Am I the only Colts fan who thinks Luck gets too much credit for the teams success?

[Jason_]

You really don't think at 39 years old Manning is more susptible to injury than other QBs?

Really?

 

Not anymore so than any other 39 year old QB.  I thought you were coming from the angle of the neck injury.

[Jaric]

In 5 years I'm pretty confident the Titans will have completely destroyed Mariota's career.

I'm also genuinely wondering if I'm watching the same games that guys are. The games I watch have an amazing QB who can both pull wins out of his --- and also put up gaudy stats (if that's your thing)

[Jason_]

Ahh a Madden slam. An unoriginal, passive-aggressive way to demean an opinion differing than yours. Well done.

 

What was passive-aggressive about it?

 

 

You don't have to agree with me, but there's no reason to insult me because I have a differing opinion.

 

 

I did not insult you.  My comments were directed explicitly at the opinions you expressed, not you as a person. 

 

Besides, in 5 years you're going to be like "Man, Jaric was right!"

 

 

Um, no, I'd probably think, "Man, Jaric still can't comprehend English words that are written explicitly in black and white" because what we've been discussing is the comparison of these QBs right now, TODAY.  Not in 5 years.  I'd suggest re-reading my posts and if you'd like to then be my guest because you seem to have no idea the point I was trying to make.

[Jaric]

Not anymore so than any other 39 year old QB. I thought you were coming from the angle of the neck injury.

I wasn't, although I do think that has impacted his arm strength leading to the aforementioned quaking ducks being thrown.

And while he might not be any more fragile than other 39 YO QBs, we aren't comparing him to 39 YO QBs. We're comparing him to Andrew Luck, who can probably hit harder than some of our defensive players. (Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration.)

[CanuckColt]

"Am I the only Colts fan who thinks Luck gets too much credit for the teams success?"

 

Ha, ha, ha.....pretty much.

[Jaric]

What was passive-aggressive about it?

I did not insult you. My comments were directed explicitly at the opinions you expressed, not you as a person.

Um, no, I'd probably think, "Man, Jaric still can't comprehend English words that are written explicitly in black and white" because what we've been discussing is the comparison of these QBs right now, TODAY. Not in 5 years. I'd suggest re-reading my posts and if you'd like to then be my guest because you seem to have no idea the point I was trying to make.

I fully understand the timetable that we are talking about is right now. I was referring to the fact that it takes people time to accept changes in "conventional wisdom."

I'm curious. What it is exactly that Rodgers does so much better than Luck that makes you feel my opinion that Luck is better so wrong?

For the record, I'm going purely based on the eye test.

[Jason_]

I fully understand the timetable that we are talking about is right now. I was referring to the fact that it takes people time to accept changes in "conventional wisdom."

I'm curious. What it is exactly that Rodgers does so much better than Luck that makes you feel my opinion that Luck is better so wrong?

For the record, I'm going purely based on the eye test.

 

The experience factor alone would put Rodgers well ahead of Luck as of right now.  I have no problem with changes in conventional wisdom.  I don't believe that is the case though.  Not with me anyway.  The experience that guys like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rivers etc all have put them above Luck imo and that's why I would choose any of them over Luck if I had one must-win game to be played right now.

[Superman]

We dont have an end like Watt, but they dont have a corner like Davis. Aside from Watt, their defense is pretty poor. The Rams have a solid d line, maybe even great, but their secondary is awful, and their LBers are pretty mediocre. I realize raw stats dont tell the whole story, but I have to back up my claims with SOMETHING, and stats support my point of view. Just saying, at least I am not saying I am right simply because I am right...my claims have some merit to them.

Luck is the best quarterback in the world at his age, but he is not the best quarterback in the world. He is not better then Manning, Brees, or Rodgers. You could argue he is not better then Brady or Roethlisberger. The offensive talent around him has been as good as anyone else. The defensive players on the Colts are criminally underrated, and often characterized as "holding Luck back."

Theres no reason to believe Luck would have won a Superbowl or would have had a more successful season if he was playing on the Texans or Rams. There is no stats, no logic that backs up that claim.

 

This claim about defense in particular is based on stats without proper context, so IMO, it's lacking merit. Things like TOP, starting field position, etc., all have a great impact on how our defense relates to other teams', statistically speaking. 

