Andrew Luck Is Just Like Peyton...

[UndecidedFrog]

And what makes Andrew luck the sole reason Indy would get sb wins?

I doubt Luck wins SBs anywhere by himself.

Last I looked, football was a team sport. And I know for a fact that Luck does not play defense (except for those times where he lays out DBs after his RB fumbles), nor does he run routes and catch balls (except for that one time against UCLA in 2011), nor does he pass protect as OL, or run block (unless it is part of the run play). Luck does not kick nor punt the ball very well.

Then again, no one player can be thought of reasonably as the sole reason a football team gets an SB win. It is always a team effort.

[UndecidedFrog]

Andrew Luck in a Colts Jersey (not photo-shopped):

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/college/football/bal-andrew-luck-pictures,0,2579448.photogallery

[Colts12thMan]

Again similar to how you want to put all your chips on a unproven rookie. I'll take the future first round HOF and arguably G.O.A.T, over a rookie anytime. Peyton took a team twice as bad as this 10-6 last year all while playing with the injury that he has now fixed! I know, I know it is kinda surprising to think that a surgery is actually meant to fix somebody's injury and not ruin them. If the surgery is a success then Peyton could easily finish his contract, playing at his normal level the whole way or even, here comes the scary part!... BETTER then he has before. With his injury healed, arm strength back to where it was 4 years ago and still the maturity he has developed from playing with this horrible excuse of a team for the last 4 years, one can only imagine. Especially if he comes back to an improved team.

So you asked why I would put all my chips in on Peyton? The answer to that is because I believe we have yet to see Peyton play at his highest level.

THIS.

[Blue Horseshoe]

Again similar to how you want to put all your chips on a unproven rookie. I'll take the future first round HOF and arguably G.O.A.T, over a rookie anytime. Peyton took a team twice as bad as this 10-6 last year all while playing with the injury that he has now fixed! I know, I know it is kinda surprising to think that a surgery is actually meant to fix somebody's injury and not ruin them. If the surgery is a success then Peyton could easily finish his contract, playing at his normal level the whole way or even, here comes the scary part!... BETTER then he has before. With his injury healed, arm strength back to where it was 4 years ago and still the maturity he has developed from playing with this horrible excuse of a team for the last 4 years, one can only imagine. Especially if he comes back to an improved team.

So you asked why I would put all my chips in on Peyton? The answer to that is because I believe we have yet to see Peyton play at his highest level.

Ding! Ding! Dadingdingding! We have a winner!

I'm tempted to sign up for the forum about a dozen more times just to give +1's to this post!

[UndecidedFrog]

Again similar to how you want to put all your chips on a unproven rookie.

Aren't all rookies unproven? There is no such thing as a rookie draft prospect with NFL experience. Does this mean we should not pick in the draft?

Wasn't Peyton an unproven rookie too? Didn't the Colts get rid of Jim Harbaugh to put all their chips on Peyton?

I'll take the future first round HOF and arguably G.O.A.T, over a rookie anytime.

I would too, if I was assured that this QB was able to play at the same level as before, prior to the injury/neck surgeries and the natural progression of age-related deterioration. To date, this assurance is not to be had. To date, fact is that Peyton will be 36 this upcoming season. To date, we know what happens to the team when a the starting quality QB goes down...2-14. All this points towards getting a new potential franchise QB.

If the surgery is a success then Peyton could easily finish his contract, playing at his normal level the whole way or even, here comes the scary part!... BETTER then he has before.

This is wishful thinking. Why do you think a 36-40 year old QB (the term of his current contract) will be better than he was before? Why do you think a QB coming off 3 neck surgeries will be better than he was before? What is the evidence that this happens? What have the doctors told you that you should believe this?

[husker61]

Why do you think a 36-40 year old QB (the term of his current contract) will be better than he was before? Why do you think a QB coming off 3 neck surgeries will be better than he was before? What is the evidence that this happens? What have the doctors told you that you should believe this?

http://www.aaos.org/...0/clinical2.asp

facts are there is a very good chance manning can come back. and if he has been playing hurt for some time, like i think, he would be back better. he has shown no signs of a aging qb. he just got hurt like could also happen to a rookie.

