Denver CB Harris says Wilson is better than Luck [Merge]

[Cynjin]

Wow. You do know Painter is 0-8 as a starter, right?

It has little to do with Painter and more to do with the team around him. Similar to Manning's last year with the Colts. The Colts winning record that year was much more about Manning than the team around him.

[Cynjin]

Jesus H. Christ your posts are a pistol  . . . (noticed I am not calling you a pistol but your posts ;) )

 

sorry for the misread but inane is not that different from insane, as inane is synonymous with silly, stupid, *ic, senseless, asinine, and so on . . . so its a very close brother insane and given the context of your post, and was not sure if it was a typo, I read a "s" in the word to get insane . . . I tried to be more careful next time . . . but for me when one calls out ones post they are basically calling out the poster and their intelligence or whatever the level of context or meaning is contained in the post . . .

 

Happy now?

 

"happy now?" is a question by the way, I know your posts, and not you personally, have called out others grammar in this forum, a venue were most do not worry about their grammar so long as the gist of the point gets across.  So I just want to make sure that you discuss things with your posts first so that the latter does not post a response that it not representative of you personally . . . the two of you should be able to work that out just nicely . . .

Thank you for the pistol comment. By inane I meant empty or lacking significance, which I would consider to be quite different than insane. Maybe you do not, but I do. Did you even read those "stats", some were completely made up in order to prove the posters point. There is a reason there is a quote, "Lies, Damn lies and Statistics". Many people, including many posters here, both pro Colts and anti Colts use statistics to bolster their weak arguments.

Happy now? Yes that is a question unlike the other post you are referring to, given the context and wording. Also, my post that had the reference about what a question is was about the poster saying that Wilson had more game winning drives than Luck. That poster apparently has a hard time admitting they were incorrect.

[Tokadub]

I agree with this. I do think Wilson has surpassed Luck in terms of his play the last season plus this season so far. He is a more efficient, heady player who also has a penchant for coming up with the right play in a tight moment. I think Luck has shown all these abilities just not as consistently as Wilson. Still, I would not want any other Qb than Luck on the Colts right now but I do think Wilson is the best of the young guns and one of the top Qbs overall in the league. His defense has not been very good this year, ranked 14 in points allowed. And really, Wilson saved them in the Denver game. Manning was roasting them in the second half and had he gotten the ball first in OT, I have no doubt he would have gone down the field for the TD.

 

The part I put in bold there is the thing most people don't realize. The average NFL fan sees Wilson do this in one game and start to wonder "hmm, I didn't know Wilson could do that kinda thing... maybe he is more than a game manager?"

 

In reality Wilson does this kind of thing ALL THE TIME... 

 

For some reason even though the Seahawks have a great defense there are countless occasions of them getting beat badly in important games. You guys saw that happen last season against your own team the Colts! Now to be fair I would rank that Colts game as one of the best games a team has had against our Defense, but my point is that it does happen more often than people think.

 

More often than not Wilson has rose to the occasion and put the team on his back for game winning comebacks. I can only think of 3 games that Wilson failed to get the win when his defense really got beat up:

 

- Week 2 VS Falcons Playoffs 2012

- Week 5 VS Colts 2013

- Week 2 VS Chargers 2014

 

In all 3 of those games above Wilson still put the team in a winnable position.

 

Generally Wilson wins those types of games and HE CARRIES THE TEAM, for whatever reason Lynch seems to take a back seat offensively when the game is on the line (in majority of games). So it's not fair to say the Seahawks are only good because of Beast Mode but obviously he is a huge asset to the team.

 

Many people here may not know though that the Seahawks last season were pretty average in yards per carry (4.3) which is tied with the COLTS for rank #12! So maybe the Colts should *gasp* run the ball more? It's not like the Seahawks are some juggernaut running the ball, they just stick to it because it wears the opposing defense down.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/sort/yardsPerRushAttempt/year/2013

 

 

Right now Russell Wilson is leading the league in Passer Rating (108.9)

 

Andrew Luck is also doing very well so far ranked #6 (103)

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/qb-rating-nfl

 

So both guys are doing great thus far this season. If they keep up at this rate this debate will be much more interesting this season than in the last 2. 

