Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Conversations are moderated for civility. We ask that you please stay on topic. For more info, see our Community Guidelines ×
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

You know what really grinds my gears?

bap1331

By bap1331
in Colts Football

 Share

Andrew Luck  

74 members have voted

  1. 1. Which applies to Andrew Luck the most?

    • Andrew Luck is the next Aaron Rodgers
      3
    • -Andrew Luck is the combination of (insert Hall of Famer here) and (Insert Hall of Famer here)
      3
    • Andrew Luck reminds me of John Elway
      3
    • Andrew Luck is the next Peyton Manning
      7
    • Andrew Luck is Andrew Luck!
      58

Recommended Posts

Goodtimes Walk On

Goodtimes

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey, I was only commenting on what someone else said. Why don't you make your comment to them. Now, if you want to compare Luck to players from his draft class or perhaps the year before, I think he is better at the mental approach then any of them. Do not jump my case when I make a logical response to another poster's illogical statement.  ;)

Edited by Superman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goodtimes Walk On

Goodtimes

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey, I didn't say that he should. I was commenting to another poster who said he had Peyton's brain. I agree with you, he doesn't and there is no reason to think that he should. Compare him to QBs from his class and the year before and his mental abilities are ahead of all of them. I don't know why you post in outrage at a reasonable post that I made in response to one that was just silly. If you have something to say, say it to the person who thought he was Manning's NFL mental equal right now.

Edited by Superman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

Hey, I was only commenting on what someone else said. Why don't you make your comment to them. Now, if you want to compare Luck to players from his draft class or perhaps the year before, I think he is better at the mental approach then any of them. Do not jump my case when I make a logical response to another poster's illogical statement.  ;)

 

 

Hey, I didn't say that he should. I was commenting to another poster who said he had Peyton's brain. I agree with you, he doesn't and there is no reason to think that he should. Compare him to QBs from his class and the year before and his mental abilities are ahead of all of them. I don't know why you post in outrage at a reasonable post that I made in response to one that was just silly. If you have something to say, say it to the person who thought he was Manning's NFL mental equal right now.

 

1) If you aren't quoting anyone's post, how would anyone know who you're responding to?

 

2) Your post wasn't reasonable.

 

3) No one is in an outrage.

 

4) No one said Luck is as good as Manning at reading defenses or making adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
colts_mp Walk On

colts_mp

Posted
Posted

So you mean to tell me that a guy with only 21 games played isn't as good at reading defenses and making adjustments as a guy with 249 games played? That can't be!

this is why it's ridiculous to compare Luck to any of the other QB's mentioned in this thread or any other HOF QB's.  The guy has only played 21 games and can't possibly have shown any comparable skill with enough consistency that would warrant a fair comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superman Ring of Honor

Superman

Posted
Posted

this is why it's ridiculous to compare Luck to any of the other QB's mentioned in this thread or any other HOF QB's.  The guy has only played 21 games and can't possibly have shown any comparable skill with enough consistency that would warrant a fair comparison.

 

It's very silly. I know most of us are really excited about Andrew Luck, but not only does he have a long way to go and a lot of developing to do, but even when he's settling into being an NFL quarterback, he's not going to be some sci-fi fusion of other great quarterbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason_ Hall of Famer

Jason_

Posted
Posted

It's very silly. I know most of us are really excited about Andrew Luck, but not only does he have a long way to go and a lot of developing to do, but even when he's settling into being an NFL quarterback, he's not going to be some sci-fi fusion of other great quarterbacks.

 

I'm pretty sure you're wrong.  Clearly Luck was not actually born but grown in a lab using the genetic material from Elway, Marino, Peyton, Montana, Randall Cunningham, Steve Young and let's go ahead and throw in some Warren Moon and Jim Kelly just for kicks.  He was only allowed to be adopted by the Luck family because he was "lucky" to get all of the good qualities from those Qb's and not the bad ones.  All the bad qualities went to the twin "brother" that nobody likes to talk about....Mark Sanchez.  