 

And yes, we have Davis, but Watt is >>>>> Davis. Not just because he's better, but he also plays a more important position. Having a shutdown corner is a great advantage, but a cyclone in the middle of the defense is far more impactful. I would trade Davis + anyone on our roster not named Luck for Watt, and I'd be excited about it.

 

I'm not of the opinion that Luck on the Texans or the Rams is automatically a contender. But both of those teams definitely have better defensive fronts than the Colts, and that's the primary downfall of the defense for as long as anyone can remember. Until further notice, I believe we have a better coaching staff, also, which speaks to your point.

[Superman]

What it is exactly that Rodgers does so much better than Luck that makes you feel my opinion that Luck is better so wrong?

 

He's more accurate. He completes a greater percentage of his throws. His short to intermediate throws are more on target, even on completions, which leads to more YAC. He's far more efficient, which makes him more productive on a per attempt basis. He turns the ball over a lot less. 

 

I don't even think it's close right now, from a pure QBing standpoint. Rodgers is far ahead of Luck in several areas that are critical to high level QB play. Luck is a big time playmaker and will continue to get better, his decision making will speed up and improve, etc. 

[Jaric]

The experience factor alone would put Rodgers well ahead of Luck as of right now. I have no problem with changes in conventional wisdom. I don't believe that is the case though. Not with me anyway. The experience that guys like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rivers etc all have put them above Luck imo and that's why I would choose any of them over Luck if I had one must-win game to be played right now.

Whoa whoa whoa. RIVERS? We may have to fistfight now. (Jk, but seriously, Rivers?)

[Jaric]

He's more accurate. He completes a greater percentage of his throws. His short to intermediate throws are more on target, even on completions, which leads to more YAC. He's far more efficient, which makes him more productive on a per attempt basis. He turns the ball over a lot less.

I don't even think it's close right now, from a pure QBing standpoint. Rodgers is far ahead of Luck in several areas that are critical to high level QB play. Luck is a big time playmaker and will continue to get better, his decision making will speed up and improve, etc.

I can buy all that.

For me, when I watch Luck play, there's something there I don't see with other QBs. I can't really define it and it's not something you measure stastically. I hate to be cliche but it's that "it" factor you hear people talk about.

That's why even though Rodgers may he more accurate, Manning better at reading defense, Rivers may be better at having a stupid face (seriously, boo @ Philip rivers.) I'll take Luck, right now, over any of them.

[Superman]

I can buy all that.

For me, when I watch Luck play, there's something there I don't see with other QBs. I can't really define it and it's not something you measure stastically. I hate to be cliche but it's that "it" factor you hear people talk about.

That's why even though Rodgers may he more accurate, Manning better at reading defense, Rivers may be better at having a stupid face (seriously, boo @ Philip rivers.) I'll take Luck, right now, over any of them.

 

That's fair, but I don't think Luck is the only one who has that "it" factor. Brady showed a lot of "it" in coming back against the Ravens, twice, and in the SB against the Seahawks. Plenty of mitigating factors -- the Ravens had no corners, the Seahawks had no pass rushers, deflated footballs (!) -- but he made the plays. At any given moment, you see that from all these top notch guys. You don't like Rivers, but watch the game against the Ravens last year, and you'll see some "it." Rodgers shows "it" at times, also.

 

So I don't think that "it" is enough to offset all the measurable things that Rodgers does better. The only argument for me is upside, and the chance that Luck will be as good overall as Rodgers is, and maybe soon, and for longer. For the last two years, I've been saying that I'd trade Luck for Rodgers, but I think I'll leave off saying that anymore. 

[Jaric]

From my perspective there's "it" And there is "Andrew Luck it."

If you told me he was half centaur I would probably believe that.

[BOTT]

Oh, now I'm a liar because I disagree with you. Same ol crazycolt.

I never said the Colts weren't good....I said the roster was overrated on this forum.

Please answer this honestly: take Luck off the team and name the teams that would trade rosters with the Colts.

My bad, I misread.....I thought you where saying I was lying about it. But feel free to put me on ignore...it would save me time responding to your ridiculousness.