[UndecidedFrog]

http://www.aaos.org/...0/clinical2.asp

facts are there is a very good chance manning can come back. and if he has been playing hurt for some time, like i think, he would be back better. he has shown no signs of a aging qb. he just got hurt like could also happen to a rookie.

Thanks for the article. I quote from it:

Nearly 3 out of 4 (72 percent) of NFL players who were treated surgically for CDH returned to play and continued to play in an average of 29.3 games over a 2.8-year period after surgery. In contrast, less than half (46 percent) of those treated nonsurgically returned to play; those who did played an average of 14.7 games over a 1.5-year period before retiring.

After treatment for CDH, players in general had lower performance scores and started fewer games than they had before their injury. But, noted Dr. Hsu, this difference was not statistically significant.

A few notes:

1) It is not stated in the clinical study that any of the subjects had nerve damage as a result of CDH. Peyton had nerve damage.

2) The only conclusive point from the clinical study is that subjects who received surgery came back to play at a higher rate than subjects who did not undergo surgery.

3) Only 72% of subjects surgically treated came back to an average of 29 games before retiring. It does not state what happened to the other 28%.

I am sure the Colts doctors will go over Peyton's case with Irsay to make an informed decision.

[husker61]

A few notes:

1) It is not stated in the clinical study that any of the subjects had nerve damage as a result of CDH. Peyton had nerve damage.

the reason you have the surgery is because there is some kind of nerve damage. i don't think that would have to be stated.

[UndecidedFrog]

the reason you have the surgery is because there is some kind of nerve damage. i don't think that would have to be stated.

I think there is a vast difference between pain/numbness and nerve damage.

[jjcolts]

Colts were the colts before pm and will be after. He has done a lot for the colts but it's not his team. It's a team

Quite frankly, it is obvious that this 'was" his team..as for his absence everything fell apart. It is not just his superb skills but also his leadership and work ethics. Now it is again Irsay's team, for Peyton could no longer carry the team...

(his neck huts..LOL)

[UndecidedFrog]

Quite frankly, it is obvious that this 'was" his team..as for his absence everything fell apart. It is not just his superb skills but also his leadership and work ethics. Now it is again Irsay's team, for Peyton could no longer carry the team...

(his neck huts..LOL)

I don't understand what you mean by "this was his team", and "Now it is again Irsay's team."

I did not realize that Peyton held any majority ownership interest in the Colts. I had always thought it was owned by the Irsays.

[jjcolts]

I don't understand what you mean by "this was his team", and "Now it is again Irsay's team."

I did not realize that Peyton held any majority ownership interest in the Colts. I had always thought it was owned by the Irsays.

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic..but just in case you are asking a serious question.....

What I meant - for years Irsay wrote the checks and Peyton took care of the rest..i.e win games..go to playoffs, fill seats in RCA dome and LOS.

[UndecidedFrog]

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic..but just in case you are asking a serious question.....

What I meant - for years Irsay wrote the checks and Peyton took care of the rest..i.e win games..go to playoffs, fill seats in RCA dome and LOS.

OK, thanks for the explanation of what you meant.

However, I think there is more to team ownership than winning games, going to playoffs, and filling seats.

[jjcolts]

OK, thanks for the explanation of what you meant.

However, I think there is more to team ownership than winning games, going to playoffs, and filling seats.

I wasn't being literal.

[JWF]

Sam Bradford 2008

483 attempts 328 completions 67.9 % 4720 yards 8 INTS 50 TDS...

Sooo... what exactly was your point? It made almost no sense considering that college quarterbacks have better numbers almost every year.

Is Bradford already a bust? Geez. The kid played good as a rookie and was hurt most of this season and probably has the worst surrounding cast on offense in the league. Im pretty sure anyone who watched Bradford last year would agree the kid has talent.

Not to mention OU is typically a much more overall* talented team than Stanford and they also run a very up tempo pass-oriented offense which. QBs in that system typically put up big numbers (White with 40+ TDs, Bradford with 50 and now Jones with 40+). I do think Bradford is a good talent but the OU system tends to inflate the stats a bit.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Is Bradford already a bust? Geez. The kid played good as a rookie and was hurt most of this season and probably has the worst surrounding cast on offense in the league. Im pretty sure anyone who watched Bradford last year would agree the kid has talent.