 

I don't see how you can't see that?!?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • stitches
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By stitches · Posted

      Yes. Just like you might want to try to make a player drop to you, you might want to bump up the stock of another player so he gets taken ahead of you and this drops another player you actually like to your team.  This to me looks even worse. This provides even further layers of anonymity and even more questions about the veracity of the report. With what McGinn is doing at least we know where(generally) this is coming from and what the potential pitfalls might be(conflict of interest). If he generalizes it to "People are saying"... this could be anyone... it could be a scout... it could be an exec... it could be an actual coach of the player(this might actually be valuable)... or it could be a water boy the player didn't give an autograph to... In a certain way it makes it easier to ignore, but it feels worse to me because of lack of specificity about the reliability of the source.  There is a lot of appetite for more and more information about the players. I'm not so sure there is a ton of appetite for anonymous reports about character failings specifically. In fact, I think those are some of my least favorite pieces of content around the draft. I think there is TONS of good(and some bad) substantiated, analytical, narrative content for fans to consume without going into the gutter of dirt that a lot of those anonymous reports are dealing with. Unless it is factually substantiated(example, player X is being charged with Y crime, i.e. there's actual case... it's all fair game to explore that...)    Someone pointed out that it was Ballard that went to Marcus Peters' house and spent a couple of days with him and his family to give the OK to the Chiefs to draft him. Ballard is not a stranger to having to clear a prospect's character for his team so they'd be able to draft him. IMO he seems very confident in his read on Mitchell. I don't think he'd go to that length to defend his player the day he drafts him if he didn't really think the things he said. And I really think he feels strongly about this. I guess we will see in due time if he was right. 
    • Superman
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By Superman · Posted

      Does the same dynamic and conflict exist when it's a positive report, based on unnamed sources?    What if a reporter just generalizes this information, without offering quotes? 'People I've talked to have concerns about this player's maturity...' Is the standard the same in that case?   I think if media didn't share these anonymous insights, the stuff we love to consume during draft season would dry up, and we'd be in the dark. There's a voracious appetite for this kind of information. That doesn't mean the media has no responsibility and shouldn't be held to some kind of standard, but I think your standard is more strict than it needs to be. JMO.   To the bolded, I think that's the job of the scouts, and it's one of the reasons there's a HUGE difference between watching video, and actually scouting. That's why teams who have access to film and independent scouting reports still pay their own scouts to go into the schools, talk to the coaches, talk to family and friends, etc., and write up in-depth reports on players that they'll likely never draft. I'm confident the Colts got sufficient answers to those questions, which is why I'm not concerned about it. If the Colts didn't have a reputation for being so thorough with stuff like this, I might feel differently.
    • stitches
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By stitches · Posted

      Not sure. To me a lot of those (not just about AD) read very gross and icky, especially coming from people who have things to gain from perpetuating a narrative. IMO unless it's factually supported, you probably shouldn't print it(this is specifically about character/attitude things... things that we cannot see with our own eyes on the field - about those... go wild... print whatever you want, unless you are concerned with looking foolish). Or at the very least you should make everything possible to corroborate it with people who are close to the situation - for example, your anonymous scout tells you AD Mitchell is uncoachable. You do NOT print this unless a coach who has worked with him confirms it. Your anonymous scout tells you that when AD Mitchell is not taking care of his blood sugar levels, he's hard to work with. OK, this seems reasonable enough. But does it give an accurate picture of what it is like to work with Mitchell? In other words - how often does that actually happen? Because Mitchell's interview with Destin seems to suggest that he's been taking the necessary measures to control his blood sugar levels. Did it happen like once or twice in the span of 3 years in college? Or is it happening every second practice? Because when you write it like McGinn wrote it and then suggest that he's uncoachable, what's the picture that comes to your head? And the fact that your scout also told you "but when his blood sugar is ok, he's great", doesn't really do anything to balance the story here. 
    • Superman
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By Superman · Posted

      Got it. But what do you think should be done about this?
    • stitches
      *Update: AD Mitchell signed

      By stitches · Posted

      I mean that anonymous scouts and anonymous execs work for some team in the league. Those teams have interests very separate from the interests of the reporters giving them platform... 

  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...