Jump to content
Dacoltsboi

Hypothetical Mega Trade

Recommended Posts

On 3/6/2019 at 11:06 PM, Dacoltsboi said:

Would you guys consider trading Luck to the raiders for Carr and two first round picks?

I wouldn't take Carr, keep Brissett. It would take more than just two 1st rounders, and I would not stack the picks in a single draft.

 

I've not made it a secret by any means that I would trade luck, but you gotta be smart about it. Two 1st and two 2nds at least, if not three 1st and a 2nd spread over two to three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 1:04 AM, Aaron86 said:

Ballard is going to give Luck more shots at a Superbowl then Mahomes is going to get at in his entire career. I believe in Luck. And who's to say Mahomes has 6 more extra years to reach a Superbowl? I mean the injury bug can happen to anybody the team can fall apart anything can happen.

It's just my opinion though.

If Ballard can give luck those shots, he can give Mahomes those same ones as well. Currently Mahomes has had just as many as Luck as both have made it to the AFCCG once. 

 

And you can't work off of what if scenarios, because you can do that for anyone. What if Luck dies tomorrow?

 

Work within known parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Narcosys said:

If Ballard can give luck those shots, he can give Mahomes those same ones as well. Currently Mahomes has had just as many as Luck as both have made it to the AFCCG once. 

 

And you can't work off of what if scenarios, because you can do that for anyone. What if Luck dies tomorrow?

 

Work within known parameters.

Luck has more playoff experience then Mahomes. With way less help the also. 

 

Saying Mahomes has 6 more years then luck to reach a Superbowl is a what if scenario. So yes let's work within know parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aaron86 said:

Luck has more playoff experience then Mahomes. With way less help the also. 

 

Saying Mahomes has 6 more years then luck to reach a Superbowl is a what if scenario. So yes let's work within know parameters.

The "what if" is if he gets injured or retires before the normal time span of a QB.

 

First round draft picks and pro-bowl QB's (of which they both are) average 9-12 years playing time. Mahomes just got into the league while Luck has been in since 2012. Looking at the average expectation of a professional QB, we can confidently assume that Luck will finish his career in 5 years (12 seasons) with 8 years at best if he plays to 15 seasons.  Meanwhile, Mahomes (with all things being equal) will finish his career 11-14 years under the same assumptions of average play time and max of 15 seasons.  This means Mahomes has 6 years more expected playing time than Luck.

 

It is a bigger "what if" to believe that Luck will play longer than Mahomes, than it is to believe that Mahomes will play longer than Luck. Simply looking at the numbers, and common sense, proves this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we trade our 2nd and 3rd to the Raiders for Antonio Brown then turn around and send AB to the Jets for Leveon Bell? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SanDiegoColt8 said:

What if we trade our 2nd and 3rd to the Raiders for Antonio Brown then turn around and send AB to the Jets for Leveon Bell? 

why not trade our 2nd and 3rd for bell then...?

 

Also...we don't need a RB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SanDiegoColt8 said:

What if we trade our 2nd and 3rd to the Raiders for Antonio Brown then turn around and send AB to the Jets for Leveon Bell? 

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Narcosys said:

The "what if" is if he gets injured or retires before the normal time span of a QB.

 

First round draft picks and pro-bowl QB's (of which they both are) average 9-12 years playing time. Mahomes just got into the league while Luck has been in since 2012. Looking at the average expectation of a professional QB, we can confidently assume that Luck will finish his career in 5 years (12 seasons) with 8 years at best if he plays to 15 seasons.  Meanwhile, Mahomes (with all things being equal) will finish his career 11-14 years under the same assumptions of average play time and max of 15 seasons.  This means Mahomes has 6 years more expected playing time than Luck.

 

It is a bigger "what if" to believe that Luck will play longer than Mahomes, than it is to believe that Mahomes will play longer than Luck. Simply looking at the numbers, and common sense, proves this.

You just want to start an argument.

 

What's the difference really with excpected or the what if sanerio. 

