Were talking about the 49ers and the Colts only, right? And how Luck's retirement relative to that is or isn't relevant.
Relative to the QB, SF has made the SB with a Qb that has played like a game manager. He may have the talent to be more than that, but the talent he could have used but didn't use isn't really relevant. Did SF have to give a second to get the level of QB play they've gotten?
The Colts have never been built to win with a game manager. We have been built to support a performance by an elite QB. I don't see how Luck's retirement is relevant to the discussion of rosters, unless you say that Luck's retirement exposed the roster and our strategy.
We either had a good 52 roster or a bad 52 roster whether Luck was here or not. That's just the way I was looking at it. That's reality, the part about assuming what we could have had was the alternative reality.
And Doug go back and look at Luck's game log from last year. Starting with the 1st game of the 10 out of 11 streak, Luck only threw for 300 yds. twice and had 2 games under 200.
Before last year's 10 out of 11 I agree, we needed hero ball from Luck. Not last year.
In the playoff win v Houston. Luck threw for only 222.
i do think its about the qb situation and if he thinks the team will be a contender or not. he probably will not say that publicly even if it is true
its not unheard of though, barry sanders and CJ come to mind