But so far the difference this season is that Luck has continued to show his tendency to throw interceptions. He has thrown 3 so far this season, 2 of which were situations that he could of won the game by avoiding a turnover (if my memory serves correct). 

 

If Luck can stop throwing so many Interceptions the Luck VS Wilson debate could become quite intriguing. Right now it's clear to me that Wilson is far superior based on there careers thus far. I am concerned though when I watch Luck that he seems to throw multiple passes that could of been picked off on a regular basis. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, he's a high risk/high reward type of guy which is completely opposite of Wilson who is consistently great.

[Cynjin]

you telling me that Orlovsky would of gone 0-11? . . . sorry I just don't buy it . . . not sure how Painter can win 6 games when there is nothing in his resume to conclude he is a viable starting QB . . .

 

And just as GoPats mentioned in his post #387 and #389, this resurrection thing for you guys it just a bit overboard . . . I like Luck too and said that when he was first drafted and when this discussion was Luck/RGIII, I indicated that I prefer Luck over RGIII . . . but times change and resumes get developed and as time goes by the list and "power rankings" if you will of players change . . . so it happens . . . perhaps you all might be a tad bugged about these talks, not saying you necessarily, but look on the bright side at least you are in the conversation, as opposed to fans of Detroit or something . . .

 

For me, the 2011 colts team was a 6-10 to 8-8 team with a decent QB under center, frankly not that much different that the Seahawks.  Indeed they were 10-6 the year prior while be racked with injuries.  So yes, Luck made an improvement and made them a solid 10 win+ team the last few year and he should be able to help keep that going . . . but I think you are stretching things to say Luck made that big of a change . . . for me the 2011 Colts were a 6-10/8-8 team that ended up 2-14.   my two cents . . .

The only thing that may bug me about these talks is that both Wilson and Luck are excellent young QBs. I am not sure why some want to make an argument that one is leaps and bounds above the other. As far as your stance on the 2011 Colts being at least a 6-10 team with a decent QB, all I can say is not with that team around him. Again, look at which players are still with the Colts from 2011. Then look at the players that are still on Seattle. Also, consider why the players that are no longer on both teams left. There are good reasons why Seattle still has productive players from that year on their team and Indy does not.

[Tokadub]

 

Thank you for the pistol comment. By inane I meant empty or lacking significance, which I would consider to be quite different than insane. Maybe you do not, but I do. Did you even read those "stats", some were completely made up in order to prove the posters point. There is a reason there is a quote, "Lies, Damn lies and Statistics". Many people, including many posters here, both pro Colts and anti Colts use statistics to bolster their weak arguments.

Happy now? Yes that is a question unlike the other post you are referring to, given the context and wording. Also, my post that had the reference about what a question is was about the poster saying that Wilson had more game winning drives than Luck. That poster apparently has a hard time admitting they were incorrect.

 

Every single stat I listed in the post you called "inane" are 100% accurate based on the regular season Career's of all 4 of those players (not including the 3 games this season).

 

If those stats appear to be false you might want to do your research, they are FACT. If you have an example of a stat you think I used that is false let me know I will find the source and link it for you... hopefully others can point you in the right direction instead though before I have to. This is my 5th post which seems to be the limit for a new user here?

 

It seems to me that you have no idea how far Luck is behind Wilson, Manning, and Brady that you just take one look at my stats and think "he's making things up!"... 

Nope, if those stats seem shocking to you then you should really come to terms that Luck is a bit over-rated by the media. Those stats are 100% accurate and a VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHY WILSON IS BETTER THAN LUCK. 