 

Everybody counted luck out last I mean even the numbers said we wouldn't make it to the playoffs but look we made.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SanDiegoColt8 said:

What if we trade our 2nd and 3rd to the Raiders for Antonio Brown then turn around and send AB to the Jets for Leveon Bell? 

 

:nutz:

 

2 hours ago, Narcosys said:

why not trade our 2nd and 3rd for bell then...?

 

Also...we don't need a RB.

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aaron86 said:

You just want to start an argument.

 

What's the difference really with excpected or the what if sanerio. 

 

Everybody counted luck out last I mean even the numbers said we wouldn't make it to the playoffs but look we made.

 

No I'm proving a point that it is a valid argument and should not be dismissed based on your blind devotion to Luck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

No I'm proving a point that it is a valid argument and should not be dismissed based on your blind devotion to Luck.

It's not blind devotion. It's called being a fan. 

And the point your trying to make is not proving anything. Change a few words around and you can make anything sound right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Aaron86 said:

It's not blind devotion. It's called being a fan. 

And the point your trying to make is not proving anything. Change a few words around and you can make anything sound right.

 

You know what fan is short for right? Are you a fan of luck or the team? A logical, non-emotional, decision would be to choose mahomes over luck if the option was available.

 

There's no changing words or numbers, mahomes came in after and therefore, logically, he will leave the league after. Meaning we would have more chances with him. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

You know what fan is short for right? Are you a fan of luck or the team? A logical, non-emotional, decision would be to choose mahomes over luck if the option was available.

 

There's no changing words or numbers, mahomes came in after and therefore, logically, he will leave the league after. Meaning we would have more chances with him. 

Logical? He had one great year on a team loaded with talent. Im not buying into your argument. Luck beat all the odds and was mentioned in the MVP  conversation and I still think he is. 

I will take Luck blind emotion or not over Mahomes any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Aaron86 said:

Logical? He had one great year on a team loaded with talent. Im not buying into your argument. Luck beat all the odds and was mentioned in the MVP  conversation and I still think he is. 

I will take Luck blind emotion or not over Mahomes any day.

This is not a debate over who is more talented over the other. All things considered, Luck probably has a slight edge over Mahomes currently (we'll see if he has a sophomore slump). Regardless though, that slight edge is not enough to push Luck over the top when it comes to how many chances we will get, considering Mahomes has 6 more years to play over Luck. If Ballard builds an actual balanced team, then Luck nor Mahomes would need a star studded team to play in the SB.

You severely discount and underestimate Mahomes' ability as he has great pocket awareness, arm strength, accuracy, and mobility. This is not something that other people on the team affect when it comes to measuring his abilities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Narcosys said:

You know what fan is short for right? Are you a fan of luck or the team? A logical, non-emotional, decision would be to choose mahomes over luck if the option was available.

 

There's no changing words or numbers, mahomes came in after and therefore, logically, he will leave the league after. Meaning we would have more chances with him. 

Age though is probably the only element that can't be argued.

 

If you would have put Mahomes on the team last year, not sure he would have done any better.

Think about the following.

-Luck was coming back from injury

-Our Oline was gelling

-KC has two guys in in the top 15 (4 and 13) YPG catching the ball. They have another at 45, and another at 74. That's 4 guys inside the top 75. The Colts had only 1 inside the top 50, and only 2 inside the top 100. Aside from Hilton, WR 2 and 3 were by committee and Andrew was only 34 yards/game under Mahomes. Not to shabby. And from week 9 on, you could argue that Luck outplayed Mahomes. Luck was a top 5 weekly leader 3 out of 8 weeks, Mahomes only twice.

-KC led the league in sacks, with Indy tied for 19. Even with that, we were rated higher than KC in the last half of the year on D.

 

In the playoffs, we held them to 4 pts under their average/game. We held Mahomes to 66 yards under his average, and zero passing TDs. Mahomes only had 8 yards rushing. IMO, while I hated giving up 4 rushing TDs, we really did enough on D. We even had more sacks then them (4 vs 3). We could have absolutely done better vs the run, and will be able to compete better if we add pass rushers this year. 

