Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Don't care to see him or that beard again.

Maybe I’m reading this guys tweet incorrectly?    He seems to be saying that Luck retired due to the snow boarding accident.   Couple of points to make....   1. Wasn’t the snowboardin

If he does it likely wouldn't be for the colts...

Posted Images

6 hours ago, PrNum1 said:

At what point do we stop with this nonsense?

 

Sometimes you have to let your ex-wife go before you can start your new life with your new wife.

SOMETIMES?  In what world of analogies would it be a majority hanging on to the ex wife whilst moving on with the new one simultaneously??? Lol

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PrNum1 said:

At what point do we stop with this nonsense?

 

Sometimes you have to let your ex-wife go before you can start your new life with your new wife.

Maybe do one of those sister wives setups.

One can be cooking while the other is cleaning!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CheezyColt said:

This was perhaps the hardest part of my acceptance of his retirement.  We finally had a good o-line and an improving defense.  I still don't think he's ever coming back, but having him behind this o-line would be fantastic, lol.

 

Yeah it sucks, because what we wanted Grigson to do , Ballard did it in one year.  Just so happen, the next year the guy he was building around decided to jet.  It sucks because I think this is probably the most complete this team has ever been on both sides of the ball besides the 06 playoff run.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

Maybe do one of those sister wives setups.

One can be cooking while the other is cleaning!

The amount of problems a man has in his life is directly proportional to the amount of women in his life.  That’s just basic science

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, smittywerb said:

 

Yeah it sucks, because what we wanted Grigson to do , Ballard did it in one year.  Just so happen, the next year the guy he was building around decided to jet.  It sucks because I think this is probably the most complete this team has ever been on both sides of the ball besides the 06 playoff run.  

 

Yeah, key words being playoff run. 

 

Its honestly amazing what he has done. Hopefully it will result in a lot of SBs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

The amount of problems a man has in his life is directly proportional to the amount of women in his life.  That’s just basic science

Good advice.

How could i be so naive?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

The amount of problems a man has in his life is directly proportional to the amount of women in his life.  That’s just basic science

 

Aaron Rodgers has one less problem then with Danica Patrick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2020 at 5:46 AM, WoolMagnet said:

Maybe do one of those sister wives setups.

One can be cooking while the other is cleaning!

This thread is getting way off track. Let me see if I can get it back to football.

 

No way the Colts take Luck back with Kelly waiting to take over the starting job next year. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Andrew Luck is under contract through 2021, so we own his rights until the end of the 2021 season.

We own his rights forever. You don't just sit out and that year gets erased, it just pushes back. So if he retired with two years left he'd have 2 years left when ever he returns..

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve basically sat out most of this conversation.   But I’d add this...

 

No matter how many years left on Luck’s contract there is almost no guaranteed money, almost no dead cap money left to deal with.   So even if the long shot happens, and Luck were to come back and wanted to play for us, I think it would be on a NEW team friendly deal.  
 

I think it would have little guaranteed money at the signing and loaded with incentives,  and triggers should he perform at a high level and only modest money should he not be the same player.   I think it would be a contract that would be structured so the franchise would not be hurt should the comeback go badly for whatever reason and Luck would retire again.  The team would insist on protections and Luck would agree to them.   I think the new deal would mean there would be little for fans to worry about. 
 

All that said...  I remain in the camp that believes a Luck comeback is the longest of long shots and I’ll believe it only when more credible info is confirmed.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my list of players who I would take over Luck at QB for the next 3 or 4 seasons after this year if I ignore the uncertainty of Lucks desire to play after his retirement.  
 

1.  Pat Mahomes 

2.  Russell Wilson 

 

That’s it for me.  I’m not a Jackson believer.  Until we see a running QB continue as a running QB successfully, I won’t opt for that type of player.  IMO they are like Japanese pitchers.  It’s not racial.  Take those thoughts and deposit them where the sun don’t shine.  They are overused as kids and tend not to be able to stay on the mound just like Running QBs tend not to be able to play like that after a year or two. I can see people putting Jackson the list though.

 

Rogers, Brady, Brees are all too old to play until 2025 or 2026.  I would rate each of those guys above Luck if you were only talking the 2021 season and I’d slot them 2-5 in the order listed between Mahomes and Wilson.  That would still put Andrew at 7 IMO.

Too many can’t miss QBs, miss so I would rather take Luck than Burrow or Lawrence, even though I could see them both being studs. QBs are like baseball draftees and A box of chocolates.  For the seasons 2021 to 2025, I’d slot them at 4 and 5 behind PH, RW, and AL.

