Andrew Luck's comparison to Matthew Stafford

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

It's fine if you didn't mean money. My point still stands. The Colts aren't struggling because of Luck's contract, and I don't think they will any time throughout the life of this contract, barring weirdness with a new CBA.

 

As for your point about what the Colts invested in Luck, I get it, and it's factually accurate. Your calculus would be well applied to most of the roster, but the hardest position to fill in team sports is QB, so when you pick #1 overall and you like the best QB in the draft, don't overthink it, just draft him and move on. They could have kept Manning, but that decision isn't even worth discussing; he's out of the league now, and Luck should be entering his prime, especially now that it looks like he has a good offensive coaching staff. 

 

The reason the Colts weren't able to stock their roster in subsequent seasons isn't because they didn't turn that #1 pick into a bevy of picks, and then find a steal in a later round. (Side point: Generally, later round QBs don't wind up being starting QBs for SB teams. They usually wind up bouncing around the league for a few seasons.)

 

What cost the Colts was poor drafting, bottom line. After 2012, Grigson's drafting was objectively terrible; most of his picks from 2013-15 are not just off the team, but completely out of the league. With good drafting, the Colts could have a great roster right now, even with spending the #1 on Luck, and paying him like a great QB. 

 

Unfortunately, the Colts use of free agency wasn't any better over that stretch, and the coaching staff didn't excel at developing players or gameplanning against good teams. The resources they spent on the QB position was legitimately the least of the team's worries, and still is. 

 

And now, the Colts are in a similar situation as in 2012. They're going into a season in which they'll have a ton of cap space, they have a QB that they could legitimately flip into a huge haul of draft picks, and at the same time save some money. But you don't get rid of a good, young QB that has shown the ability to carry your team to the playoffs. The blueprint is the same: draft well, develop players, coach well, and do so multiple years in a row.

 

Time will tell if that actually happens, but if in four years the Colts still aren't a contender, it won't be because Luck makes too much money, or because they didn't at some point flip him for a bunch of draft picks. It will be because they didn't do those other things well. 

Yes, I agree with all of that.  The way I would explain it is this: In order to win a championship, which means you also have to be a contender for a number of years, you need three types of players:

 

#1 A QB

#2 First round draft picks ( and any big free agents) that play up to their expectations.

#3 And a few gems that greatly outplay their rookie contracts, before they leave to go elsewhere for big money.  This is usually accomplished by random luck.

 

Polian's and Grigson's teams eventually waned because of #2, and Polian especially with his big contracts to our own average players.

 

All three GMs have had #1, and each have had and will have their share of #3s.  I think Seattle and Baltimore tended to hit on #3s more, which I think is mainly luck.

 

Those three items should all be able to fit under a salary cap if its properly managed.

[crazycolt1]

4 hours ago, aaron11 said:

no reason to hold that against MS.  luck got to play in a weak division his first three years, that probably helped his record somewhat 

I don't buy into the division wins as an excuse for winning. Yes the AFC was pretty weak but the Patriots division was even weaker. Luck and the Colts had some pretty big wins against teams outside of the AFC south. They beat both the super bowl teams when they beat Denver and Seattle one year.  You don't go three 11-5 seasons by just beating the teams in your division. Even if you sweep your division that is only 6 games.

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

#1 A QB

#2 First round draft picks ( and any big free agents) that play up to their expectations.

#3 And a few gems that greatly outplay their rookie contracts, before they leave to go elsewhere for big money.  This is usually accomplished by random luck.

 

Agreed, but I don't think later round gems are random luck. I think the draft is an inexact science, but still somewhat predictive. Some teams are consistently better later in the draft than others, so there is skill involved. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Agreed, but I don't think later round gems are random luck. I think the draft is an inexact science, but still somewhat predictive. Some teams are consistently better later in the draft than others, so there is skill involved. 

I definitely think identifying the talent is skill.  The fact that 31 other GMs don't identify the talent and select the player before, say, round 5, is lucky.

 

Identifying the talent is skill.  Having that talent still be available when you pick late is lucky, JMO.  

[Steamboat_Shaun]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Yes, in my first comment I was wrong to say the secondary was the best or even one of the best in the NFL, but it was very good, despite Landry's and Toler underachieving expectations..  And I concede that "above average" for the entire defense is a better description than "very good".  But poor to mediocre I think was inaccurate as well.