 

So what was the problem if we did enough on D? Quite simply we couldn't score. They double covered Hilton (and to a lesser extent Ebron), and without a legit #2, we were shut down. We ended up down early and became one dimensional. Hilton was only 4/11 because of double coverage. Inman was 4/4 and Rogers was 5/6 (which is better than both performed all year from a catch rate perspective) and wide open at times. If anything, I blame Reich for not being more creative early with other WRs not named Hilton (or Ebron).

 

Give me a true WR2 in the first two rounds, some pass rush, and a little improvement vs the run, and we'll beat KC with Mahomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard, said it best last year when asked if he ever considered trading Luck at any point. "I'm not putting that on MY resume"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

Age though is probably the only element that can't be argued.

 

If you would have put Mahomes on the team last year, not sure he would have done any better.

Think about the following.

-Luck was coming back from injury

-Our Oline was gelling

-KC has two guys in in the top 15 (4 and 13) YPG catching the ball. They have another at 45, and another at 74. That's 4 guys inside the top 75. The Colts had only 1 inside the top 50, and only 2 inside the top 100. Aside from Hilton, WR 2 and 3 were by committee and Andrew was only 34 yards/game under Mahomes. Not to shabby. And from week 9 on, you could argue that Luck outplayed Mahomes. Luck was a top 5 weekly leader 3 out of 8 weeks, Mahomes only twice.

-KC led the league in sacks, with Indy tied for 19. Even with that, we were rated higher than KC in the last half of the year on D.

 

In the playoffs, we held them to 4 pts under their average/game. We held Mahomes to 66 yards under his average, and zero passing TDs. Mahomes only had 8 yards rushing. IMO, while I hated giving up 4 rushing TDs, we really did enough on D. We even had more sacks then them (4 vs 3). We could have absolutely done better vs the run, and will be able to compete better if we add pass rushers this year. 

 

So what was the problem if we did enough on D? Quite simply we couldn't score. They double covered Hilton (and to a lesser extent Ebron), and without a legit #2, we were shut down. We ended up down early and became one dimensional. Hilton was only 4/11 because of double coverage. Inman was 4/4 and Rogers was 5/6 (which is better than both performed all year from a catch rate perspective) and wide open at times. If anything, I blame Reich for not being more creative early with other WRs not named Hilton (or Ebron).

 

Give me a true WR2 in the first two rounds, some pass rush, and a little improvement vs the run, and we'll beat KC with Mahomes.

 

That is all contextual, if you swap Luck and Mahomes last year to their respective teams, then we could probably assume that their performance would be similar. You argue that we held Mahomes to 66 yards under his average, however the Chiefs held Luck to 84 yards under his average. If you are going to make one point, you need to compare evenly.

 

What you cannot argue is Mahomes abilities. As I mentioned above Mahomes has just as good mobility as Luck, if not better. Mahomes has better arm strength than Luck. He has similar pocket awareness and accuracy. That will translate over to the Colts.

 

So with all things being considered, and Mahomes being the same as or slightly less in skill as Luck, Mahomes would be the better long play for the Colts to reach multiple SBs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

Age though is probably the only element that can't be argued.

 

If you would have put Mahomes on the team last year, not sure he would have done any better.

Think about the following.

-Luck was coming back from injury

-Our Oline was gelling

-KC has two guys in in the top 15 (4 and 13) YPG catching the ball. They have another at 45, and another at 74. That's 4 guys inside the top 75. The Colts had only 1 inside the top 50, and only 2 inside the top 100. Aside from Hilton, WR 2 and 3 were by committee and Andrew was only 34 yards/game under Mahomes. Not to shabby. And from week 9 on, you could argue that Luck outplayed Mahomes. Luck was a top 5 weekly leader 3 out of 8 weeks, Mahomes only twice.

-KC led the league in sacks, with Indy tied for 19. Even with that, we were rated higher than KC in the last half of the year on D.