[BOTT]

BOTT,..I think you have trouble with reading comprehension...or at very least, love to attack people on this forum for absolutely no reason.

Yes, it was my mistake lol. But I probably just figured crazycolt was having his usual hissy fit when people have a different opinion.

[Jason_]

My bad, I misread.....I thought you where saying I was lying about it. But feel free to put me on ignore...it would save me time responding to your ridiculousness.

 

Wouldn't you have to put him on ignore in order to not see his posts, therefore saving you time from responding to his ridiculousness?

[BOTT]

Two of the picks were nearly fatal in the 2nd half and he struggled much of the 1st half after that first TD drive. But like I said, he was also the reason they came back and won.

[horseshoeblue22]

I would trade Davis + anyone on our rouster not named Luck for Watt, and I'd be excited about it.

JJ is an incredible talent, no doubt about it...but in 2013 we had that "unstoppable cyclone" on our d line, his name was Robert Mathis. He led the league in sacks. He tore his achilles in 2014, but its not like he fell off the planet.

The last time Mathis and Watt were on the field together, Mathis was out performing him. The achilles injury is a big deal, but its not like we are completely void of pass rushers. Jonathan Newsome had more sacks than any other rookie pass rushers in his absence last year, and he barely got on the field until late in the season.

[BOTT]

Wouldn't you have to put him on ignore in order to not see his posts, therefore saving you time from responding to his ridiculousness?

I was assuming if he put me on ignore he wouldn't respond to my posts therefore I would t have to respond to his ridiculousness.

[Jason_]

I was assuming if he put me on ignore he wouldn't respond to my posts therefore I would t have to respond to his ridiculousness.

Or you could put him on ignore then you don't have to see it at all. ;)

[BOTT]

Or you could put him on ignore then you don't have to see it at all. ;)

But I would be alerted that he responded to one of posts.....and I'm not one to let that go.

[oldunclemark]

The experience factor alone would put Rodgers well ahead of Luck as of right now.  I have no problem with changes in conventional wisdom.  I don't believe that is the case though.  Not with me anyway.  The experience that guys like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rivers etc all have put them above Luck imo and that's why I would choose any of them over Luck if I had one must-win game to be played right now.

Aaron Rodgers is Andrew Luck ....plus about 4 more years.

Luck durability and his physical strength are the only things he has ahead of Aaron right now..,.

But that's changing...as Rodgers gets older and more injury prone

[Superman]

JJ is an incredible talent, no doubt about it...but in 2013 we had that "unstoppable cyclone" on our d line, his name was Robert Mathis. He led the league in sacks. He tore his achilles in 2014, but its not like he fell off the planet.

The last time Mathis and Watt were on the field together, Mathis was out performing him. The achilles injury is a big deal, but its not like we are completely void of pass rushers. Jonathan Newsome had more sacks than any other rookie pass rushers in his absence last year, and he barely got on the field until late in the season.

 

Watt >>> Mathis, and the ability to pressure QBs from the interior is far more critical than being able to rush from the edge. Watt's impact in 2013 was greater than Mathis' was. And he's much younger and more likely to continue having that kind of impact. Watt makes the Texans front better than ours by himself.

[John Dee]

Any QB that could not MOVE would have gotten IR'd fast the last few years.....   

 

Lets hope we don't get to find out for real.      I think Luck's 4th Q comeback stats should tell you all one needs to know. 

 

By no means am I saying he is a lousy quarterback, but I cringe every time I see a sports writer claim that the Colts are Andrew Luck and just a bunch of other guys. I wince every time I see a fan criticize Grigson and the coaching staff for "failing to put talent around Andrew."

Andrew has put up better statistics in his first three seasons than any other QB in history has in their first three years. He's an excellent quarterback, but why do people act like it is the team around Luck that is holding him back? Do people really expect him to be throwing 75 TDs a season at this point in his career?

The Colts have put great offensive talent around him since the day they drafted him. Reggie Wayne never got the credit he deserved because he caught passes from two outstanding QBs. TY Hilton is an afterthought in most peoples minds, a product of Superman Andrew Luck. Nobody mentions Coby Fleener when talking about excellent young TEs, just another guy who gets his stats from playing with 12. Dwayne Allen and Donte Moncrief are very talented as well, but nobody outside of Indy knows who these guys are.