 

Wilson's stats so far in his career ARE ELITE, you can't point out any of his stats and say he doesn't belong with Manning and Brady. Luck on the other hand has played at a significantly lower level. He's still good don't get me wrong, especially considering he's only played 2 full seasons so far... but he's no Russell Wilson yet... not even close. 

 

That's not a slam on Luck, Wilson is the best QB after 2 seasons ever... the only guy I find debatable is Dan Marino who threw 48 Touchdowns in his 2nd season. Dan Marino has the all-time record for Touchdown passes in his first 2 seasons (68). In this statistic Wilson is tied for 2nd all-time with Peyton Manning (they both have 52). 

 

The difference between Russell Wilson and Peyton Manning in their 52 touchdown passes in their first 2 seasons? Wilson did it with just 19 Interceptions compared to Manning's 43 Interceptions!

 

I never said that Wilson had more game winning drives than Luck according to this link they both have 11 now:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm

 

So I'm guessing you were talking about another poster about the game winning drives?

 

But I'm guessing the main difference between Wilson and Luck's game winning drive scenarios is that Luck most likely threw interceptions to get into those situations to begin with. Wilson has a lot of game winning drives where he didn't throw any interceptions, not sure if that's the case with Luck.

[sweetsurrender]

The part I put in bold there is the thing most people don't realize. The average NFL fan sees Wilson do this in one game and start to wonder "hmm, I didn't know Wilson could do that kinda thing... maybe he is more than a game manager?"

 

In reality Wilson does this kind of thing ALL THE TIME... 

 

For some reason even though the Seahawks have a great defense there are countless occasions of them getting beat badly in important games. You guys saw that happen last season against your own team the Colts! Now to be fair I would rank that Colts game as one of the best games a team has had against our Defense, but my point is that it does happen more often than people think.

 

More often than not Wilson has rose to the occasion and put the team on his back for game winning comebacks. I can only think of 3 games that Wilson failed to get the win when his defense really got beat up:

 

- Week 2 VS Falcons Playoffs 2012

- Week 5 VS Colts 2013

- Week 2 VS Chargers 2014

 

In all 3 of those games above Wilson still put the team in a winnable position.

 

Generally Wilson wins those types of games and HE CARRIES THE TEAM, for whatever reason Lynch seems to take a back seat offensively when the game is on the line (in majority of games). So it's not fair to say the Seahawks are only good because of Beast Mode but obviously he is a huge asset to the team.

 

Many people here may not know though that the Seahawks last season were pretty average in yards per carry (4.3) which is tied with the COLTS for rank #12! So maybe the Colts should *gasp* run the ball more? It's not like the Seahawks are some juggernaut running the ball, they just stick to it because it wears the opposing defense down.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/sort/yardsPerRushAttempt/year/2013

 

 

Right now Russell Wilson is leading the league in Passer Rating (108.9)

 

Andrew Luck is also doing very well so far ranked #6 (103)

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/qb-rating-nfl

 

So both guys are doing great thus far this season. If they keep up at this rate this debate will be much more interesting this season than in the last 2. 

But so far the difference this season is that Luck has continued to show his tendency to throw interceptions. He has thrown 3 so far this season, 2 of which were situations that he could of won the game by avoiding a turnover (if my memory serves correct). 

 

If Luck can stop throwing so many Interceptions the Luck VS Wilson debate could become quite intriguing. Right now it's clear to me that Wilson is far superior based on there careers thus far. I am concerned though when I watch Luck that he seems to throw multiple passes that could of been picked off on a regular basis. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, he's a high risk/high reward type of guy which is completely opposite of Wilson who is consistently great.

Hold your horses there. I was not implying that Wilson has not led game winning drives before but never has he been faced with a situation like he had on Sunday - against the best team in the AFC picked to go back to the SB, against the reigning MVP in Manning and a much improved Denver defense that was playing great in the second half.