 

In the playoffs, we held them to 4 pts under their average/game. We held Mahomes to 66 yards under his average, and zero passing TDs. Mahomes only had 8 yards rushing. IMO, while I hated giving up 4 rushing TDs, we really did enough on D. We even had more sacks then them (4 vs 3). We could have absolutely done better vs the run, and will be able to compete better if we add pass rushers this year. 

 

So what was the problem if we did enough on D? Quite simply we couldn't score. They double covered Hilton (and to a lesser extent Ebron), and without a legit #2, we were shut down. We ended up down early and became one dimensional. Hilton was only 4/11 because of double coverage. Inman was 4/4 and Rogers was 5/6 (which is better than both performed all year from a catch rate perspective) and wide open at times. If anything, I blame Reich for not being more creative early with other WRs not named Hilton (or Ebron).

 

Give me a true WR2 in the first two rounds, some pass rush, and a little improvement vs the run, and we'll beat KC with Mahomes.

If you agree that Luck and Mahomes are equals, then a 6 year age difference is the only thing that matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Aaron86 said:

Logical? He had one great year on a team loaded with talent. Im not buying into your argument. Luck beat all the odds and was mentioned in the MVP  conversation and I still think he is. 

I will take Luck blind emotion or not over Mahomes any day.

Mahomes had a 5,000 yd, 50 td year. I doubt he's a one year wonder. That's a fan reaction saying you'd rather have a 29 year old QB over a 23 year old QB who is just as good, if not better. The logical person wants to maximize their timeline with the QB, GM, and Coach. You just want to win a SB with Luck. This is not a Luck Vs Mahomes debate, it's who gives us the most opportunities to win the most SB's while we have Ballard and Reich here. A 23 year old Mahomes does that over a 29 year old Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

 

That is all contextual, if you swap Luck and Mahomes last year to their respective teams, then we could probably assume that their performance would be similar. You argue that we held Mahomes to 66 yards under his average, however the Chiefs held Luck to 84 yards under his average. If you are going to make one point, you need to compare evenly.

 

What you cannot argue is Mahomes abilities. As I mentioned above Mahomes has just as good mobility as Luck, if not better. Mahomes has better arm strength than Luck. He has similar pocket awareness and accuracy. That will translate over to the Colts.

 

So with all things being considered, and Mahomes being the same as or slightly less in skill as Luck, Mahomes would be the better long play for the Colts to reach multiple SBs.

the argument is that had Luck had the WR support that Mahomes had, it would have been a different story.

 

you can't seriously be saying that Hilton (6)/Ebron (55) /Rogers (103), Pascal (NR) is better than Hill (4), Kelce (13), Watkins (45), Williams (74) - (the number is their YPG rank). KC had 2 top 15 guys, 3 top 50, 4 top 75. IND had 1 top 15, 2 top 75, an nobody else inside the top 100. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Aaron86 said:

It's not blind devotion. It's called being a fan. 

And the point your trying to make is not proving anything. Change a few words around and you can make anything sound right.

 

The problem with that is you're a fan of the player, people like me are a fan of winning multiple SB's, no matter the QB.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

the argument is that had Luck had the WR support that Mahomes had, it would have been a different story.

 

you can't seriously be saying that Hilton (6)/Ebron (55) /Rogers (103), Pascal (NR) is better than Hill (4), Kelce (13), Watkins (45), Williams (74) - (the number is their YPG rank). KC had 2 top 15 guys, 3 top 50, 4 top 75. IND had 1 top 15, 2 top 75, an nobody else inside the top 100. 

If Luck was on the Chiefs, I believe he would of still lost to the Pats. He has never beaten them in his career. In fact, if you switch Luck and Mahomes, we may of beat the Chiefs. I don't think Luck can utilize Hill correctly with their O-Line, he doesn't scramble anymore like Mahomes does and he still holds the ball too long.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

the argument is that had Luck had the WR support that Mahomes had, it would have been a different story.

 

you can't seriously be saying that Hilton (6)/Ebron (55) /Rogers (103), Pascal (NR) is better than Hill (4), Kelce (13), Watkins (45), Williams (74) - (the number is their YPG rank). KC had 2 top 15 guys, 3 top 50, 4 top 75. IND had 1 top 15, 2 top 75, an nobody else inside the top 100. 

