Colts' future not as bright as it seems

[peytonmanning18]

He isn't as bad as Cutler or Sanchez, but I get your point.  People don't want to believe it, but Andrew was still making foolish throws/holding onto the ball too long which caused many turnovers.  He most definitely will need to get better if the Colts want to make it to the SB.  I do believe he will become a smarter player these next few years.  He is maturing and entering his prime.  If you look at Peyton's first couple of years he did the same, so I'm not too worried about it, although there are alot of people on here ignoring that fact!

 

This is exactly right.  I didn't say Luck was as bad as Cutler and Sanchez, but he does turn the ball over at a rate that is comparable to those guys.  It's like there is no middle ground with Luck.  If you don't consider him elite, you just hate him.  Andrew Luck is a stud but he is not elite at this point.  Stop turning the ball over and then we can discuss it.  

[peytonmanning18]

Gtho with that crap.

 

You mean "get out of here with these facts"?

 

Luck turned the ball over 23 times last year, not including 7 fumbles that the Colts recovered, so that number could have been a lot worse.  

[Ja'Crispy]

Peyton Mannings first 4 seasons interceptions 1998 to 2002

 

28

15

15

23

 

 

Luck first 3 seasons

 

18

9

16

 

 

I don't see any evidence to say he's on any sort of disaster pattern any more then Peyton.

 

While I am not worried about Luck this list does not include his fumbles, as I'm sure you are well aware.  But that's correctable once he learns to eat the ball and avoid disaster. Live to see another day, not attempt a miraculous play.

[Everyone]

You mean "get out of here with these facts"?

 

Luck turned the ball over 23 times last year, not including 7 fumbles that the Colts recovered, so that number could have been a lot worse.  

How many times did Manning turn the ball over in his 3rd year?

[peytonmanning18]

How many times did Manning turn the ball over in his 3rd year?

 

What does that have to do with this argument?

[Superman]

especially not that post season

 

Or the previous postseason. He outplayed Tom Brady in the 2011 AFCCG, and if not for a dropped TD pass they probably win; if not for a missed FG, they go to OT.

 

I'm anything but a Flacco fan, but he wasn't below average at the time, and definitely not the year they won the SB. Had 11 TDs, zero picks, a TD% of 8.7 (much higher than Manning, Manning, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, etc., have ever had in the postseason), averaged 285 yards/game, etc. Again, not an elite passer (low completion percentage, low usage rate, etc.), but definitely not below average, especially then.

[Everyone]

Everything.

 

What does that have to do with this argument?

You're calling Luck a turnover machine, Manning wasn't any better in his first 3 years.

[Valpo2004]

 

I think with this article, Clayton is basically saying in his era of FA/cap, the draft is critical. It is as critical as having the elite or great QB. Nothing earth shattering and with Luck due to get his big pay day, the emphasis of the draft will be magnified.

 

 

That's a message that I can agree with. . . but when you say things like their clock is ticking and they better do it this year.  That seems to indicate that the Colt's are completely incapable of drafting the talent needed in the future.  

[amfootball]

That's a message that I can agree with. . . but when you say things like their clock is ticking and they better do it this year.  That seems to indicate that the Colt's are completely incapable of drafting the talent needed.

Yes which is why I hate the negatively slanted media that permeates this sport and really everywhere. There used to be a time where there was so much more balance and a real intention to provide quality reporting that made the reader think and come to quality conclusions. Now, it is just about fueling hate and twitter feeds and agitating fan bases. The media tries so hard to paint everything black and white. Look at his sentence about Brady being suspended (um, last I checked that is subject to appeal and potentially a court hearing that could have it reduced or tossed) and Manning's certain decline (um, Manning was injured last year and is now in a new offense). It is like he is pouring the fuel to say, better win now as it won't get any better than this. It is all hog wash.

[peytonmanning18]

Everything.

 

You're calling Luck a turnover machine, Manning wasn't any better in his first 3 years.

 

Manning's third year stats have nothing to do with this argument but since you want to know.  

