back and manages to only win 8-9 games this season?