 

Basically Wilson' vaunted D, who most keep touting on this thread, was getting picked over by Manning in the second half which included an 80 yard drive in just over a minute and a two point conversion to tie and send to O.T. ALL the momentum was with Denver heading into that O.T. I felt that if Seattle lost that coin toss or if Wilson just led them to the FG then game would be over as Manning would lead Denver down for a TD. Wilson's drive in a word was - masterful. He completely commanded the O down the field with his feet and arm. Taking small chunks at a time and converting third done down after third down. It was Brady-esque. His composure and taking what the defense would give him. By the time Seattle was in the end zone, it seemed almost perfunctory. 

 

It is games like that and drives like that which cement a player's greatness.

[amfootball]

The only thing that may bug me about these talks is that both Wilson and Luck are excellent young QBs. I am not sure why some want to make an argument that one is leaps and bounds above the other. As far as your stance on the 2011 Colts being at least a 6-10 team with a decent QB, all I can say is not with that team around him. Again, look at which players are still with the Colts from 2011. Then look at the players that are still on Seattle. Also, consider why the players that are no longer on both teams left. There are good reasons why Seattle still has productive players from that year on their team and Indy does not.

That is not entirely accurate though. The Colts had a complete reorg change from GM on down. It would make sense that the new GM would clean house and start over with "his" guys. Also, Irsay said he wanted a team vastly different than the one Polian built around Manning which makes sense as the only QB who can truly run the Indy offense is Manning which he has been showcasing now in Denver for two plus years. I would not read into the Colts turning over the 2011 roster as an indication of a lack of talent solely but more so a new GM and mgmt. team building their team.

[Cynjin]

That is not entirely accurate though. The Colts had a complete reorg change from GM on down. It would make sense that the new GM would clean house and start over with "his" guys. Also, Irsay said he wanted a team vastly different than the one Polian built around Manning which makes sense as the only QB who can truly run the Indy offense is Manning which he has been showcasing now in Denver for two plus years. I would not read into the Colts turning over the 2011 roster as an indication of a lack of talent solely but more so a new GM and mgmt. team building their team.

It was a lack of talent. The former Colts players that went to other teams after that year have not done well. A new GM is not going to get rid of good Oline, Dline, CBs, etc. just to have his guys. Grigson got rid of the players because they were not good enough, especially on the Oline and front 7 of the defense.

[amfootball]

It was a lack of talent. The former Colts players that went to other teams after that year have not done well. A new GM is not going to get rid of good Oline, Dline, CBs, etc. just to have his guys. Grigson got rid of the players because they were not good enough, especially on the Oline and front 7 of the defense.

Meh. Chip Kelly got rid of his best player in Jackson in favor of other players that better fit his system. Gms and coaches get rid of "good" players all the time in favor of the team they want to put on the field.

[sweetsurrender]

It was a lack of talent. The former Colts players that went to other teams after that year have not done well. A new GM is not going to get rid of good Oline, Dline, CBs, etc. just to have his guys. Grigson got rid of the players because they were not good enough, especially on the Oline and front 7 of the defense.

Some of it was Grigson putting in place the team he wanted which was vastly different than Polian's model. Also, Luck does not have the same skillet as Manning so you would make changes on the Oline for that reason.

[Superman]

It was a lack of talent. The former Colts players that went to other teams after that year have not done well. A new GM is not going to get rid of good Oline, Dline, CBs, etc. just to have his guys. Grigson got rid of the players because they were not good enough, especially on the Oline and front 7 of the defense.

 

Exactly. We didn't release anyone that's had any meaningful production with another team, aside from Manning. Addai, Brackett and Bullitt haven't played. Clark had some minor production for a couple years, then retired (and we replaced him with better plays for far less money). Even Jeff Saturday was pretty bad for Green Bay, and he retired after one season there. Overwhelmingly, the players we got rid of after 2011 have done little to nothing after leaving here.

 

The most noteworthy exceptions are Pierre Garcon, who chased a big payday with Washington, and Phillip Wheeler, who didn't fit the new defensive approach. No one else is really even worth talking about.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/2011.htm

 

By the way, that roster turnover has continued well beyond 2012. Two thirds of our current roster wasn't here in 2012.