 

Manning had 15 interceptions and 1 fumble in his 3rd year.  7 less turnovers than Luck.

 

My initial post said that in order for Luck to become elite he needs to stop turning the ball over at a rate comparable to Mark Sanchez and Jay Cutler, I have no idea what that has to do with Manning.

[theanarchist]

What's your take on John Claytons article?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13013357/why-indianapolis-colts-future-bright-seems-nfl

 

"What's clear is the biological clock is ticking on the Colts, even though Luck is only 25 years old. It might not be now or never for Luck to get to his first Super Bowl, but the Colts could be heading down the path of five other franchises that have quality quarterbacks. Teams that don't hit on two or three starters in each draft class eventually suffer roster decay -- and that's the position in which the Colts currently find themselves"

I've made similar observations myself. Of course I simplified it as saying that if you miss on your first rounders eventually it catches up to you and you pay for it. So far Grigson didn't hit on the Richardson trade which cost us a first rounder and Werner hasn't played to a first round level so if Dorsett turns out to be a dud there could be trouble down the road. Personally, I think that the development of the offensive line better take a big step forward this year because if it doesn't the lack of running game and lack of time to throw the ball will kill this team. Failing to bring in strong offensive linemen with higher draft picks will eventually catch up to you.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Let me put it this way...

 

When is the last time a below average QB, regardless of the quality of the team around him, has won a Super Bowl?

 

Every long-term starting QB gets paid eventually, most will get around $16 million. Maybe Luck gets $24 million. Now, is that extra $8 million going to put these teams over the top? Or is the extra tax for an elite QB going to make the difference in the end?

 

I know what I would rather spend that $8 million p/a on. And history agrees with me.

Russel Wilson.

[Superman]

Russel Wilson.

 

What in the world is the matter with people? Russell Wilson is not below average.

[Superman]

That's a message that I can agree with. . . but when you say things like their clock is ticking and they better do it this year.  That seems to indicate that the Colt's are completely incapable of drafting the talent needed in the future.  

 

Especially when the crux of the argument comes down to "they haven't filled their defensive needs in the draft." 

[Everyone]

Manning's third year stats have nothing to do with this argument but since you want to know.  

 

Manning had 15 interceptions and 1 fumble in his 3rd year.  7 less turnovers than Luck.

 

My initial post said that in order for Luck to become elite he needs to stop turning the ball over at a rate comparable to Mark Sanchez and Jay Cutler, I have no idea what that has to do with Manning.

Luck more than makes up for his turnovers and it's something that will get cleaned up. He may have turned it over as much as them but he also had more Tds than both of them combined.

[peytonmanning18]

Luck more than makes up for his turnovers and it's something that will get cleaned up. He may have turned it over as much as them but he also had more Tds than both of them combined.

 

I agree, however, you can't be considered elite if you turn the ball over as much as Mark Sanchez and Jay Cutler.

[Valpo2004]

Manning's third year stats have nothing to do with this argument but since you want to know.  

 

Manning had 15 interceptions and 1 fumble in his 3rd year.  7 less turnovers than Luck.

 

My initial post said that in order for Luck to become elite he needs to stop turning the ball over at a rate comparable to Mark Sanchez and Jay Cutler, I have no idea what that has to do with Manning.

 

If you look their Int % is exactly the same in their 3rd year.  2.6%

 

Luck fumbles more but also provides more production on the ground.  

 

Andrew Luck's passer rating in the 3rd year is higher then Manning's.  His TD % is also higher.  

 

Exact same yards per attempt at 7.7.  

 

Essentially Manning was a slightly safer player then Luck but didn't produce as much.  I don't think anyone would deny that Luck has some gunslinger in him.  

 

That's why Luck had 73 passes of 20 yards or more while Manning only had 51.  Luck had 15 passes of 40 yards or more while Manning only had 8.  Also why Luck took 27 sacks compared to Manning's 20.  His numbers in his 3rd year compare favorably to Manning.  He is equal or better then Manning on every stat except fumbles, sack numbers, and completion %.  And those can easily be explained by Luck being a more aggressive thrower.  And the only one that is radically different is fumbles Luck's 4 to Manning's 1.  Sacks Luck took 27 for 161 yards lost.  Manning took 20 for 131 yards lost.  On completion % Luck is only .8% below Manning's number for his 3rd year.

