Luck QB sneak ???

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, DaColts85 said:

This is where we differ. You error on the side of caution. Nothing wrong with that but I would not.

 

In this circumstance, yes. Typically, I'm going to go with the statistical advantage, even if it's slim, because over a large sample size I think it leads to greater success. I think teams are too conservative on 4th down, in goal to go situations, in 4 minute, etc. 

 

But I think being somewhat conservative with Luck's shoulder is sensible. At least until the team knows they're out of the woods. 

[DaColts85]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

In this circumstance, yes. Typically, I'm going to go with the statistical advantage, even if it's slim, because over a large sample size I think it leads to greater success. I think teams are too conservative on 4th down, in goal to go situations, in 4 minute, etc. 

 

But I think being somewhat conservative with Luck's shoulder is sensible. At least until the team knows they're out of the woods. 

I cannot disagree with the bolded. I will say that after preseason and within the first probably 2 games you are going to have a good feeling about his shoulder and everything. I am assuming that they play him in all 4 preseason games as well. That gives you 6 games and plenty of contact to know how the shoulder is. After that as a coach I honestly am not holding anything back short of QB designed runs throughout the game, which even these might not be out of the question.

[King Colt]

3 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

I would think that a lot of short yardage plays would no longer be allowed according to how that rule is written.

Add to that the scores should be higher as well. Let's see how many lowered head penalties we see in pre-season. Third & one plays should be interesting this season.

[ColtStrong2013]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

When the risk outweighs the potential reward, you mitigate the risk. It's the defining principle behind throwing the ball away, sliding, dumpoffs, not forcing the ball into double coverage, etc.

 

 

It's not all of a sudden, the OP said 3rd and 4th and short. 

 

I'm not sure but it sounds like you're advocating running a QB sneak on any down if it's short yardage? That's a terrible idea. Maybe you'd convert on 2nd and 1 more often, but the points added when you pop a big play on 2nd down are a big factor in efficient offensive output. A QB sneak, even successful, probably takes points off the board on second down.

 

And even if the Colts were less efficient on 3rd and short in recent years, you're still ignoring the other highly successful play calls that can be used in shortage, and how they compare to QB sneak. For instance, Robert Turbin has been basically automatic in short yardage situations.

 

Another thing, the Colts have had a big problem with offensive play calling for a while now, including in short yardage. Let's not try to reduce that to something as simple as 'they don't run QB sneak often enough.'

 

 

I agree with this, but you're stuck on one number and ignoring everything else because you think it's all-telling and conclusive, but that's not the case.

 

 

You can eliminate a high percentage play if you have other high percentage options to replace it, especially if those other options are less risky. The statistical advantage of QB sneak in short yardage is not so significant that the risk of QB sneak becomes unworthy of consideration.

 

Edit: By the way, you stated that you're against QB sneak on the goal line, because it's dangerous. You admit that at some point, the risk outweighs the reward. 

I'm in favor of sustaining drives, something this team has sorely lacked. I'm in favor of high percentage plays, something this team has lacked. I'm in favor of catching defenses off guard, which we obviously have lacked. 

 

I'm not in favor of running straight no-sneaks... but there is no doubt the Patriots and several organizations have had great success pulling it out when it makes sense in a game. 

 

I did say goal line sneaks are dangerous. Because they are. That's the situation that 1200 and 1500 lbs WILL be on top of you, regardless of your position. I believe in spreading defenses out and creating mismatches/taking what defenses give you, something Reich will be very good at, and the qb sneak is a play that defenses give you repeatedly throughout a game in short yardage situations. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I'm in favor of sustaining drives, something this team has sorely lacked. I'm in favor of high percentage plays, something this team has lacked. I'm in favor of catching defenses off guard, which we obviously have lacked. 

 

I believe we can do all of that without relying on QB sneak, especially to the extent you're suggesting it should be run.

 

Quote

I'm not in favor of running straight no-sneaks... but there is no doubt the Patriots and several organizations have had great success pulling it out when it makes sense in a game. 

 

I'm not disputing the effectiveness of QB sneak. I do think you're overstating its advantage over other high percentage short yardage plays.

 

Quote

I did say goal line sneaks are dangerous. Because they are. That's the situation that 1200 and 1500 lbs WILL be on top of you, regardless of your position. I believe in spreading defenses out and creating mismatches/taking what defenses give you, something Reich will be very good at, and the qb sneak is a play that defenses give you repeatedly throughout a game in short yardage situations. 