 

I think overall, they were ranked something like 14th that year. They were a serviceable unit for most of the year, but we all saw what happened in the AFCCG.

[crazycolt1]

46 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I definitely think identifying the talent is skill.  The fact that 31 other GMs don't identify the talent and select the player before, say, round 5, is lucky.

 

Identifying the talent is skill.  Having that talent still be available when you pick late is lucky, JMO.  

The GM is the one who makes the final picks but they are only as good as their scouting crews. There is no humanly way possible for one GM to look and analyze every player in college. Yes they get the blame or the praise for choices but it is a joint effort from a lot of people.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I definitely think identifying the talent is skill.  The fact that 31 other GMs don't identify the talent and select the player before, say, round 5, is lucky.

 

Identifying the talent is skill.  Having that talent still be available when you pick late is lucky, JMO.  

 

Wjem franchises like New England for the last 20 years,  and Pittsburgh for the better part of the last 50 years,   and Dallas in the early-mid 90's, as well as the 60's, 70's and early 80's,  and San Francisco in the 80's and 90's are constantly putting out winning teams despite picking at the bottom of most rounds,  that's not luck.     

 

You might say that about one given pick like Brady.     Or one given draft.     But year after year, and in some cases, decade after decade?    And they're the best teams in the league?    Luck has nothing to do with it.

 

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

Landry was overrated before he was signed and overcompensated when he was here, but he wasn't a bad player when he was on the field.

 

We replaced Bethea with Adams and improved the FS position at the time, but IIRC, we've never had as good of SS play as the years we had with Landry, and that's sad.  Current crop included...so far.  So even though Landry was released for not caring anymore, I don't know if we have ever fully replaced him.  I think Geathers was the plan, but that has yet to work out correctly.

 

I always thought the criticism of Landry and Toler was heavy handed. They had expectations that were pretty high and never met, but that's not the same thing as them being bad players.

 

Interesting choice of words about Landry.....

 

"Wasn't a bad player when he was on the field."

 

So,  I'll put it this way....    he wasn't a good player when he was on the field,  either.    In short,  he didn't live up to the 4/24 contract that he received.     That's in part,  including his PED use,  and never showing up for off-season workouts are why he only lasted two years. 

 

If hew as as good as you seem to think,  he would've stayed with the Colts longer.

 

[SilentHill]

"statistically comparable" meh, Lions had Calvin Johnson.

 

If I had to compare their intangibles, Luck would be rated around 95 and Stafford would be around 10. So there is a huge edge there.

[aaron11]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Interesting choice of words about Landry.....

 

"Wasn't a bad player when he was on the field."

 

So,  I'll put it this way....    he wasn't a good player when he was on the field,  either.    In short,  he didn't live up to the 4/24 contract that he received.     That's in part,  including his PED use,  and never showing up for off-season workouts are why he only lasted two years. 

 

If hew as as good as you seem to think,  he would've stayed with the Colts longer.

 

i think landry had one good year here, but then struggled after that

 

he was really more of a strong safety, but the colts tried to use him as an interchangeable FS/SS and it didnt work

[DougDew]

15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Interesting choice of words about Landry.....

 

"Wasn't a bad player when he was on the field."

 

So,  I'll put it this way....    he wasn't a good player when he was on the field,  either.    In short,  he didn't live up to the 4/24 contract that he received.     That's in part,  including his PED use,  and never showing up for off-season workouts are why he only lasted two years. 

 

If hew as as good as you seem to think,  he would've stayed with the Colts longer.

 

Is Geathers a "good" player?  How much has he been on the field, and what has his impact been when on it?

 

And has this board liked him since he's been here?

 

The bias is that people didn't like the Landry signing...wanted what I don't know....then magnified every issue he had.  Same with Toler.  Many hated the signings from day one for whatever reason, then looked at their play through that prism their entire careers.

 

Not living up to a contract doesn't mean they weren't good players.

 

They were both fine.  Not great, but were good players on a very good secondary.  Toler played out his contract. He stayed in the NFL and played decently-to-well for the Redskins.  It became obvious that Landry wanted to make-out with his biceps more than play football, so he was released mid way because of that.  AFAIK, he disappeared afterwards.

[NewEra]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Interesting choice of words about Landry.....

 

"Wasn't a bad player when he was on the field."