"You can give Andrew Luck any receiver and youll have a productive one" ...except thats just true. Ask Darrius Heyward Bey. Ask Hakeem Nicks. These guys were reclamation projects, everyone thought that Luck would make them successful just by being Andrew Luck, but he couldn't. You can argue that these guys simply didnt get open...but the great quarterbacks are able to hit their receivers even when they are NOT open. Not saying Luck is inaccurate, but he could really stand to improve his ball placement and decision making at times. He is not on the same level as Drew Brees, Rodgers or Manning...not yet.

Luck gets the credit for comeback wins against the Chiefs and the Browns, but everyone forgets the poor throws that dug them into those holes. Look at all the blowout defeats we have suffered the last three years and youll see Andrew making poor throws and questionable decisions early and often. Colts fans complain about how we consistently come out slow early in games, but no one is willing to hang that on Luck. They want to blame the backs and the coaches and the playcalling and every one else. One of the reasons our run game struggles is because 12 hasnt yet shown the ability to consistently beat the blitz.

My favorite player on the Colts is TY Hilton. Often, people are surprised by this. "You have the best QB ever and hes not even your favorite player?" and I respond: "Because its TY out there each week, getting open and making Luck look good."

Again, I love having Andrew Luck. He deserves credit. But you cant give him the credit for the Colts turn around and then discredit the effort from the receivers, the linemen, the coaches, and the defense. Andrew doesnt do it ALL himself. I have watched every Colts game over the last two season on DirecTV Sunday Ticket. I have watched Luck torch defenses and I have seen Luck struggle. I went to the Browns game this year and sawhim make several baffling throws in person. Theres a reason his INT totals are so high, and its not his o-line.

It just seems like 12 gets all the credit for our wins, but fans are quick to excuse him for our bad games and blame it on the 52 guys around him. Hes going into his fourth year, still on his rookie contract. Can we please stop acting like hes a ten year vet who has it all figured out?

Sorry, rant over

 

[oldunclemark]

I can buy all that.

For me, when I watch Luck play, there's something there I don't see with other QBs. I can't really define it and it's not something you measure stastically. I hate to be cliche but it's that "it" factor you hear people talk about.

That's why even though Rodgers may he more accurate, Manning better at reading defense, Rivers may be better at having a stupid face (seriously, boo @ Philip rivers.) I'll take Luck, right now, over any of them.

Aaron Rodgers was better last year than anyone I've ever seen...even Peyton's 5,500 yard season the year before.

Does Andrew have a year like that coming....> Probably so...but he hasn't done it yet.

[BOTT]

BOTT,..I think you have trouble with reading comprehension...or at very least, love to attack people on this forum for absolutely no reason.

You could have just said "I think you misread that"

[horseshoeblue22]

This premise only works if you accept that one QB is better than another because he has more TD passes.

 

In reality, QBing is about more than TD passes. But if we start there and add some context -- like the fact that Luck attempted 96 more passes than Rodgers -- then you realize that Rodgers was more efficient, and his TD% would extrapolate out to 45 TD passes if he had thrown as much as Luck did. He completed a higher percentage of his attempts, had more yards/attempt and more adjusted yards/attempt. 

 

So I don't agree with either of your options here. Unless by "receiving group" you mean more than just the WRs, in which case I'd agree that for the first half of the season Luck's total package of weapons was deeper and more well-rounded than Rodgers'. But that Cobb/Nelson duo is better than the Colts top two has been at any point in Luck's career.

 

I was referring to RBs, slot WRs and TEs involved in the passing game as well, not just the top two receivers on the team. Our "duo" hasn't been on the level of Cobb/Nelson so far, but may be this year with Andre/TY. We will have to wait and see. The Packers don't have the talent we do at TE, or on the back-end of the WR depth chart.

 

Again, some missing context. Our offense ran way more plays than any of those teams you listed. Primarily because our offense was one of the league's best on third down and we dominated time of possession against 75% of our schedule. So our defense gave up fewer yards and by extension, fewer points, than Houston, in large part due to not having to be on the field as much.