 

I'm still looking for these QB sneaks anywhere on the field that don't result in multiple offensive and defensive players landing on top of the QB. 

 

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GrimySickBullfrog-max-1mb.gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FatDelightfulJabiru-max-1mb.gif

https://gyazo.com/b21572997a1a715e05139ec973673db1.gif

 

And my point is that you agree there's a point where the risk outweighs the advantage. We don't agree about where exactly that point is, but that point obviously exists and factors into anyone's decision making. So we don't have to reduce this to the absurd and act like I'm saying that if there's any risk to any play, I don't want it to be run at all. 

 

I'd also like to point out that the Patriots run a ton of QB sneak on the goal line, so you even diverge from the decision making of the five time champs yourself.

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

What are your thoughts of the new lowering of the helmet rule effecting qb sneaks

 

I'll weigh in. 

Short answer, No. It wont affect QB sneaks.  Long answer, read below-

 

The player must:

1. lower his head
2. lower his head with intent to initiate contact with an opponent
3. make that contact.

 

You can't line up a player and bulldoze him with the lowered head anymore, and it is offense and defense, any position.  Pre-season will be flooded with calls.  As coaches/players get a handle (there's not not time in training camp) on what will be called, players will adjust, and I feel refs will relax a touch in the regular season.  But what used to be legal is no longer.

“That is illegal now. It wasn’t. It is now,” McKay said. “You’ve got to teach [the player] now that he’s got to pick a side of that person in front of him and try to get as many yards as he can but not by lowering his head and delivering his blow.”

 

“There’s no grace period. There’s no leniency,” Riveron said authoritatively. “No. This is going to happen now.”

 

I feel like this will find equilibrium at some point, just like offensive holding has. (the old 'it could be called almost every play, but isn't' syndrome).

 

Despite this, what won’t be taken out of the game are quarterback sneaks and most likely many RB power dives in short yardage. ] In the league’s eyes, quarterbacks are not lowering their head to initiate contact with an opponent but rather to enter a protective mode..

 

“If you watch quarterbacks immediately, yes they’re moving forward but they’re immediately going into a protective mode,” Riveron said. “A running back going through the line is going into a protective mode as he’s going through the line.

“However, you have a running back on a sweep, he has a pulling guard, now they have choices on what they’re going to do. Space and distance a lot of times will determine whether they’re initiating.”  This play below was great back when, but will now be a big penalty-

 

 

{cue shouts of ruining football...}

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I believe we can do all of that without relying on QB sneak, especially to the extent you're suggesting it should be run.

 

 

I'm not disputing the effectiveness of QB sneak. I do think you're overstating its advantage over other high percentage short yardage plays.

 

 

I'm still looking for these QB sneaks anywhere on the field that don't result in multiple offensive and defensive players landing on top of the QB. 

 

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GrimySickBullfrog-max-1mb.gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FatDelightfulJabiru-max-1mb.gif

https://gyazo.com/b21572997a1a715e05139ec973673db1.gif

 

And my point is that you agree there's a point where the risk outweighs the advantage. We don't agree about where exactly that point is, but that point obviously exists and factors into anyone's decision making. So we don't have to reduce this to the absurd and act like I'm saying that if there's any risk to any play, I don't want it to be run at all. 

 

I'd also like to point out that the Patriots run a ton of QB sneak on the goal line, so you even diverge from the decision making of the five time champs yourself.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/nfl/2012/12/16/3775268/49ers-patriots-score-tom-brady?source=images

 

On the goal line, Brady generally goes over the top (as do most runningbacks) as the defensive lineman submarine... I'm ok with Andrew doing this if it keeps him above the lineman. 

 

My problem with goal line situations is that there are usually 6 or 7 defensive lineman and a few backers stacked with no gaps to exploit like there is in the middle of the field and especially on 3rd down... they are going to respect Luck and his receivers when they are spaced out with a lot of green in front of them, and that is when a sneak is in order. 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, DaColts85 said:

I cannot disagree with the bolded. I will say that after preseason and within the first probably 2 games you are going to have a good feeling about his shoulder and everything. I am assuming that they play him in all 4 preseason games as well. That gives you 6 games and plenty of contact to know how the shoulder is. After that as a coach I honestly am not holding anything back short of QB designed runs throughout the game, which even these might not be out of the question.