 

I think it is a no brainer that you would take Luck back on this team.  If he decided to play again, it would be for competitive desire and/or money both of which are great incentives.

 

There is essentially no risk and the cost is already paid for and would be a net positive when JB and PR are off the payroll.

 

I understand the skepticism, but the dude is just too friggin good not to take a slight chance  on.  
 

The only reason I can think of no to have him back is if JB and PR get injured this season and Eason turns out to be a stud that makes me forget AL.  That would be the only risk, losing out on Eason which doesn’t seem likely to be much of a risk.

 

Of course you let the guy fulfill his contract IMO.  
 

These young guys aren’t like the faux love Of the game generations of the past.  I would assume most of the millennial players have no problem with Luck, and the team chemistry thing is largely irrelevant.

 

 Players want a guy like Luck because he helps you win, but more importantly, he makes you money by making you look better than you are.w

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

Aaron Rodgers has one less problem then with Danica Patrick.

yeah, he doesn't have to worry about her wrecking him anymore.

 

 

16 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Andrew Luck is under contract through 2021, so we own his rights until the end of the 2021 season.

Wrong.  His contract is paused the moment he retires.  Whether he comes back now, next year or in 2050, Colts own his right for the remaining time left on the contract , in this case 3 seasons.  There is no end date on that.  He has no way out unless the Colts release or trade him.  Which is why the Colts let him keep that 24 million. Doing so, ensured his rights are forever theirs.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, csmopar said:

yeah, he doesn't have to worry about her wrecking him anymore.

 

 

Wrong.  His contract is paused the moment he retires.  Whether he comes back now, next year or in 2050, Colts own his right for the remaining time left on the contract , in this case 3 seasons.  There is no end date on that.  He has no way out unless the Colts release or trade him.  Which is why the Colts let him keep that 24 million. Doing so, ensured his rights are forever theirs.

I stand corrected :thmup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nickster said:

Here is my list of players who I would take over Luck at QB for the next 3 or 4 seasons after this year if I ignore the uncertainty of Lucks desire to play after his retirement.  
 

1.  Pat Mahomes 

2.  Russell Wilson 

 

That’s it for me.  I’m not a Jackson believer.  Until we see a running QB continue as a running QB successfully, I won’t opt for that type of player.  IMO they are like Japanese pitchers.  It’s not racial.  Take those thoughts and deposit them where the sun don’t shine.  They are overused as kids and tend not to be able to stay on the mound just like Running QBs tend not to be able to play like that after a year or two. I can see people putting Jackson the list though.

 

Rogers, Brady, Brees are all too old to play until 2025 or 2026.  I would rate each of those guys above Luck if you were only talking the 2021 season and I’d slot them 2-5 in the order listed between Mahomes and Wilson.  That would still put Andrew at 7 IMO.

Too many can’t miss QBs, miss so I would rather take Luck than Burrow or Lawrence, even though I could see them both being studs. QBs are like baseball draftees and A box of chocolates.  For the seasons 2021 to 2025, I’d slot them at 4 and 5 behind PH, RW, and AL.

 

I think it is a no brainer that you would take Luck back on this team.  If he decided to play again, it would be for competitive desire and/or money both of which are great incentives.

 

There is essentially no risk and the cost is already paid for and would be a net positive when JB and PR are off the payroll.

 

I understand the skepticism, but the dude is just too friggin good not to take a slight chance  on.  
 

The only reason I can think of no to have him back is if JB and PR get injured this season and Eason turns out to be a stud that makes me forget AL.  That would be the only risk, losing out on Eason which doesn’t seem likely to be much of a risk.

 

Of course you let the guy fulfill his contract IMO.  
 

These young guys aren’t like the faux love Of the game generations of the past.  I would assume most of the millennial players have no problem with Luck, and the team chemistry thing is largely irrelevant.

 

 Players want a guy like Luck because he helps you win, but more importantly, he makes you money by making you look better than you are.w

 

 


I would take a 25 year-old Watson (about to head into his prime) over Luck. But Luck on his current deal will be far cheaper than Watson on his upcoming deal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So his contract would just be the bonus money he got for three years.... Not like they can't renegotiate for a new contract can they. I am just afaird if this is true that Jim would try to make Andrew luck the highest paid QB in the league again.... It like dang Jim you got burned once already. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

I think its funny now that Andrew is off the team everyonr would take "such and such" over him. But if he never left, these words would never be uttered. 