 

I agree with your overall point; the roster isn't as bad as people like to pretend it is, but you can't just look at raw defensive stats and say "see, our defense is just as good as theirs." 

 

And this is exactly my point, regarding "there is always an excuse as to why our defense plays well." Your argument assumes that Time of Possession is influenced by the performance of the offense and the offense only. The defense plays a major role in winning the TOP battle. If the defense forces a three-and-out, it's just as significant as if Luck leads the offense on a 10 minute drive. If the defense goes out and allows a 10 minute drive of their own, then we break even on TOP. The defense played well in most games. While there were a few outliers, that is why we dominated the time of possession battle. There were a few games the offense didn't play well. But it seems most Colts fans disregard the poor performances of our offense, while pinpointing the games where our defense wasn't up to par.

 

In the AFCCG, we allowed 45 points, and a ton of rushing yards. Everyone likes to point this out. But our offense only scored 7 points, and put our defense in a bad position more often then not. No one blames the offense for only putting up 7 points in this game.

 

Do you think this is fair?

 

Watt >>> Mathis, and the ability to pressure QBs from the interior is far more critical than being able to rush from the edge. Watt's impact in 2013 was greater than Mathis' was. And he's much younger and more likely to continue having that kind of impact. Watt makes the Texans front better than ours by himself.

 

Again, you are discrediting the efforts of our defensive players. Mathis vs Watt is a discussion for another day or time, but Mathis has been an incredible player before he missed last season. To say we were missing that top-notch pass rusher, and then to go on and discredit Mathis's accomplishments really hurts your credibility in this discussion. Colts defense got 41 sacks on opposing quarterbacks in 2014. Houston's defense got 38, 20.5 coming from Watt himself. Again, stats don't tell the whole story, but its incredible that the rest of the Texans defensive front only managed 17.5 sacks the entire season. We managed more sacks than the Texans defense last year, and that is in a season we were missing our top pass rushing force.

 

Rushing from the interior and rushing from the edge is like comparing apples to oranges, I get that...but Watt alone does not make their defense any better than ours. I would rather have a large number of contributing defenders then have that one superstar guy surrounded by a bunch of guys that can't get after the QB. You can also make the argument that a "shut-down" corner (Davis) is just as valuable to a defense as a "cyclone" defensive lineman (Watt) is.

 

You could have just said "I think you misread that"

 

I could have, and I apologize for the way I worded that comment. It was uncalled for.

 

But I remember getting into a debate with you pre-draft. I made the claim that Cameron Erving was considered "more then a center" citing his positional versatility. You were very adamant about your opinion, claiming he would be a lousy tackle and would not be drafted to play any other position but center, citing...well, nothing but your own opinion. The Cleveland Browns drafted Erving at #19 overall to play....wait for it...offensive guard.

 

But that is neither here nor there, it's water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. I am sorry, friend, and happy posting!

   

[Superman]

I was referring to RBs, slot WRs and TEs involved in the passing game as well, not just the top two receivers on the team. Our "duo" hasn't been on the level of Cobb/Nelson so far, but may be this year with Andre/TY. We will have to wait and see. The Packers don't have the talent we do at TE, or on the back-end of the WR depth chart.

 

Top level talent trumps depth, IMO, but yeah once you look at the entire package, it changes things. However, after Bradshaw and Reggie got hurt, and then with Allen getting hurt and missing some games, it all slowed down. 

 

And this is exactly my point, regarding "there is always an excuse as to why our defense plays well." Your argument assumes that Time of Possession is influenced by the performance of the offense and the offense only. The defense plays a major role in winning the TOP battle. If the defense forces a three-and-out, it's just as significant as if Luck leads the offense on a 10 minute drive. If the defense goes out and allows a 10 minute drive of their own, then we break even on TOP. The defense played well in most games. While there were a few outliers, that is why we dominated the time of possession battle. There were a few games the offense didn't play well. But it seems most Colts fans disregard the poor performances of our offense, while pinpointing the games where our defense wasn't up to par.

 

To the bolded, that's false. My point is simply that raw stats like yardage -- which is what you used to conclude that our defense is better than Houston's -- aren't conclusive. The TOP angle is just an example about why yardage isn't all you should consider. 