 

I just want to see him hold up for an entire season with no setbacks, without missing practices due to soreness, etc. That's my thinking, and yes it's conservative, but you can't be too careful with the throwing shoulder of your franchise QB, IMO. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/nfl/2012/12/16/3775268/49ers-patriots-score-tom-brady?source=images

 

On the goal line, Brady generally goes over the top (as do most runningbacks) as the defensive lineman submarine... I'm ok with Andrew doing this if it keeps him above the lineman. 

 

My problem with goal line situations is that there are usually 6 or 7 defensive lineman and a few backers stacked with no gaps to exploit like there is in the middle of the field and especially on 3rd down... they are going to respect Luck and his receivers when they are spaced out with a lot of green in front of them, and that is when a sneak is in order. 

 

 

QB sneak on the goal line, he goes over the top, and still gets crushed by multiple defenders. First contact looks like it's to right shoulder.

 

 

This is totally safe...

 

Like I said, I'm not against QB sneak, and I'm not saying the Colts should never run it. I just wouldn't put Luck in that position right now.

[ColtStrong2013]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

QB sneak on the goal line, he goes over the top, and still gets crushed by multiple defenders. First contact looks like it's to right shoulder.

 

 

This is totally safe...

 

Like I said, I'm not against QB sneak, and I'm not saying the Colts should never run it. I just wouldn't put Luck in that position right now.

Luck demands a qb sneak to extend a drive in a game where the offense is clicking, and you are going to tell him no... ok

 

Thank God Frank Reich is head coach. Colts fans won't know what they are watching when some risks pay off this season.

[ColtStrong2013]

Guys I guess we should just sit Marlon Mack this season, you know, since he'll be taking shots to his surgically repaired shoulder and all... 

[rock8591]

This thread is exactly why I've always been a proponet of Tim Tebow as backup QB years ago.

 

Automatic 4th and 2 or 4th and 1, never gets injured.

[dw49]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

I get the feeling you won't see any QB sneaks this season... 

 

 

Unless maybe they can figure out a way that Luck could be effective leading with his butt rather than his shoulders ?

[oldunclemark]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It's just risk mitigation. Do you run a play that likely ends with 1200-1500 pounds of linemen piled on top of your QB with a surgically repaired shoulder if there's only a marginal statistical advantage to that play? It's not that I don't think Luck can handle it, it's just "why risk it?"

I understand the concern...obviously..

..but we need to start thinking of Luck as the guy he was.

 

I wouldnt have him  back returning punts but I'd let him do anything he did before last season.

He's going to take some hard hits.....but he's got to run and get down if its open. QB sneak. Sure. Bootleg at the goal line. I would

......I dont want him to be 'careful'

[oldunclemark]

43 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

This thread is exactly why I've always been a proponet of Tim Tebow as backup QB years ago.

 

Automatic 4th and 2 or 4th and 1, never gets injured.

No one is still a proponent of Tim Tebow

[ColtStrong2013]

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

I understand the concern...obviously..

..but we need to start thinking of Luck as the guy he was.

 

I wouldnt have him  back returning punts but I'd let him do anything he did before last season.

He's going to take some hard hits.....but he's got to run and get down if its open. QB sneak. Sure. Bootleg at the goal line. I would

......I dont want him to be 'careful'

Andrew was best when he rolled out of a broken play and extended them. TY was also best. The problem with them was it happened all too often. I don't want to get away from those plays as they can still win us a lot of football games... but many Colts fans want to protect him at all costs. Those costs can pretty great with serious limitations of a once in a generation qb. The guy is chomping at the bit to play football because he's been forced to watch for so long... Unleash him and protect him by calling better/quicker plays, being more prepared, and utilizing a much improved offensive line. 

 

That doesn't mean never calling quarterback sneaks when they make 100% sense, or not allowing him to scramble... 

[DaColts85]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I just want to see him hold up for an entire season with no setbacks, without missing practices due to soreness, etc. That's my thinking, and yes it's conservative, but you can't be too careful with the throwing shoulder of your franchise QB, IMO. 

Again I cannot disagree with you. That is the franchise and your $140 million man.

[aaron11]

9 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

That doesn't mean never calling quarterback sneaks when they make 100% sense, or not allowing him to scramble... 

you cant tell a qb like luck not to scramble, even peyton manning made a big run for a a first down in his last game against the patriots.  i dont think they called many qb sneaks that last year while he was nursing injuries though 

[ColtStrong2013]

39 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

you cant tell a qb like luck not to scramble, even peyton manning made a big run for a a first down in his last game against the patriots.  i dont think they called many qb sneaks that last year while he was nursing injuries though 

Andrew luck is going to make plays, whatever it takes... he will also be a smarter quarterback and not take the shots that he has in the past. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

11 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

I understand the concern...obviously..