[Superman]

Meh. Chip Kelly got rid of his best player in Jackson in favor of other players that better fit his system. Gms and coaches get rid of "good" players all the time in favor of the team they want to put on the field.

 

What's that got to do with the Colts turnover from 2011 to 2012?

[amfootball]

What's that got to do with the Colts turnover from 2011 to 2012?

Just an example of player turnover when a new GM and/or coach come in. Not every player that is let go is because of "a lack of talent."

[sweetsurrender]

Exactly. We didn't release anyone that's had any meaningful production with another team, aside from Manning. Addai, Brackett and Bullitt haven't played. Clark had some minor production for a couple years, then retired (and we replaced him with better plays for far less money). Even Jeff Saturday was pretty bad for Green Bay, and he retired after one season there. Overwhelmingly, the players we got rid of after 2011 have done little to nothing after leaving here.

 

The most noteworthy exceptions are Pierre Garcon, who chased a big payday with Washington, and Phillip Wheeler, who didn't fit the new defensive approach. No one else is really even worth talking about.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/2011.htm

 

By the way, that roster turnover has continued well beyond 2012. Two thirds of our current roster wasn't here in 2012.

The roster turnover was coming regardless of whether Manning or Luck were at QB. We had some aging vets and also needed to manage cap.

[Superman]

Just an example of player turnover when a new GM and/or coach come in. Not every player that is let go is because of "a lack of talent."

 

Specifically, though, how does that relate to what Grigson did in 2012? Where are these "good players" that Grigson got rid of in order to bring in "his guys"?

 

I would counter that us keeping Dwight Freeney rather than saving $14m in cap space effectively refutes that assertion.

[Cynjin]

Every single stat I listed in the post you called "inane" are 100% accurate based on the regular season Career's of all 4 of those players (not including the 3 games this season).

 

If those stats appear to be false you might want to do your research, they are FACT. If you have an example of a stat you think I used that is false let me know I will find the source and link it for you... hopefully others can point you in the right direction instead though before I have to. This is my 5th post which seems to be the limit for a new user here?

 

It seems to me that you have no idea how far Luck is behind Wilson, Manning, and Brady that you just take one look at my stats and think "he's making things up!"... 

Nope, if those stats seem shocking to you then you should really come to terms that Luck is a bit over-rated by the media. Those stats are 100% accurate and a VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHY WILSON IS BETTER THAN LUCK. 

 

Wilson's stats so far in his career ARE ELITE, you can't point out any of his stats and say he doesn't belong with Manning and Brady. Luck on the other hand has played at a significantly lower level. He's still good don't get me wrong, especially considering he's only played 2 full seasons so far... but he's no Russell Wilson yet... not even close. 

 

That's not a slam on Luck, Wilson is the best QB after 2 seasons ever... the only guy I find debatable is Dan Marino who threw 48 Touchdowns in his 2nd season. Dan Marino has the all-time record for Touchdown passes in his first 2 seasons (68). In this statistic Wilson is tied for 2nd all-time with Peyton Manning (they both have 52). 

 

The difference between Russell Wilson and Peyton Manning in their 52 touchdown passes in their first 2 seasons? Wilson did it with just 19 Interceptions compared to Manning's 43 Interceptions!

 

I never said that Wilson had more game winning drives than Luck according to this link they both have 11 now:

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm

 

So I'm guessing you were talking about another poster about the game winning drives?

 

But I'm guessing the main difference between Wilson and Luck's game winning drive scenarios is that Luck most likely threw interceptions to get into those situations to begin with. Wilson has a lot of game winning drives where he didn't throw any interceptions, not sure if that's the case with Luck.

I did not say your stats were not accurate, I said they are inane. I mean really, Super Bowl win % and Super Bowl win % per year? I would say those are not significant in the slightest.