I'd think there would be some who would still talk about him. A certain body builder comes to mind. 

 

Andrew's a very private person, and with so little information to go off of, a lot of people will attempt to connect the dots of what led to our franchise QB up and retiring so shockingly. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm certainly guilty of my own bias and thought entertainments. 

 

Maybe some day we will read a biography that tells us what really happened. I'm sure we're not the only ones in the sporting world who are curious about what led to a star player in his prime to up and leave. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shasta519 said:


I would take a 25 year-old Watson (about to head into his prime) over Luck. But Luck on his current deal will be far cheaper than Watson on his upcoming deal. 

Luck is better than Watson Imo.  Clearly better.

 

luck in early to mid 30s with this line and running game would be phenomenal imo.  Watson is good but he’s not on Andrews tier.

 

i wish luck would have showed what he could be with a competent cast around him.  Very underrated ole Andy was IMO.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’ve basically sat out most of this conversation.   But I’d add this...

 

No matter how many years left on Luck’s contract there is almost no guaranteed money, almost no dead cap money left to deal with.   So even if the long shot happens, and Luck were to come back and wanted to play for us, I think it would be on a NEW team friendly deal.  
 

I think it would have little guaranteed money at the signing and loaded with incentives,  and triggers should he perform at a high level and only modest money should he not be the same player.   I think it would be a contract that would be structured so the franchise would not be hurt should the comeback go badly for whatever reason and Luck would retire again.  The team would insist on protections and Luck would agree to them.   I think the new deal would mean there would be little for fans to worry about. 
 

All that said...  I remain in the camp that believes a Luck comeback is the longest of long shots and I’ll believe it only when more credible info is confirmed.   

 

I am with you I think a Luck comeback is unlikely.  

 

But we wouldn't have to change the deal at all he would just operate under his old deal for 3 years which since we paid all the guaranteed money means there is no guaranteed money left on the contract plus because he essentially froze the deal for a couple years it means he is going to be playing at an insanely cheap rate for a QB of his abilities.

 

I want this to be true but I just don't think it is.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh... if he truly wants back on the Colts, he's welcome. I'd love to have this quality of QB again and I think this team will be incredible with him under center. 

 

If he wants back on another team... he's welcome back again. We can use the extra picks he can return... especially in a draft with so much quality at QB that the 2021 draft seems will have. Lets say Washington gets no. 1-3 pick and wants Luck in order to compete right away. I'd absolutely do it for that pick... maybe some other stuff thrown in. 

 

If he wants to stay retired... again he's welcome. I have resigned myself to the idea that he's not coming back anyways. He was an absolute class act as our QB and I hope he's happy and content with his life either way.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=9777832

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

I think its funny now that Andrew is off the team everyonr would take "such and such" over him. But if he never left, these words would never be uttered. 

Pat Mahomes. In hypothetical, brain storming time- it's clear who's better and who'd you'd want even if Luck had never left. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Fish said:

Pat Mahomes. In hypothetical, brain storming time- it's clear who's better and who'd you'd want even if Luck had never left. 

 

I would take mahomes, or peyton over andrew. But thats where it stops. Brady over luck? How laughable. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2020 at 1:31 PM, NannyMcafee said:

I think its funny now that Andrew is off the team everyonr would take "such and such" over him. But if he never left, these words would never be uttered. 

 

I don't know...he does have a surgically-repaired throwing arm...and he's going to be 31. So I don't think it's crazy to take a few QBs over Luck under those circumstances...especially ones that are more than half a decade younger. 

 

And he did leave...so that has to be part of the consideration now unfortunately. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stitches said:

Eh... if he truly wants back on the Colts, he's welcome. I'd love to have this quality of QB again and I think this team will be incredible with him under center. 

 

If he wants back on another team... he's welcome back again. We can use the extra picks he can return... especially in a draft with so much quality at QB that the 2021 draft seems will have. Lets say Washington gets no. 1-3 pick and wants Luck in order to compete right away. I'd absolutely do it for that pick... maybe some other stuff thrown in. 

 

If he wants to stay retired... again he's welcome. I have resigned myself to the idea that he's not coming back anyways. He was an absolute class act as our QB and I hope he's happy and content with his life either way.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=9777832

 

I don't think Luck is netting anywhere near that type of return...just too much uncertainty at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2020 at 10:31 AM, NannyMcafee said:

I think its funny now that Andrew is off the team everyonr would take "such and such" over him. But if he never left, these words would never be uttered. 