..but we need to start thinking of Luck as the guy he was.

 

OK

 

11 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

I wouldnt have him  back returning punts but I'd let him do anything he did before last season.

He's going to take some hard hits.....but he's got to run and get down if its open. QB sneak. Sure. Bootleg at the goal line. I would

......I dont want him to be 'careful'

 

10 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Andrew was best when he rolled out of a broken play and extended them. TY was also best. The problem with them was it happened all too often. I don't want to get away from those plays as they can still win us a lot of football games...

 

 

Or get him re-injured.

 

10 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

but many Colts fans want to protect him at all costs. Those costs can pretty great with serious limitations of a once in a generation qb. The guy is chomping at the bit to play football because he's been forced to watch for so long... Unleash him and protect him by calling better/quicker plays, being more prepared, and utilizing a much improved offensive line. 

 

There will still be broken plays.  Luck was injured (shoulder) being pursued and pushed from behind on a rollout throw by Luck vs. Titans.  That has been a big problem ever since. His scramble /run vs. the Broncos was cause of Kidney laceration.

 

 

10 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

That doesn't mean never calling quarterback sneaks when they make 100% sense, or not allowing him to scramble... 

 

True, but not without risk.  Coaches don’t want any player on the ground.  There is good reason, injury wise, whether they hav the ball or not.

 

26 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Andrew luck is going to make plays, whatever it takes... he will also be a smarter quarterback and not take the shots that he has in the past. 

 

That’s key, he must be smarter. Sometimes it means giving up on a play to live to play another down, or going to the ground before he reaches the goal/first down line to prevent getting leveled by a defender. But I don’t want his playmaking stifled either, just less reckless (unless in playoff, championship, or SB games)

[ColtStrong2013]

54 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

OK

 

 

 

Or get him re-injured.

 

 

There will still be broken plays.  Luck was injured (shoulder) being pursued and pushed from behind on a rollout throw by Luck vs. Titans.  That has been a big problem ever since. His scramble /run vs. the Broncos was cause of Kidney laceration.

 

 

 

True, but not without risk.  Coaches don’t want any player on the ground.  There is good reason, injury wise, whether they hav the ball or not.

 

 

That’s key, he must be smarter. Sometimes it means giving up on a play to live to play another down, or going to the ground before he reaches the goal/first down line to prevent getting leveled by a defender. But I don’t want his playmaking stifled either, just less reckless (unless in playoff, championship, or SB games)

I dont think Frank Reich will be reckless in his playcalling... He's a quarterback, and understands the spots he wants Andrew in. I think there could be several key playoff implication games this season, and I hope we would treat them as such in this regard. 

[Jaredfor3]

Not only is the QB sneak a fairly successful play, but teams know you can get an additional 15 yards if the QB gets hit in the head. 

[Legend of Luck]

23 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

With the new lowering the helmet rule,  it would seem to me the play will no longer be legal.   At least not the way we currently know it

I can't recall him ever getting rocked doing it

Yea I've never once seen Brady in any pain whatsoever after a sneak.

[Superman]

15 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Luck demands a qb sneak to extend a drive in a game where the offense is clicking, and you are going to tell him no... ok

 

Thank God Frank Reich is head coach. Colts fans won't know what they are watching when some risks pay off this season.

 

15 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Guys I guess we should just sit Marlon Mack this season, you know, since he'll be taking shots to his surgically repaired shoulder and all... 

 

I love posts like this. You're ignoring the need to balance priorities, and now you've dreamed up a scenario where Andrew Luck is going to demand that a specific play is called? 

 

I also love the strawman fallacy. Everyone knows there's a huge difference between a timeshare running back and a franchise QB. 

[Four2itus]

Lol, it's not like guys are instructed to "land on that shoulder everytime the QB hits the ground". 

 

#sarcasm

[ColtStrong2013]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

I love posts like this. You're ignoring the need to balance priorities, and now you've dreamed up a scenario where Andrew Luck is going to demand that a specific play is called? 

 

I also love the strawman fallacy. Everyone knows there's a huge difference between a timeshare running back and a franchise QB. 

"Dreamed up a scenario where Andrew Luck demand a specific play"  OH MY GOD. How dare I for even thinking of such a thing...

 

Do you watch professional sports? Do you remember Peyton Manning by chance? The man who didn't have to demand a playcall, but only suggest one... These franchise players have the green light a hell of a lot more than you think they do, which is apparently not at all... 