 

So,  I'll put it this way....    he wasn't a good player when he was on the field,  either.    In short,  he didn't live up to the 4/24 contract that he received.     That's in part,  including his PED use,  and never showing up for off-season workouts are why he only lasted two years. 

 

If hew as as good as you seem to think,  he would've stayed with the Colts longer.

 

He was more concerned about liftin and getting jacked than football. Same thing happened with that WR Boston...

 

all i know is I wish we had a safety who was half as good as the Hitman

[2006Coltsbestever]

23 minutes ago, NewEra said:

He was more concerned about liftin and getting jacked than football. Same thing happened with that WR Boston...

 

all i know is I wish we had a safety who was half as good as the Hitman

I used to make fun of Brady Quinn alot because he looked like a Wrestler on Steroids instead of a QB. All he cared about was body building. He sucked as a QB.

[NewEra]

23 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I used to make fun of Brady Quinn alot because he looked like a Wrestler on Steroids instead of a QB. All he cared about was body building. He sucked as a QB.

Exactly. Certain positions it might be beneficial. It's a balancing act. For strength and aize you can lose explosiveness. You also have to be really crazy about your stretching, deep tissue massage and stuff like that because you will get tight and pull muscles. 

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I used to make fun of Brady Quinn alot because he looked like a Wrestler on Steroids instead of a QB. All he cared about was body building. He sucked as a QB.

Plus you lose mobility. Heck I'm only 5'8-200 and I can tell big time. 

[southwest1]

On 9/20/2018 at 2:06 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I kind of got off topic so I apologize for that but I had to show Luck's Defenses were Mediocre from 2012-2014. By almost anyone's Eye Test they could see that actually. Mathis was Great in 2013 and Davis was solid for that 3 year span, Butler had game but outside of that = MEH.

 

-Matt Stafford is Good but Luck is better, JMO. Stafford has been in the league much longer and has 0 Playoff wins. You would think he would at least have 1 by now. Luck already has 3 and will play 10 more years more than likely.

No need to apologize CBE. You didn't do anything wrong brother trust me. I value your take on all sports not just football. You're even well versed in professional tennis man. Exactly, you'd think by now that Stafford would have 1 post season win. I don't dislike Matthew perse. I just don't agree with the side by side comparison. Rob Parker on FS1 always slams Stafford for not having one signature win & even on that small sample size Luck has Stafford beat just on that Chiefs comeback playoff victory alone.

On 9/20/2018 at 11:42 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Poppycock is an awesome term. Great stuff . That term is one of my favorites. 

You're right man. That is a fantastic word & very underutilized today. Plus, it sounds dirty without actually being inappropriate in society. A win; win baby.

On 9/21/2018 at 11:22 AM, Tsarquise said:

Because the thought of letting go of Manning for a Stafford-like player is unsettling.... Lol

 

A far cry from the once in a generation QB advertisement that was being tagged on Luck.

Darn good point TSQ. You don't get accustom to #18 greatness & then settle for a less than stellar succession plan with Matthew. The highest standard of excellence has already been established. Well said. I couldn't agree more.

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

No need to apologize CBE. You didn't do anything wrong brother trust me. I value your take on all sports not just football. You're even well versed in professional tennis man. Exactly, you'd think by now that Stafford would have 1 post season win. I don't dislike Matthew perse. I just don't agree with the side by side comparison. Rob Parker on FS1 always slams Stafford for not having one signature win & even on that small sample size Luck has Stafford beat just on that Chiefs comeback playoff victory alone.

You're right man. That is a fantastic word & very underutilized today. Plus, it sounds dirty without actually being inappropriate in society. A win; win baby.

Darn good point TSQ. You don't get accustom to #18 greatness & then settle for a less than stellar succession plan with Matthew. The highest standard of excellence has already been established. Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Yeah Luck has 2 signatures wins IMO. The KC game because of that huge comeback and it was a Playoff game (2013 season). The Denver Playoff game as that was the Divisional Round in the 2014 Season. Peyton wasn't 100% but he still played and had Denver ahead 7-0. Also they had Von Miller 100% healthy and it was in MileHigh, that was a huge win. We were 8 point Dogs in that one.

 

-Stafford had 0 signatures wins.