It would seem to me that you are under estimating how much better Seattle's team surrounding Wilson is than the team surrounding Luck for their first two years. The difference is getting less, but for the first two years the difference was large. Also, I never have compared Luck to Brady or Manning.

I am not concerned about what the media says about Luck's ability. I put more credence in what I hear from coaches, GMs and a select few ex-players.

I would say that you are relying way too much on stats to determine that Wilson is significantly ahead of Luck. You seem to think that Wilson and Luck are playing an individual sport, there are other players involved.

Finally, no I was not referring to you with regard to the number of game winning drives. The poster I replied to knows what I was posting about.

[amfootball]

Specifically, though, how does that relate to what Grigson did in 2012? Where are these "good players" that Grigson got rid of in order to bring in "his guys"?

 

I would counter that us keeping Dwight Freeney rather than saving $14m in cap space effectively refutes that assertion.

I think Grigson was putting his stamp on things and some of the talent was old or lacking. The moves were coming regardless but it was not like the 2011 roster was horrific. Just the QB play was.

[Cynjin]

Some of it was Grigson putting in place the team he wanted which was vastly different than Polian's model. Also, Luck does not have the same skillet as Manning so you would make changes on the Oline for that reason.

Do you really think the Oline from 2011 had any good players other than Costanzo? And he was a rookie.

[Superman]

The roster turnover was coming regardless of whether Manning or Luck were at QB. We had some aging vets and also needed to manage cap.

 

I agree. We were paying a lot of money to some guys that weren't producing. They needed to go.

[sweetsurrender]

Do you really think the Oline from 2011 had any good players other than Costanzo? And he was a rookie.

No. It was bad for sure. But my point was they were going to rebuild under Luck anyways. I mean he plays like Elway not Manning. I am happy they did as I was not fan of building the team solely around the QB.

[Cynjin]

The roster turnover was coming regardless of whether Manning or Luck were at QB. We had some aging vets and also needed to manage cap.

This is true, but it is because the veteran players with the Colts were no longer good and the others were never good enough to play in the NFL as a starter.

[Superman]

Do you really think the Oline from 2011 had any good players other than Costanzo? And he was a rookie.

 

A rookie with a bum knee...

[Cynjin]

I think Grigson was putting his stamp on things and some of the talent was old or lacking. The moves were coming regardless but it was not like the 2011 roster was horrific. Just the QB play was.

Actually the 2011 roster was closer to horrific than you think.

[Cynjin]

A rookie with a bum knee...

That's true, I forgot about his injury that year.

[amfootball]

Actually the 2011 roster was closer to horrific than you think.

I think it just looked that way because of poor QB play. I am not saying it was great or anything but I never thought it was 2-14 bad and effort at times seemed to be lacking which fueled the tanking suspicions.

[Superman]

I think Grigson was putting his stamp on things and some of the talent was old or lacking. The moves were coming regardless but it was not like the 2011 roster was horrific. Just the QB play was.

 

http://www.pro-footb...ms/clt/2011.htm

 

That roster was nothing to be proud of. Like you said, old and lacking talent that needed to be turned over. Poor line play, poor production from the RBs, a dreadful secondary, undersized LBs who were either hurt or too slow to be playmakers, an interior defensive line that couldn't hold up against the run or get any pass rush... That roster was awful, talent starved, and had been neglected for the past two seasons.

[amfootball]

http://www.pro-footb...ms/clt/2011.htm

 

That roster was nothing to be proud of. Like you said, old and lacking talent that needed to be turned over. Poor line play, poor production from the RBs, a dreadful secondary, undersized LBs who were either hurt or too slow to be playmakers, an interior defensive line that couldn't hold up against the run or get any pass rush... That roster was awful, talent starved, and had been neglected for the past two seasons.

Yeah, like I said to Cyn, I don't think it was 2-14 bad though but looked that way because of poor QB play.