 

My post about Mack was simply sarcasm. Congrats to you for taking it another level and indicating a fallacy where one doesn't exist. Are you this much fun in discussions at home? 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

"Dreamed up a scenario where Andrew Luck demand a specific play"  OH MY GOD. How dare I for even thinking of such a thing...

 

Do you watch professional sports? Do you remember Peyton Manning by chance? The man who didn't have to demand a playcall, but only suggest one... These franchise players have the green light a hell of a lot more than you think they do, which is apparently not at all... 

 

My post about Mack was simply sarcasm. Congrats to you for taking it another level and indicating a fallacy where one doesn't exist. Are you this much fun in discussions at home? 

 

What does Peyton Manning have to do with Andrew Luck? When has Luck (or anyone else, for that matter) ever operated with the level of autonomy that Manning had? Manning didn't suggest or demand plays, he called plays. Andrew Luck doesn't operate the way Manning did.

 

And when did Manning miss a season with a surgically repaired throwing shoulder?

 

And at the end of the day, if the head coach and architect of the offense says 'we're not putting QB sneak in the playbook for now,' that's the end of the discussion. Doesn't matter how much green light the QB has, the buck stops with the head coach. I'm willing to bet that Andrew Luck isn't nearly as devoted to The Church of the QB Sneak as you seem to be. 

 

The problem with this discussion is that you're either purposely misrepresenting my stance, or you're just being obtuse. 

[Jason_]

23 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

"Dreamed up a scenario where Andrew Luck demand a specific play"  OH MY GOD. How dare I for even thinking of such a thing...

 

Do you watch professional sports? Do you remember Peyton Manning by chance? The man who didn't have to demand a playcall, but only suggest one... These franchise players have the green light a hell of a lot more than you think they do, which is apparently not at all... 

 

My post about Mack was simply sarcasm. Congrats to you for taking it another level and indicating a fallacy where one doesn't exist. Are you this much fun in discussions at home? 

 

are you this condescending in discussions at home?

[Fluke_33]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

  

I love posts like this. You're ignoring the need to balance priorities, and now you've dreamed up a scenario where Andrew Luck is going to demand that a specific play is called? 

 

I also love the strawman fallacy. Everyone knows there's a huge difference between a timeshare running back and a franchise QB. 

Be careful, i think bringing logical arguments is against forum rules.  

[ColtStrong2013]

6 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

are you this condescending in discussions at home?

Always.

[ColtStrong2013]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What does Peyton Manning have to do with Andrew Luck? When has Luck (or anyone else, for that matter) ever operated with the level of autonomy that Manning had? Manning didn't suggest or demand plays, he called plays. Andrew Luck doesn't operate the way Manning did.

 

And when did Manning miss a season with a surgically repaired throwing shoulder?

 

And at the end of the day, if the head coach and architect of the offense says 'we're not putting QB sneak in the playbook for now,' that's the end of the discussion. Doesn't matter how much green light the QB has, the buck stops with the head coach. I'm willing to bet that Andrew Luck isn't nearly as devoted to The Church of the QB Sneak as you seem to be. 

 

The problem with this discussion is that you're either purposely misrepresenting my stance, or you're just being obtuse. 

Franchise quarterback that caused the organization to send Peyton his walking papers has a lot to do with the two. There has never been a college qb coming out that is so similar. Perhaps you are misrepresenting my stance? I'm not obtuse in regard to your stance. I fully understand. You disagree with mine, and have proceeded to disagree with everything I have posted on this forum since stating that the qb sneak is efficient and that we shouldn't shy away from it this season in the proper situation. I maintain my stance. 

[Jason_]

6 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Always.

 

just gonna leave this right here for you then:

 

Quote

(2) Please be respectful of your fellow members. Every registered member agrees upon registration not to use these forums to post material or topics which are knowingly false, defamatory, deceptive, inaccurate, racist, insulting, abusive, inflammatory, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually graphic or lewd, physically threatening, invasive of another's privacy or otherwise in violation of any law, including stalking or otherwise harassing individual members. If you respond to abusive speech with abusive speech, you lose your right to seek moderator intervention (it does not matter "who started it") "Smack" talk, insults, disrespect, starting flame wars, *trolling* ; *inciting* other members to "take the bait" are not allowed. . The simple rule of thumb here is "don't be a jerk".

 

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

just gonna leave this right here for you then:

 

 

This forum is really poor at sarcasm. 