 

Not bad considering how many more of his passes went for 20+ yards and 40+ yards then Manning's.  

[Superman]

Manning's third year stats have nothing to do with this argument but since you want to know.  

 

Manning had 15 interceptions and 1 fumble in his 3rd year.  7 less turnovers than Luck.

 

My initial post said that in order for Luck to become elite he needs to stop turning the ball over at a rate comparable to Mark Sanchez and Jay Cutler, I have no idea what that has to do with Manning.

 

Using Clayton's criteria -- which is comparing Luck to Newton, Brees, E. Manning and Ryan -- Luck is "elite." 

 

I personally have much more stringent criteria than Clayton, and think his yearly QB rankings are ridiculous (one year, he had Matt Schaub as elite because he threw for 4,000 yards). However, the point is that you can easily win a SB with a QB of Luck's caliber, even without a perfect roster. Luck's turnovers don't disqualify him, or the Colts.

[peytonmanning18]

If you look their Int % is exactly the same in their 3rd year.  2.6%

 

Luck fumbles more but also provides more production on the ground.  

 

Andrew Luck's passer rating in the 3rd year is higher then Manning's.  His TD % is also higher.  

 

Exact same yards per attempt at 7.7.  

 

Essentially Manning was a slightly safer player then Luck but didn't produce as much.  I don't think anyone would deny that Luck has some gunslinger in him.  

 

That said his "turnover problems" are pretty overrated.  

 

Turnover problems overrated?  You've got to be kidding.  12 interceptions in 6 playoff games.  That is a problem.

 

 

And I'm still not sure why you guys keep wanting to compare him to something Manning did 15 years ago.  Not sure of the relevance.

[Gavin]

Not really.

I don't think some biological clock is ticking on the team......But I do think from my outsiders looking in point of view the signing of Cole in particular....(while clearly a great player and I expect to live up to past performances if he stays healthy) it could stunt the growth of Newsome/Werner because no coach in there right mind will take out Mathis or Cole to rush the passer for either Newsome/Werner, Don't get me wrong, I think they will see snaps but significantly less then they would have if Cole was not picked up...I want to make it clear, Im not complaining about Cole himself..Great player..Good pick up but now Werner sits and Newsome sits. Thornton situation is different because not only did he have poor play but he had the off field incident

[peytonmanning18]

I don't think some biological clock is ticking on the team......But I do think from my outsiders looking in point of view the signing of Cole in particular....(while clearly a great player and I expect to live up to past performances if he stays healthy) it could stunt the growth of Newsome/Werner because no coach in there right mind will take out Mathis or Cole to rush the passer for either Newsome/Werner, Don't get me wrong, I think they will see snaps but significantly less then they would have if Cole was not picked up...I want to make it clear, Im not complaining about Cole himself..Great player..Good pick up but now Werner sits and Newsome sits. Thornton situation is different because not only did he have poor play but he had the off field incident

 

I'm about done with Werner but I think Newsome could possibly develop into a legitimate replacement for Mathis

[Superman]

That said his "turnover problems" are pretty overrated.  

 

I think turnovers can be offset with playmaking and efficiency in other areas (yards/attempt, TD%, etc.,) but I think people take INT% out of context and then say total turnovers don't really matter. I disagree.

 

Even though passing volume has gone way up, teams still have about the same number of total possessions per game and per season. And turnovers surrender possessions. Doesn't really matter the nature of the turnover, or how many offensive plays you run per turnover, you're still giving up possession, and you only have a finite number of possessions every game and every season. 

 

The more important metric is the turnover:possession ratio. Luck's lower INT% doesn't really make up for that. What might (at least in 2014) is points per possession. I'm just saying, let's not downplay turnovers on the basis of INT%.