Dude, that wasn't the argument at all. You are going off a tangent. The debate was whether or not Mahomes could offer just as many or more chances to get to the SB than Luck.

Which again, if they are even in skill, and Mahomes has six more years than Luck, then Mahomes gives us more chances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The problem with that is you're a fan of the player, people like me are a fan of winning multiple SB's, no matter the QB.

Why is it there is a problem with me being a fan of Luck. Nowhere have I ever said I'm a bigger fan of Lick then the team. I moved on from Manning and I will do the same with Andrew. I just like Andrew better then Mahomes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If Luck was on the Chiefs, I believe he would of still lost to the Pats. He has never beaten them in his career. In fact, if you switch Luck and Mahomes, we may of beat the Chiefs. I don't Luck can utilize Hill correctly with their O-Line, he doesn't scramble anymore like Mahomes does and he still holds the ball too long.

Mahomes (22) was sacked 4 more times than Luck (18) in the same amount of games.

 

And I'm perfectly fine with Luck running less . Mahomes can go from hero to zero if he gets hurt running. And it's not like Luck was throwing it away a bunch. His completion % was still better than Mahomes last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

If Luck was on the Chiefs, I believe he would of still lost to the Pats. He has never beaten them in his career. In fact, if you switch Luck and Mahomes, we may of beat the Chiefs. I don't think Luck can utilize Hill correctly with their O-Line, he doesn't scramble anymore like Mahomes does and he still holds the ball too long.

Well neither has Mahomes. So your point is invalid. You just don't like Luck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aaron86 said:

Why is it there is a problem with me being a fan of Luck. Nowhere have I ever said I'm a bigger fan of Lick then the team. I moved on from Manning and I will do the same with Andrew. I just like Andrew better then Mahomes. 

There's no problem with being a fan of Andrew Luck, I am as well and he's a top 5 QB. The problem is you'd take 6-8 more years of Luck over 15 of Mahomes, and that's just a terrible decision for the Colts franchise in general because you like Luck better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

Mahomes (22) was sacked 4 more times than Luck (18) in the same amount of games.

 

And I'm perfectly fine with Luck running less . Mahomes can go from hero to zero if he gets hurt running. And it's not like Luck was throwing it away a bunch. His completion % was still better than Mahomes last year.

Thanks for proving my point. Mahomes only got sacked 4 more times with an O-Line that wasn't nearly as talented. He was running for his life while Luck had a comfortable pocket. Mahomes would have single digit sacks in a year on the Colts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aaron86 said:

Well neither has Mahomes. So your point is invalid. You just don't like Luck. 

In Mahomes' two games Vs NE, he scored 40 in one game, and took them to OT in the other. Luck hasn't come close. Did I mention Mahomes is 23 and it was his rookie year of playing? I like Luck, but he's 29 (30 when the season starts), he needs to step up Vs elite teams in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

Dude, that wasn't the argument at all. You are going off a tangent. The debate was whether or not Mahomes could offer just as many or more chances to get to the SB than Luck.

Which again, if they are even in skill, and Mahomes has six more years than Luck, then Mahomes gives us more chances.

I started by saying that age was the only thing that was not debatable. i never said i agreed that Mahomes was better. I laid out the impacts to both teams over the year, and also commented on supporting cast. 

 

You then replied to my post which used the argument that Luck had a much worse supporting cast. A matter of fact, I closed with "give me a early round WR and a pass rush, and we'll beat KC" or something like that. 

 

In short 1) i think it's too early to crown Mahomes after one year, and 2) i'm not sure Mahomes will remain durable. Mahomes has a new style that was hard to defend. Like all "new styles", Defenses adjust. Would Mahomes do as well without a A-List cast of WRs, and after the league has time to adjust to his style? To early to say for me.

 

And you're acting like they were world beaters all year. The lost 3 out of their last 6 regular season games. Their 3 wins, one was in OT at home, and the other two were against the lowly Raiders in weeks 12 and 16. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Thanks for proving my point. Mahomes only got sacked 4 more times with an O-Line that wasn't nearly as talented. He was running for his life while Luck had a comfortable pocket. Mahomes would have single digit sacks in a year on the Colts.