 

I think Supermans post stating that I was obtuse is a touch more condescending than me saying he must be fun to talk with at home, but i digress. 

 

Enough qb sneak talk for my lifetime. 

[jvan1973]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What does Peyton Manning have to do with Andrew Luck? When has Luck (or anyone else, for that matter) ever operated with the level of autonomy that Manning had? Manning didn't suggest or demand plays, he called plays. Andrew Luck doesn't operate the way Manning did.

 

And when did Manning miss a season with a surgically repaired throwing shoulder?

 

And at the end of the day, if the head coach and architect of the offense says 'we're not putting QB sneak in the playbook for now,' that's the end of the discussion. Doesn't matter how much green light the QB has, the buck stops with the head coach. I'm willing to bet that Andrew Luck isn't nearly as devoted to The Church of the QB Sneak as you seem to be. 

 

The problem with this discussion is that you're either purposely misrepresenting my stance, or you're just being obtuse. 

[Jason_]

3 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

This forum is really poor at sarcasm. 

 

You do understand that sarcasm is much easier to get across when talking to someone instead of in written text, right?  And if you look around the forum, there are plenty of posts that are legitimately...."out there", so it can be difficult to distinguish between those posts and those where someone was attempting to be sarcastic.  Just something to consider.

[ColtStrong2013]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

I've always felt more acute...

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

You do understand that sarcasm is much easier to get across when talking to someone instead of in written text, right?  And if you look around the forum, there are plenty of posts that are legitimately...."out there", so it can be difficult to distinguish between those posts and those where someone was attempting to be sarcastic.  Just something to consider.

I'm learning. 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Franchise quarterback that caused the organization to send Peyton his walking papers has a lot to do with the two. There has never been a college qb coming out that is so similar. Perhaps you are misrepresenting my stance? I'm not obtuse in regard to your stance. I fully understand. You disagree with mine, and have proceeded to disagree with everything I have posted on this forum since stating that the qb sneak is efficient and that we shouldn't shy away from it this season in the proper situation. I maintain my stance. 

 

That there's a connection between Luck and Manning does not in any way mean that Luck's career has to mimic Manning's. So far, it has not. And their playing styles aren't really that similar. Luck is more Elway than Manning.

 

The bolded is patently false. Like I said, you're misrepresenting my stance (and then hiding behind the sarcasm tag, which is annoying). 

 

I don't disagree that the QB sneak is efficient. I think you are overstating how much more efficient it is compared to other short yardage run plays, and you're understating the potential for injury with our surgically repaired QB. 

 

I said earlier, we both have a line we don't think should be crossed with regard to QB sneak. You don't want it on the goal line -- because you think it's dangerous, even though you think it's very efficient. I just don't think Luck should run it this season, until we know he's completely past his injury and recovery -- because I think it's dangerous.

 

The only reason this discussion has become so combative is because of your sarcasm. In substance, our opinions aren't that far from one another. 

[ColtStrong2013]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That there's a connection between Luck and Manning does not in any way mean that Luck's career has to mimic Manning's. So far, it has not. And their playing styles aren't really that similar. Luck is more Elway than Manning.

 

The bolded is patently false. Like I said, you're misrepresenting my stance (and then hiding behind the sarcasm tag, which is annoying). 

 

I don't disagree that the QB sneak is efficient. I think you are overstating how much more efficient it is compared to other short yardage run plays, and you're understating the potential for injury with our surgically repaired QB. 

 

I said earlier, we both have a line we don't think should be crossed with regard to QB sneak. You don't want it on the goal line -- because you think it's dangerous, even though you think it's very efficient. I just don't think Luck should run it this season, until we know he's completely past his injury and recovery -- because I think it's dangerous.

 

The only reason this discussion has become so combative is because of your sarcasm. In substance, our opinions aren't that far from one another. 

I apologize for my annoying sarcasm. 

 

We are colts fans. We cannot be too far off in opinion. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

11 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

I dont think Frank Reich will be reckless in his playcalling... He's a quarterback, and understands the spots he wants Andrew in. I think there could be several key playoff implication games this season, and I hope we would treat them as such in this regard. 

 

It's not Reich or Sirianni I am concerned with, it's what Luck does from here on when a play breaks down.  I think he has learned a few things from the last couple seasons.  We'll see.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

10 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

This forum is really poor at sarcasm.

 

You're right!  On all counts!  Let's run a QB sneak every doggone play!

 

------>>>      <<<-------