[Superman]

I don't think some biological clock is ticking on the team......But I do think from my outsiders looking in point of view the signing of Cole in particular....(while clearly a great player and I expect to live up to past performances if he stays healthy) it could stunt the growth of Newsome/Werner because no coach in there right mind will take out Mathis or Cole to rush the passer for either Newsome/Werner, Don't get me wrong, I think they will see snaps but significantly less then they would have if Cole was not picked up...I want to make it clear, Im not complaining about Cole himself..Great player..Good pick up but now Werner sits and Newsome sits. Thornton situation is different because not only did he have poor play but he had the off field incident

 

How about how we lost our best pass rusher last season, and he's 34 and coming back from a tough injury? We don't even know when Mathis will get the green light. Trent Cole is 32. It's the importance of depth, and at what position is depth more important than at pass rusher? We have two good vets, a a couple youngsters alongside them (Werner is probably a Sam anyways).

 

Clayton's argument boils down to 'I don't think the Colts have drafted enough good defensive players, so they won't be able to sustain any success, especially after they pay Luck.' Valid concern, completely illogical conclusion.

[Valpo2004]

Turnover problems overrated?  You've got to be kidding.  12 interceptions in 6 playoff games.  That is a problem.

 

 

And I'm still not sure why you guys keep wanting to compare him to something Manning did 15 years ago.  Not sure of the relevance.

 

Luck is what 3-3 in the playoffs after his 3rd year.

 

What was Manning?  Like 0 - 1??  

 

It's relevant to compare a 3rd year to a 3rd year. . . Not a 3rd year to a 14th year or something like that.

[peytonmanning18]

Luck is what 3-3 in the playoffs after his 3rd year.

 

What was Manning?  Like 0 - 1??  

 

It's relevant to compare a 3rd year to a 3rd year. . . Not a 3rd year to a 14th year or something like that.

 

Change the subject.  Good job.  

[Flash7]

Here is how I read Clayton's article:

 

There have been other teams with very good QBs that have suffered roster deterioration: (Falcons, Steelers, Chargers, Saints, Giants etc...). With the Colts having the highest average for age, over 27 years old, there will be roster turnover.

 

Clayton is simply saying that with the roster turnover, if quality players cannot fill the vacated spots, the Colts could be in for a decline. I see nothing wrong with this argument. Yes, it's common sense, but it applies more to the Colts because of the age of the players. It implies that there will be more turnover at key positions.

[Valpo2004]

I think turnovers can be offset with playmaking and efficiency in other areas (yards/attempt, TD%, etc.,) but I think people take INT% out of context and then say total turnovers don't really matter. I disagree.

 

Even though passing volume has gone way up, teams still have about the same number of total possessions per game and per season. And turnovers surrender possessions. Doesn't really matter the nature of the turnover, or how many offensive plays you run per turnover, you're still giving up possession, and you only have a finite number of possessions every game and every season. 

 

The more important metric is the turnover:possession ratio. Luck's lower INT% doesn't really make up for that. What might (at least in 2014) is points per possession. I'm just saying, let's not downplay turnovers on the basis of INT%.

 

If we're comparing individual players to individual players Int % is pretty meaningful because it tells us how often out of say 100 throws they are likely to turn the ball over.

 

I think you are looking at it from a more team centered view.  And remember throwing more is inherently more aggressive as it leads to more yards and more points on average then a running play but also leads to more turnovers on average.  How often you throw it is a coaching decision dictated by the reality of the team personnel.

 

2000 Colts had Edge who gained 1709 yards rushing gaining 4.4 YPC.  2014 Colts had Trent who gained 519 yards gaining 3.3 YPC.

 

Reality of the team favored the more aggressive strategy.

 

Although looking at Herron and Bradshaw's YPC really emphasizes to me how much of a waste the 159 carries we gave to Trent really where.  Herron averaged 4.5 YPC.  Bradshaw 4.7.  Bradshaw got injured of course but even with Herron, we may have already had the running game we needed, we just didn't give the ball to the right back. 