LOL, do you even follow stats. KC's OL was better than IND in run blocking, and almost identical in pass blocking. Take some time and look at OL ratings/rankings on FO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

LOL, do you even follow stats. KC's OL was better than IND in run blocking, and almost identical in pass blocking. Take some time and look at OL ratings/rankings on FO. 

LOL. That's because Mahomes scrambled so often to get away from pressure. It shows up as 22 sacks on the stats, but the reality was he was pressured. Luck was rarely pressured or hit, the difference is night and day. Mahomes scrambling ability made it seem identical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

LOL. That's because Mahomes scrambled so often to get away from pressure. It shows up as 22 sacks on the stats, but the reality was he was pressured. Luck was rarely pressured or hit, the difference is night and day. Mahomes scrambling ability made it seem identical.

You're starting to look silly. KC has one of the best, if not the best OT combos in the NFL. Had they not had a few injuries, KC's line would have likely been ranked top 2. And his scrambling has zero to do with the OLs advanced stats in rushing. ZERO. FO also offers "adjusted sack rate" which takes into account various things. 

 

And... this part of the conversation started when you said Luck held the ball to long. He doesn't. If he did, he'd have a high sack rate. He's got one of the better sack rates in the NFL, and a better completion % than Mahomes (so he's not tossing it away to avoid sacks either).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

Mahomes (22) was sacked 4 more times than Luck (18) in the same amount of games.

 

And I'm perfectly fine with Luck running less . Mahomes can go from hero to zero if he gets hurt running. And it's not like Luck was throwing it away a bunch. His completion % was still better than Mahomes last year.

Number of sacks does not directly correlate with mobility. Luck had a better O-line. However, Mahomes had better scrambles than luck. Mahomes had 272 yards with a 4.5 average while Luck only had 148 for 3.2.  Mahomes had to scramble more, and was able to gain more yards than Luck when he had to scramble.

You have to put your arguments in to context and weigh them proportionally.
 

 

10 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

I started by saying that age was the only thing that was not debatable. i never said i agreed that Mahomes was better. I laid out the impacts to both teams over the year, and also commented on supporting cast. 

 

You then replied to my post which used the argument that Luck had a much worse supporting cast. A matter of fact, I closed with "give me a early round WR and a pass rush, and we'll beat KC" or something like that. 

 

In short 1) i think it's too early to crown Mahomes after one year, and 2) i'm not sure Mahomes will remain durable. Mahomes has a new style that was hard to defend. Like all "new styles", Defenses adjust. Would Mahomes do as well without a A-List cast of WRs, and after the league has time to adjust to his style? To early to say for me.

 

And you're acting like they were world beaters all year. The lost 3 out of their last 6 regular season games. Their 3 wins, one was in OT at home, and the other two were against the lowly Raiders in weeks 12 and 16. 

And in one of his losses he had 478 yards and 6 TDs. Another loss was against a divisional opponent that held him to 243 yards (his  season lowest) and two TDs with 0 INT. At the same time Luck had 4 games under 243 yards. So Mahomes worst game was still better than a quarter of Lucks entire season. Games against the likes of the Redskins (2 TD, 2INT), the Eagles who were 9-7, and the Raiders (where he had only 239 yards while Mahomes had 285 and 291 against them).

Nobody is crowning Mahomes anything.  The question is not whether he would do better without an A-List cast, it is would he do just as well as Luck on the Colts. I believe the answer is yes. This is because they are near even in skills that are not impacted by their team (Accuracy, Mobility, Arm Strength, Pocket Awareness).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Irish YJ said:

You're starting to look silly. KC has one of the best, if not the best OT combos in the NFL. Had they not had a few injuries, KC's line would have likely been ranked top 2. And his scrambling has zero to do with the OLs advanced stats in rushing. ZERO. FO also offers "adjusted sack rate" which takes into account various things. 