 

I agree that our defense was better than it's given credit for, in general. I'm not making excuses to undermine it. All I'm saying is that just because our defense gave up less yardage than Houston's doesn't mean it was better.

 

In the AFCCG, we allowed 45 points, and a ton of rushing yards. Everyone likes to point this out. But our offense only scored 7 points, and put our defense in a bad position more often then not. No one blames the offense for only putting up 7 points in this game.

Do you think this is fair?

 

I've made this same point many times. I agree with you. That doesn't mean the defense was good in that game, or that we should dismiss the general concerns about the defense.

 

Again, you are discrediting the efforts of our defensive players. Mathis vs Watt is a discussion for another day or time, but Mathis has been an incredible player before he missed last season. To say we were missing that top-notch pass rusher, and then to go on and discredit Mathis's accomplishments really hurts your credibility in this discussion.

 

How is saying that Watt is better and more important than Mathis a discredit to Mathis? You understand Watt is easily the best defensive player in the league, right? If I say Jordan was better than Reggie Miller, is that a discredit to Reggie Miller, or a simple and undisputed statement of fact?

 

Colts defense got 41 sacks on opposing quarterbacks in 2014. Houston's defense got 38, 20.5 coming from Watt himself. Again, stats don't tell the whole story, but its incredible that the rest of the Texans defensive front only managed 17.5 sacks the entire season. We managed more sacks than the Texans defense last year, and that is in a season we were missing our top pass rushing force.

 

Credit to our defense for manufacturing pressure. We also blitzed more often than Houston, partly because we had a lead more often, partly because we don't have JJ Watt. We also gave up more yards/pass attempt, more yards/rush attempt, more total TDs, had fewer takeaways, allowed more points per possession, more points per game, etc. 

 

Let's not cherry pick stats to suit our positions. I feel like taking yards allowed and sacks and saying "see, we had a better defense!" is disingenuous. When you consider all the relevant stats, I believe Houston comes out ahead.

 

Rushing from the interior and rushing from the edge is like comparing apples to oranges, I get that...but Watt alone does not make their defense any better than ours. I would rather have a large number of contributing defenders then have that one superstar guy surrounded by a bunch of guys that can't get after the QB. You can also make the argument that a "shut-down" corner (Davis) is just as valuable to a defense as a "cyclone" defensive lineman (Watt) is.

 

I said Watt makes their front better than ours. I'd rather have the superstar surrounded by contributing defenders. We have one, they have the other. All told, I'd rather have what they have. You can find/replace contributors, but the star is what the contributors all orbit around.

 

And you can try to make the argument that a shutdown corner is just as valuable as a DL like Watt, but you won't get very much mileage out of that one. If the Texans offered Watt for Davis right now, everyone would take that deal as fast as possible.

[Dustin]

I was referring to RBs, slot WRs and TEs involved in the passing game as well, not just the top two receivers on the team. Our "duo" hasn't been on the level of Cobb/Nelson so far, but may be this year with Andre/TY. We will have to wait and see. The Packers don't have the talent we do at TE, or on the back-end of the WR depth chart.

 

 

And this is exactly my point, regarding "there is always an excuse as to why our defense plays well." Your argument assumes that Time of Possession is influenced by the performance of the offense and the offense only. The defense plays a major role in winning the TOP battle. If the defense forces a three-and-out, it's just as significant as if Luck leads the offense on a 10 minute drive. If the defense goes out and allows a 10 minute drive of their own, then we break even on TOP. The defense played well in most games. While there were a few outliers, that is why we dominated the time of possession battle. There were a few games the offense didn't play well. But it seems most Colts fans disregard the poor performances of our offense, while pinpointing the games where our defense wasn't up to par.

 

In the AFCCG, we allowed 45 points, and a ton of rushing yards. Everyone likes to point this out. But our offense only scored 7 points, and put our defense in a bad position more often then not. No one blames the offense for only putting up 7 points in this game.

 

Do you think this is fair?