[krunk]

Luck more than makes up for his turnovers and it's something that will get cleaned up. He may have turned it over as much as them but he also had more Tds than both of them combined.

 

Honestly I think many of the turnovers are a function of having to throw the football an abnormal amount of times.  I think Luck will fix the problem on his own anyway, but also I think it will be fixed with an improved running game.  Much of it has to do with him being in positions where he has to put everything on his back and he's forcing things. With a more balanced football team he'll realize he can lean more on his team mates and trust the process.   I'm not that concerned that he'll keep turning the ball over like Sanchez, Cutler or anyone else. He and the Colts will get that corrected.

[Peterk2011]

Clayton is a prolific writer. So much, that he is able to rewrite history. 3 straight division championships! Sounds good I guess

Lol, don't try to match him in rewriting history.

(It's 3 straight playoff appearances, but only 2 straight division champs.)

[Valpo2004]

Change the subject.  Good job.  

 

Pretty sure int's in the playoffs are a change of subject as well.  You went from regular season Int's to switching to playoff int's.

 

In the stats you mentioned earlier you never once mentioned playoff Int's. . . then I prove you wrong with Int % and then suddenly you switch to playoff Int's.  

 

And you don't even stick with a 3rd year comparison you go over the whole career.

[krunk]

How about how we lost our best pass rusher last season, and he's 34 and coming back from a tough injury? We don't even know when Mathis will get the green light. Trent Cole is 32. It's the importance of depth, and at what position is depth more important than at pass rusher? We have two good vets, a a couple youngsters alongside them (Werner is probably a Sam anyways).

 

Clayton's argument boils down to 'I don't think the Colts have drafted enough good defensive players, so they won't be able to sustain any success, especially after they pay Luck.' Valid concern, completely illogical conclusion.

 

 

I think Newsome will still see the field more than people think. Cole gets rushed from the inside quite a bit on top of what he does on the outside.  I'm assuming there will be several times we'll have 3 pass rushers on the field at the same time.  If Mathis comes back still flashing like he usually does you can rush Newsome and Mathis off the edge with Cole inside. Some people(myself included) don't realize Cole is versatile, and a big boy at 270lbs.  He can do more than just exclusively rushing from the outside.   I'm sure Manusky will get it worked out to take advantage of everything we have. .

[Bubbz]

Lol, don't try to match him in rewriting history.

(It's 3 straight playoff appearances, but only 2 straight division champs.)

"The Colts rebounded with three straight division titles and three 11-win seasons, including last season's run to the AFC Championship Game." - John Clayton

[LJpalmbeacher2]

What in the world is the matter with people? Russell Wilson is not below average.

Actually, I thought I read "average qb". My Bad.

And neither is Flacco below average, which you rightfully defended his honour also.hhaha

[Superman]

If we're comparing individual players to individual players Int % is pretty meaningful because it tells us how often out of say 100 throws they are likely to turn the ball over.

I think you are looking at it from a more team centered view. And remember throwing more is inherently more aggressive as it leads to more yards and more points on average then a running play but also leads to more turnovers on average. How often you throw it is a coaching decision dictated by the reality of the team personnel.

2000 Colts had Edge who gained 1709 yards rushing gaining 4.4 YPC. 2014 Colts had Trent who gained 519 yards gaining 3.3 YPC.

Reality of the team favored the more aggressive strategy.

Although looking at Herron and Bradshaw's YPC really emphasizes to me how much of a waste the 159 carries we gave to Trent really where. Herron averaged 4.5 YPC. Bradshaw 4.7. Bradshaw got injured of course but even with Herron, we may have already had the running game we needed, we just didn't give the ball to the right back.

I'm looking at how turnovers impact the team and the ability to win, especially winning a SB. You're right, percentages are relevant for a player comparison, but a lower percentage doesn't mean more turnovers is okay.

[Valpo2004]

I'm looking at how turnovers impact the team and the ability to win, especially winning a SB. You're right, percentages are relevant for a player comparison, but a lower percentage doesn't mean more turnovers is okay.