[sweetsurrender]

I think it just looked that way because of poor QB play. I am not saying it was great or anything but I never thought it was 2-14 bad and effort at times seemed to be lacking which fueled the tanking suspicions.

Effort was lacking from the players and coaches.

[Superman]

I think it just looked that way because of poor QB play. I am not saying it was great or anything but I never thought it was 2-14 bad and effort at times seemed to be lacking which fueled the tanking suspicions.

 

People -- especially you -- keep saying this, and it's just not true. Those guys played their butts off, to a man. They just weren't very good. 

 

We just didn't have playmakers. With a bad QB situation and poor coaching, you get 2-14. It didn't have to be that way, because the coaches could have made better adjustments, but it wasn't about effort. It was about talent. Which is why over half of the guy who were on the roster are now out of the league entirely.

[amfootball]

People -- especially you -- keep saying this, and it's just not true. Those guys played their butts off, to a man. They just weren't very good. 

 

We just didn't have playmakers. With a bad QB situation and poor coaching, you get 2-14. It didn't have to be that way, because the coaches could have made better adjustments, but it wasn't about effort. It was about talent. Which is why over half of the guy who were on the roster are now out of the league entirely.

I don't want to rehash all the tanking talk. Suffice to say that I think they did tank. Indy reporters did as well as national reporters. There were several games were the game plans were not there or the effort from the players. Remember the Saints shellacking? We can just agree to disagree.

[sweetsurrender]

People -- especially you -- keep saying this, and it's just not true. Those guys played their butts off, to a man. They just weren't very good. 

 

We just didn't have playmakers. With a bad QB situation and poor coaching, you get 2-14. It didn't have to be that way, because the coaches could have made better adjustments, but it wasn't about effort. It was about talent. Which is why over half of the guy who were on the roster are now out of the league entirely.

Toward the middle of the season, I can see questioning effort. It was not there. Saints, Titans, Falcons. Just nothing. Maybe they had just lost all hope by then. But I didn't see anyone playing their butts off.

[dw49]

People -- especially you -- keep saying this, and it's just not true. Those guys played their butts off, to a man. They just weren't very good. 

 

We just didn't have playmakers. With a bad QB situation and poor coaching, you get 2-14. It didn't have to be that way, because the coaches could have made better adjustments, but it wasn't about effort. It was about talent. Which is why over half of the guy who were on the roster are now out of the league entirely.

 

 

 

Anyone that can say their wasn't much difference between the 2012 Colt roster and the 2012 Seahawk roster , will only aggravate you. Besides no talent going into the 2012 season , we had no cap left after cutting Manning and the oder guys that had ridiculous contracts. Something close to 40 mill in dead money. Just looked it up ... 38 million in dead cap. That's why Grigsons free agents were so poor in 2012. It was a miracle that Luck didn't get serially hurt with the Arians offense and the makeshift O line. I would bet if we fell out of contention  (like we should have) , they would have toned that offense down to protect the franchise going forward.

[BlueShoe]

The Colts had multiple 10+ winning seasons going into the Luck era . . . they were not as bad as you think they were . . . they just had a really bad QB among other things that fell into place for them in 2011 . . .

In the history of the NFL since the Merger no great team has ever falling off a cliff, its never happen ever . . . there have been many many great teams since 1970 and none of them fell off the cliff. Indeed, none of them, had a number one overall pick a few years removed from they great run, much less the year following . . . teams with the colts pedigree are simply not that bad a few years removed from they great run, much last one year removed . . . they just don't end up number one overall . . .

Simply put the 2011 colts had a really bad backup QB and had some plays that simply did not go their way through the season which cost them some games . . . if the ball bounces the other way, they are not 2-14 . . .

Thanks for proving that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[BlueShoe]

Just because he would be taken first overall does not mean he is the better QB now. No questions he was the better QB coming out of college.

Do you not like your owner? Despite his off-field issues he deserves the most credit for the turn around/rebuild.