 

 

Again, you are discrediting the efforts of our defensive players. Mathis vs Watt is a discussion for another day or time, but Mathis has been an incredible player before he missed last season. To say we were missing that top-notch pass rusher, and then to go on and discredit Mathis's accomplishments really hurts your credibility in this discussion. Colts defense got 41 sacks on opposing quarterbacks in 2014. Houston's defense got 38, 20.5 coming from Watt himself. Again, stats don't tell the whole story, but its incredible that the rest of the Texans defensive front only managed 17.5 sacks the entire season. We managed more sacks than the Texans defense last year, and that is in a season we were missing our top pass rushing force.

 

Rushing from the interior and rushing from the edge is like comparing apples to oranges, I get that...but Watt alone does not make their defense any better than ours. I would rather have a large number of contributing defenders then have that one superstar guy surrounded by a bunch of guys that can't get after the QB. You can also make the argument that a "shut-down" corner (Davis) is just as valuable to a defense as a "cyclone" defensive lineman (Watt) is.

 

 

I could have, and I apologize for the way I worded that comment. It was uncalled for.

 

But I remember getting into a debate with you pre-draft. I made the claim that Cameron Erving was considered "more then a center" citing his positional versatility. You were very adamant about your opinion, claiming he would be a lousy tackle and would not be drafted to play any other position but center, citing...well, nothing but your own opinion. The Cleveland Browns drafted Erving at #19 overall to play....wait for it...offensive guard.

 

But that is neither here nor there, it's water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. I am sorry, friend, and happy posting!

   

 

They drafted Erving to play center when Mack inevitably opts out of his contract next season.

[horseshoeblue22]

They drafted Erving to play center when Mack inevitably opts out of his contract next season.

 

Mack will most likely opt out of his contract, that is true...but they could have found a backup center much later then 19th overall. If I recall correctly, Erving was announced as a guard at the draft. As in, they expect him to play guard his rookie season. Maybe Mack stays, maybe they keep Erving at guard and replace Mack with some other guy. There's a lot of maybes there. But Erving will be on the field, not sitting on the bench backing up Mack. He will be playing guard his rookie year.

 

Did they draft him because he can play center? Yes. Did they draft him because he can play guard? Yes. That is the very definition of "positional versatility". The topic I was referring to had the topic creator speculating that Erving would be off the Colts board because he was a center. I replied that "he is more then a center", he has the ability to play all over the line, and the Colts could hypothetically be looking at him as a guard or even a tackle, where he played most of his college career. BOTT took exception to that. Very few centers get drafted in the first round, even fewer get drafted in the first to sit on the bench their rookie year. I don't think Cleveland drafted him to be the backup center.

 

Again, debating Erving's flexibility is not the topic we are discussing in this thread, so I'll leave it at that. 

[aaron11]

That depends entirely on who the qb would be if it weren't Luck

if not luck, there is a very good chance it would have been russel wilson.  grigson and co were really high on wilson after scouting him in the big ten, going as far as to say they probably would have drafted him in the second or third round if we lost the suck for luck campaign.(paraphrasing of course)

[BOTT]

if not luck, there is a very good chance it would have been russel wilson.  grigson and co were really high on wilson after scouting him in the big ten, going as far as to say they probably would have drafted him in the second or third round if we lost the suck for luck campaign.(paraphrasing of course)

Everyone was going to draft Wilson after the fact lol

[John Dee]

 

Put an REAL OL in front of Andrew Luck...       and I do not care who the skill guys are...     I DONT>

 

 

And then put a REAL STRONG DL on D......        Stop the run and get the QB.....     We will see... 

 

But a mobile QB like Andrew will make ANY WR look good..    BUT this D is SO suspect the "powers that be" think we will have to OUT SCORE the opponent...    OK...   

 

Havent we seen this path before?      Get tough up front and it will all fall into place.

 

JMO

[John Dee]

I am on record as saying KEEP Manning and draft Wilson...   in the 3rd...  

 

Just saying....

 

Everyone was going to draft Wilson after the fact lol

 

[John Dee]

But I'm glad it worked out the way it did.....

 

I love me some Andrew... 

[aaron11]

Everyone was going to draft Wilson after the fact lol

what makes you think we wouldnt have?  the team was desperate for a qb and wilson would have been there for the taking.  he played very well in the big 10 and would have been good value in the second or third round, while we had the picks to spend.