 

True but there is a balance there.  Maybe you have a few more turnovers in a season but if you have significantly more TD's that season it makes it worth it all things being equal does it not?

 

Just think about it this way. . . 2014 Colts passing game was more aggressive, got more yards and more TD's then the 2000 Colts passing game.  And it cost a few more turnovers.

 

It's all a risk assessment really.  The quarterback with the least number of interceptions is the quarterback who never throws the football.  

 

Throwing for 3 TD's 1 Int and 350 yards does more to help the team win then throwing for 1 TD  0 Int's and 150 yards.  

[The Fish]

True but there is a balance there.  Maybe you have a few more turnovers in a season but if you have significantly more TD's that season it makes it worth it all things being equal does it not?

 

Just think about it this way. . . 2014 Colts passing game was more aggressive, got more yards and more TD's then the 2000 Colts passing game.  And it cost a few more turnovers.

 

It's all a risk assessment really.  The quarterback with the least number of interceptions is the quarterback who never throws the football.  

 

Throwing for 3 TD's 1 Int and 350 yards does more to help the team win then throwing for 1 TD  0 Int's and 150 yards.  

Bingo, and there's always circumstances when a turnover is more or less hurtful in the course of a game. Luck has had no shortage of int's that in effect weren't much different than a punt.

[Superman]

True but there is a balance there.  Maybe you have a few more turnovers in a season but if you have significantly more TD's that season it makes it worth it all things being equal does it not?

 

Just think about it this way. . . 2014 Colts passing game was more aggressive, got more yards and more TD's then the 2000 Colts passing game.  And it cost a few more turnovers.

 

It's all a risk assessment really.  The quarterback with the least number of interceptions is the quarterback who never throws the football.  

 

Throwing for 3 TD's 1 Int and 350 yards does more to help the team win then throwing for 1 TD  0 Int's and 150 yards.  

 

I said earlier, to me, what offsets turnovers/possession is points/possession. Since turnovers cost you opportunity to score points, you have to make up for that by scoring more efficiently. So yeah, if you have more total TDs, it can make up for more turnovers.

[peytonmanning18]

Pretty sure int's in the playoffs are a change of subject as well.  You went from regular season Int's to switching to playoff int's.

 

In the stats you mentioned earlier you never once mentioned playoff Int's. . . then I prove you wrong with Int % and then suddenly you switch to playoff Int's.  

 

And you don't even stick with a 3rd year comparison you go over the whole career.

 

Proved me wrong?   yeah right.  You conveniently just throw all of Luck's fumbles to the side.

 

I'll go back to my original point at the beginning of the thread that you two turned into some kind of Manning vs Luck debate.  I still don't understand what Manning's stats have to do with the idea that Luck cannot be considered elite until he stops turning the ball over like Mark Sanchez and Jay Cutler.   

[braveheartcolt]

Luck is a winner. Full stop. He will get us a few rings. He will.

[NewColtsFan]

I think anyone who has NOT read the Clayton article really should.

 

It's interesting and thought provoking.

 

I don't view it as a prediction, but more as a caution.

 

And it's as simple as this.....  we can't expect to sign 6-8 quality free agents a year.   We've got to have a higher/better hit rate in the draft.      And I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Once we've re-signed the 2012 class plus Castanzo,  we'll likely only be able to sign 2-4 good free agents per year.   We'll have less available money for free agents,   but it's not like we won't have any money available.

 

I've honestly been incredibly impressed with how Grigson and his staff have managed the salary cap.   We do a very nice job with it.    And I see no reason for that not to continue.     We just won't have quite as much.

 

But we do have to be more productive in the draft.   That includes not only the 2013 class,  but the 2015 class has to deliver as well.

 

There's a lot of heat around this story....   but I personally wouldn't get into much of a lather on this.    I hate to put the spotlight squarely on someone, but the poster here who understands this material the best is......  Superman.

 

Follow his posts on this issue.   He's looked into the future and he sees no reason to panic....   So,  I wouldn't!