Not to mention OU is typically a much more overall* talented team than Stanford and they also run a very up tempo pass-oriented offense which. QBs in that system typically put up big numbers (White with 40+ TDs, Bradford with 50 and now Jones with 40+). I do think Bradford is a good talent but the OU system tends to inflate the stats a bit.

I'm not going to respond to the 1st paragraph, you made that up from out of nowhere...

Just saying that you can't think that Andrew Luck's stats were amazing when Sam Bradford's were much better. It's not like Luck played better than any quarterback ever this college football season, almost every year quarterbacks put up better numbers than that. People on this post wanted to compare stats so there that's where Bradford came in, and I think Bradford is a good quarterback.

[JWF]

I'm not going to respond to the 1st paragraph, you made that up from out of nowhere...

Just saying that you can't think that Andrew Luck's stats were amazing when Sam Bradford's were much better. It's not like Luck played better than any quarterback ever this college football season, almost every year quarterbacks put up better numbers than that. People on this post wanted to compare stats so there that's where Bradford came in, and I think Bradford is a good quarterback.

I didnt make up anything. The post, to me, implies that "hey Bradford threw for 50 in college and look at him now". Using a guy's numbers in college, who you think will be good in the NFL, to make a statement about the meaningless of college stats doesnt make any sense (unless they were bad).

I could understand your point if you went with someone like Colt Brennan or somebody who put up insane numbers in college but have vanished in the NFL. That seems like a better example.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion about Luck. Not everyone is going to like him.

Btw im really not trying to rag on your posts anything. Sorry if its coming across like that.

[JPPT1974]

Luck does seem to be a team player. And is a lot like Manning in the way. He focuses on football and all of that.

[Ramblinwreck7]

I didnt make up anything. The post, to me, implies that "hey Bradford threw for 50 in college and look at him now". Using a guy's numbers in college, who you think will be good in the NFL, to make a statement about the meaningless of college stats doesnt make any sense (unless they were bad).

I could understand your point if you went with someone like Colt Brennan or somebody who put up insane numbers in college but have vanished in the NFL. That seems like a better example.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion about Luck. Not everyone is going to like him.

Btw im really not trying to rag on your posts anything. Sorry if its coming across like that.

That's fine, I didn't say anything negative about Sam Bradford though. I was using someones logic, that great college stats mean your going to be good in the NFL. That doesn't mean that Sam Bradford won't be good, but if you use it literally, then Bradford should be a whole lot better in the NFL than Andrew Luck because his college numbers were better. I could use so many examples, like Graham Harrold and Colt Brennan, I just like using Bradford's stats because they are pretty darn good when compared to Andrew Luck's numbers. And maybe Bradford will be better in the NFL than Luck, we don't know what will happen though. People on here just seem to think that Luck will be the next super great quarterback just because he's a very good prospect.

[Restored]

Heres the problem here. If Peyton retires, you have to take Luck. People say NO TAKE MICKE VICK 3!!!. Mike Vick 3 isn't ready to start day 1. Luck is.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Heres the problem here. If Peyton retires, you have to take Luck. People say NO TAKE MICKE VICK 3!!!. Mike Vick 3 isn't ready to start day 1. Luck is.

I'd say that Robert Griffin III could start on day one. He was fun to watch at Baylor. He looks more NFL ready than Cam Newton was I'd say, he is more of a pocket passer than Newton and is more accurate. Newton is just huge compared to a lot of guys though.

Now, this doesn't mean I want us to draft Robert Griffin III or Andrew Luck. I want us to trade the pick.

[JWF]

That's fine, I didn't say anything negative about Sam Bradford though. I was using someones logic, that great college stats mean your going to be good in the NFL. That doesn't mean that Sam Bradford won't be good, but if you use it literally, then Bradford should be a whole lot better in the NFL than Andrew Luck because his college numbers were better. I could use so many examples, like Graham Harrold and Colt Brennan, I just like using Bradford's stats because they are pretty darn good when compared to Andrew Luck's numbers. And maybe Bradford will be better in the NFL than Luck, we don't know what will happen though. People on here just seem to think that Luck will be the next super great quarterback just because he's a very good prospect.

Fair enough.

People expecting Luck to come in and tear it up immediately in the NFL are setting themselves up for dissappointment. I think he will be very good but it wont happen overnight im guessing. Well see though.