 

And... this part of the conversation started when you said Luck held the ball to long. He doesn't. If he did, he'd have a high sack rate. He's got one of the better sack rates in the NFL, and a better completion % than Mahomes (so he's not tossing it away to avoid sacks either).

He held it too long Vs KC in the playoffs, which was what the conversation had turned into. Luck was getting his passes tipped, just not sacked, which is why we were punting early and lost the game. Also, I don't look at FO, as it is pretty irrelevant to me. 99% of people I know don't care about "advanced stats" for an O-Line. Don't make excuses for injuries either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

Number of sacks does not directly correlate with mobility. Luck had a better O-line. However, Mahomes had better scrambles than luck. Mahomes had 272 yards with a 4.5 average while Luck only had 148 for 3.2.  Mahomes had to scramble more, and was able to gain more yards than Luck when he had to scramble.

You have to put your arguments in to context and weigh them proportionally.
 

 

And in one of his losses he had 478 yards and 6 TDs. Another loss was against a divisional opponent that held him to 243 yards (his  season lowest) and two TDs with 0 INT. At the same time Luck had 4 games under 243 yards. So Mahomes worst game was still better than a quarter of Lucks entire season. Games against the likes of the Redskins (2 TD, 2INT), the Eagles who were 9-7, and the Raiders (where he had only 239 yards while Mahomes had 285 and 291 against them).

Nobody is crowning Mahomes anything.  The question is not whether he would do better without an A-List cast, it is would he do just as well as Luck on the Colts. I believe the answer is yes. This is because they are near even in skills that are not impacted by their team (Accuracy, Mobility, Arm Strength, Pocket Awareness).

1) you obviously have zero clue about KC's line. See above, and check out FO advanced stats.

 

2). The game Luck had under 250 yards. 

Buffalo - #1 ranked passing D

Jax - #2 ranked passing D

Dallas - #7 in total D

the other was in the first few games of the year with Luck coming off an injury year. I'll give him little break. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

He held it too long Vs KC in the playoffs, which was what the conversation had turned into. Luck was getting his passes tipped, just not sacked, which is why we were punting early and lost the game. Also, I don't look at FO, as it is pretty irrelevant to me. 99% of people I know don't care about "advanced stats" for an O-Line. Don't make excuses for injuries either. 

KC led the league in sacks. What do you expect. And KC did sack Luck 3 times (again, you're wrong). 

 

If you ignore stats, you're ignoring simple fact and data. And that's pretty silly. And ignore injury, LOL. That makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Irish YJ said:

KC led the league in sacks. What do you expect. And KC did sack Luck 3 times (again, you're wrong). 

 

If you ignore stats, you're ignoring simple fact and data. And that's pretty silly. And ignore injury, LOL. That makes sense. 

I don't ignore stats, the problem with talking to people on the internet is that they'll go to the ends of the Earth to look up something that fits their argument, no matter how obscure or convoluted it is. 99% of football fans would have no idea what you are talking about, maybe 10 people on this forum knew what you are talking about, and you would have no idea what you looked up if you were talking to another fan face-to-face because no one thinks to memorize obscure things like advanced stats.

 

It's just like WAR in baseball. I know what it is, but I don't say player x had 5 WAR last year to a random fan. Most of the time they'll give me a crazy look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I don't ignore stats, the problem with talking to people on the internet is that they'll go to the ends of the Earth to look up something that fits their argument, no matter how obscure or convoluted it is. 99% of football fans would have no idea what you are talking about, maybe 10 people on this forum knew what you are talking about, and you would have no idea what you looked up if you were talking to another fan face-to-face because no one thinks to memorize obscure things like advanced stats.

 

It's just like WAR in baseball. I know what it is, but I don't say player x had 5 WAR last year to a random fan. Most of the time they'll give me a crazy look.

I've followed advanced stats for CFB and NFL for a long time. Most of my friends are stat guys who follow too. I don't have every stat memorized, but I know in general where all our guys stand in most major categories compared to the league. Advanced stats are easy to find.

Sorry if it's too much for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaveA1102

      DaveA1102 1,864

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...