[southwest1]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yeah Luck has 2 signatures wins IMO. The KC game because of that huge comeback and it was a Playoff game (2013 season). The Denver Playoff game as that was the Divisional Round in the 2014 Season. Peyton wasn't 100% but he still played and had Denver ahead 7-0. Also they had Von Miller 100% healthy and it was in MileHigh, that was a huge win. We were 8 point Dogs in that one.

 

-Stafford had 0 signatures wins.

All top notch points as always brother. I just don't get how Stafford had Megatron for all those yrs & you can't even land a Wildcard spot not even once? Minnesota wasn't always coached by Mike Zimmer & Chicago even under Coach John Fox wasn't really that much of a threat since 2006. I do respect DC Vic Fangio though. I will admit that GB with a healthy Discount Double Check is formidable, but still.

 

Yeah, Luck is leaps & bounds above Stafford who are we kidding?

[southwest1]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I used to make fun of Brady Quinn alot because he looked like a Wrestler on Steroids instead of a QB. All he cared about was body building. He sucked as a QB.

Cute line there. Reminds me of the old Hanz & Franz SNL comedy skit mocking Arnold Schwarzenegger. We must "Pump You Up." LOL!

 

I do recall seeing this magazine cover about Quinn back in the day too. The fact that the title of the periodical is "Muscle & Fitness" adds credibility to your roid argument as well.

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Cute line there. Reminds me of the old Hanz & Franz SNL comedy skit mocking Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

I do recall seeing this magazine cover about Quinn back in the day too. The fact that the title of the periodical is "Muscle & Fitness" adds credibility to your roid argument as well.

 

Yep, that was the magazine cover I seen as well back in the day. After that I was like WTH?? What is he doing! The guy is a QB and looks like Arnold.

[southwest1]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yep, that was the magazine cover I seen as well back in the day. After that I was like WTH?? What is he doing! The guy is a QB and looks like Arnold.

This is gonna sound terrible, but when I saw that cover for the first time, I thought of that "Shrinkage" [Jerry] Seinfeld episode on TV. There's definitely a trade off to too much steroid usage. While one part of a person's anatomy may grow, another may not. Enough said. 

 

Yes, I know there are men & women who build their muscle mass the right way through diet & proper supplement regiments. Brady Quinn just looked more like a LB than a QB as you were alluding correctly too.

[2006Coltsbestever]

10 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

This is gonna sound terrible, but when I saw that cover for the first time, I thought of that "Shrinkage" [Jerry] Seinfeld episode on TV. There's definitely a trade off to too much steroid usage. While one part of a person's anatomy may grow, another may not. Enough said. 

 

Yes, I know there are men & women who build their muscle mass the right way through diet & proper supplement regiments. Brady Quinn just looked more like a LB than a QB as you were alluding correctly too.

Yeah it was just awkward to me. Luck is built but it looks natural and he doesn't have Arnold arms. Cam Newton is built the right the way too for a QB, just big with muscle but it's proportioned. 

[Valpo2004]

On 9/20/2018 at 7:51 PM, Superman said:

 

Luck's contract still isn't an issue. The Colts will have $100m in cap space next season, with Luck hitting the cap for $27.5m, about 15% of the cap. 

 

The QB contract is never an excuse. If you want a good QB -- and everyone does, that's why they're making $30m/year -- you have to pay him. The critical part is drafting well, developing young players and coaching well. Coincidentally, that's what the Seahawks did well in 2012-2014. They weren't SB contenders just because they hadn't paid Russell Wilson; they were contenders because they did that other stuff well, in addition to having good QB play.

 

Agreed. . . at this point Luck is now only the 8th highest paid QB in the league anyways.  

[runthepost]

On 9/20/2018 at 1:38 PM, DougDew said:

Not true.  The defense was actually very good in the early Luck years.   Redding and Mathis, as well as probably the best secondary in the NFL at the time.  Davis and a pre injury Toler were excellent man corners,  and an enthused Landry and Bethea made a great S team.  Butler was a great slot corner.

 

But Luck competed in the AFC South and Detroit always had GB to contend with.  I think the Bears may have had decent teams back then.

Best secondary in the NFL... No more post for you lol

[Myles]

Anyone else find it odd that everyone is bringing mostly stats to make their case in the thread?   I know that technically, the stats matter, but the eye test is usually a better indicator.  Without looking at any of the stats, I can tell you with fairly good certainly that Luck has been a better QB than Stafford when he played up until this year.   After yesterdays game I'm not so sure.  I'm hoping it was poor play calling.