Luck would be taken first because he is the number 1 pick of the NFL. Period. All of the other crap is just people taking out of their butts.

I love Jim Irsay. I don't have an owner. You Patriots fans are so jealous of the Colts. Always have been.

[amfootball]

Anyone that can say their wasn't much difference between the 2012 Colt roster and the 2012 Seahawk roster , will only aggravate you. Besides no talent going into the 2012 season , we had no cap left after cutting Manning and the oder guys that had ridiculous contracts. Something close to 40 mill in dead money. Just looked it up ... 38 million in dead cap. That's why Grigsons free agents were so poor in 2012. It was a miracle that Luck didn't get serially hurt with the Arians offense and the makeshift O line. I would bet if we fell out of contention  (like we should have) , they would have toned that offense down to protect the franchise going forward.

Speaking of Arians, 10-6 last year and narrowly missed playoffs. 3-0 this year and leading the toughest division in football. Next Sunday his Cards are AT Denver. Should be a great game.

[BlueShoe]

Not trying to stir the pot here but you guys really have to cool the jets with this "resurrected a franchise" thing. The Colts had one bad season - one - that many NFL fans and media people saw as a thinly veiled tank-job aimed at getting the Next Great QB. (Not necessarily saying I feel that way, but I'm also not necessarily saying I don't.)

Yes, Indy went 2-14 in 2011. But they were two years removed from a 14-2 season and a Super Bowl loss, and there was a good chance that team would have gone 16-0 if Polian had let them play the schedule out.

Luck is great... I'm a fan and will enjoy watching him play and improve. But let's not over-dramatize this. The Colts had been very successful for the most part going back to the mid-90s.

We were a horrible team and also in salary cap hell. 40 million in dead cap space. We overpaid for a lot of average players.

What Luck did was real. He took the worst team in the league to the playoffs.

Fans of other teams do not want to admit that because of bias and jealousy.

[Superman]

I don't want to rehash all the tanking talk. Suffice to say that I think they did tank. Indy reporters did as well as national reporters. There were several games were the game plans were not there or the effort from the players. Remember the Saints shellacking? We can just agree to disagree.

 

Getting trounced by a vastly superior team doesn't mean that you didn't play hard. Maybe you can point to spots in the second half of that game where the effort wasn't top notch, but that would be true of any team that's getting walloped like that.

 

And yeah, people are well within their rights to be dead wrong. But, like I've always said, the tanking nonsense just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[TAPLOOK]

Jesus H. Christ your posts are a pistol  . . . (noticed I am not calling you a pistol but your posts ;) )

 

sorry for the misread but inane is not that different from insane, as inane is synonymous with silly, stupid, *ic, senseless, asinine, and so on . . . so its a very close brother insane and given the context of your post, and was not sure if it was a typo, I read a "s" in the word to get insane . . . I tried to be more careful next time . . . but for me when one calls out ones post they are basically calling out the poster and their intelligence or whatever the level of context or meaning is contained in the post . . .

 

Happy now?

 

"happy now?" is a question by the way, I know your posts, and not you personally, have called out others grammar in this forum, a venue were most do not worry about their grammar so long as the gist of the point gets across.  So I just want to make sure that you discuss things with your posts first so that the latter does not post a response that it not representative of you personally . . . the two of you should be able to work that out just nicely . . .   

 

 

I've been down this road with three of them. Apparently they are confused by the mighty ???? 

[amfootball]

Getting trounced by a vastly superior team doesn't mean that you didn't play hard. Maybe you can point to spots in the second half of that game where the effort wasn't top notch, but that would be true of any team that's getting walloped like that.

 

And yeah, people are well within their rights to be dead wrong. But, like I've always said, the tanking nonsense just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

They looked and played beat from the coin flip on.

[Cynjin]

Meh. Chip Kelly got rid of his best player in Jackson in favor of other players that better fit his system. Gms and coaches get rid of "good" players all the time in favor of the team they want to put on the field.

Not in this case.