 

you can say hindsight is 20-20 but this team scouted qbs other than andrew luck

[BOTT]

what makes you think we wouldnt have?  the team was desperate for a qb and wilson would have been there for the taking.  he played very well in the big 10 and would have been good value in the second or third round, while we had the picks to spend.

 

you can say hindsight is 20-20 but this team scouted qbs other than andrew luck

I'm not saying the colts wouldn't have. But it seems every GM in the league has come out and claimed they were interested in Russell Wilson. Seems a little convenient

[BOTT]

Mack will most likely opt out of his contract, that is true...but they could have found a backup center much later then 19th overall. If I recall correctly, Erving was announced as a guard at the draft. As in, they expect him to play guard his rookie season. Maybe Mack stays, maybe they keep Erving at guard and replace Mack with some other guy. There's a lot of maybes there. But Erving will be on the field, not sitting on the bench backing up Mack. He will be playing guard his rookie year.

 

Did they draft him because he can play center? Yes. Did they draft him because he can play guard? Yes. That is the very definition of "positional versatility". The topic I was referring to had the topic creator speculating that Erving would be off the Colts board because he was a center. I replied that "he is more then a center", he has the ability to play all over the line, and the Colts could hypothetically be looking at him as a guard or even a tackle, where he played most of his college career. BOTT took exception to that. Very few centers get drafted in the first round, even fewer get drafted in the first to sit on the bench their rookie year. I don't think Cleveland drafted him to be the backup center.

 

Again, debating Erving's flexibility is not the topic we are discussing in this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

I took exception to him being drafted to play tackle. A center plating some guard is nothing new....most can do it.

[braveheartcolt]

I have zer0 desire in wanting anyone else than Andrew Luck leading this team. Which in my rather old fashion mind set, must mean I think him the best.

Manning (Ledend), Brady and Brees are slowing down. Wilson is not Top Ten. I kinda like Big Ben, and Rodgers is a superstar like Luck.

The rest....no thanks.

[luvdacolts67]

The thing with the Jets and Sanchez/Smith is they have had very little offensive star power since LT left town. I am not saying Hilton and our other offensive weapons carry Luck, I am saying that they definitely do their part. Same with the O Line, they are not as awful as everyone makes them out to be. Very few teams have the talent on their o line like Dallas does...its crazy to suggest the Colts line needs to play at that level.

Wayne is considered a potential HOFer but Marvin and several other all time greats dont make the cut because at the same time they are considered by products of a great quarterback.

I am just trying to dispel the notion that Andrew Luck is the greatest quarterback ever...hes still young and has a lot of room to improve. I understand he is everyones sweetheart around here, and any bad comment about him is treason in these parts...but come on.

Our team is not "complete" but there are 31 other teams that can say the same things. Luck is an excellent quarterback, but there is more than enough talent around him. Hes not out there doing it all on his own.

That was my point. My point wasnt to take away from Lucks accomplishments. It was to give credit where credit is due...our skill positions and o line are not "holding him back" by any means. Even if you put him on the Cowboys,Steelers orwhatever team you think has it all figured out offensively, his stats would look like they have with the Colts.

Do you really think Luck would put up equal or better numbers if he was drafted by the Jets, Jaguars or Rams? These teams are barren at offensive skill position players, the Colts are not. Do you think he would have amassed 33 regular season wins on any of those teams? I do not.

Andrew Luck deserves credit, but he gets ALL the credit. The fact that Hilton, Fleener, Allen, Davis and some of our other players are "starting to get recognition now" is a good thing...but to say the team lacks talent besides 12 is short sighted at best.

Andrew is the most valuable player on our team, I recognize that. But we didnt win 33 games in 3 years by "simply drafting Andrew Luck". The other players did their parts as well. Some people act like Luck should be throwing 80 TDs a year by year three and thats totally unrealistic. Some people act like hes head and shoulders above all other QBs, and its not true. In reality hes slightly ahead of guys like Matt Ryan and Cam Newton and behind Rodgers, Manning, and Brees. Not saying this is a bad thing...a guy in his third year playing like a ten year vet is an incredible thing...but lets not forget hes still a young player with flaws of his own.

Im sorry but Marvin IS an all time great.  He made catches that no one else could make.  Just a great reciever