Remember our argument a few months before Luck retired where you said Luck was elite and I said he didn't have the passion for the game and Mahomes would win a SB before him? That happened very quickly and I can at least say before Mahomes won a SB and Luck retired that I liked Mahomes over Luck.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Remember our argument a few months before Luck retired where you said Luck was elite and I said he didn't have the passion for the game and Mahomes would win a SB before him? That happened very quickly and I can at least say before Mahomes won a SB and Luck retired that I liked Mahomes over Luck.

 

I think Mahommes is a better raw talent. But the stats aren't that different. A healthy Andrew would do amazing with the potent offense of the chiefs... no one can say that entire offense isn't loaded. 

 

But we can play what ifs all day long. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Remember our argument a few months before Luck retired where you said Luck was elite and I said he didn't have the passion for the game and Mahomes would win a SB before him? That happened very quickly and I can at least say before Mahomes won a SB and Luck retired that I liked Mahomes over Luck.

 

If only Luck had Andy Reid from the start....

Mahomes is a generational talent but people need to realize he landed in the PERFECT spot. If he'd had pagano and grigson from the start, you think he'd be a the player he is now?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

I think Mahommes is a better raw talent. But the stats aren't that different. A healthy Andrew would do amazing with the potent offense of the chiefs... no one can say that entire offense isn't loaded. 

 

But we can play what ifs all day long. 

 

Raw talent? The Colts got the most highly rated QB to come out since #18. Those ratings were no mistake. Luck was the definition of perfect. His story is the definition of mismanagement. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

If only Luck had Andy Reid from the start....

Mahomes is a generational talent but people need to realize he landed in the PERFECT spot. If he'd had pagano and grigson from the start, you think he'd be a the player he is now?

 

Well... He was drafted in 2017, when Ballard took over and Grigson was no longer GM. So replace Grigson with Ballard in that situation and keep Pagano for one year... Yes, I think he would be the player he is today because Ballard originally scouted him in KC before joining the Colts. He'd easily be elite in 3 years on our team.

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

Well... He was drafted in 2017, when Ballard took over and Grigson was no longer GM. So replace Grigson with Ballard in that situation and keep Pagano for one year... Yes, I think he would be the player he is today because Ballard originally scouted him in KC before joining the Colts. He'd easily be elite in 3 years on our team.

 

Well sure. I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario where Mahomes had the front office and coaching that Luck had coming out. That's a fairer comp than wondering what Pat would be like under Ballard.

 

Luck had effectively ONE season with CB and a coach with half a brain. He won comeback player of the year and had arguably his best season in the league. 

So, imagine Mahomes with the conditions Luck had to start with. Now imagine Luck with the conditions Mahomes had to start off with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Well sure. I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario where Mahomes had the front office and coaching that Luck had coming out. That's a fairer comp than wondering what Pat would be like under Ballard.

 

Luck had effectively ONE season with CB and a coach with half a brain. He won comeback player of the year and had arguably his best season in the league. 

So, imagine Mahomes with the conditions Luck had to start with. Now imagine Luck with the conditions Mahomes had to start off with. 

Mahomes would be 16 years old in 2012. Kinda hard to imagine him in the NFL in high school. You can't compare QBs of different ages like that, that's why I said 2017 when he got drafted. Only way you can compare him to Luck.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Freenyfan102 said:

Like even if he does come back idk if I even want him on the team. 

I said at the time when Ballard his press conference the way he was talking I am not sure he’d want him back because I think Ballard would think you quit on us once what stops you from doing it again?

 

With that said Irsay will want him back so he will be a Colt.

 

I also respected him for walking away as his choice as I think Ballard did but I do think Ballard and others would question if he would do it again if he came back.  
 

Still I’ll believe in an Andrew Luck comeback when he’s under center taking snaps in a meaningful game.  

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

    • FWIW I thought this from last weeks mail bag was funny because it seems to support what both you and I are saying.  If what I understand your point being is the dline including Buckner played similarly well both games and my belief that 3techs don’t need to record sacks and tfls to be dominant. : “I can understand why fans who watched last Sunday's opener against the Jaguars, and then checked out the box score afterwards, might come away with the conclusion that DeForest Buckner didn't have much of an impact on the game. After all, the Colts traded away their 13th-overall pick in this year's NFL Draft to acquire Buckner, and then immediately handed him a huge contract extension, so expectations are high. I get that. But looking back at the film, I think what's evident is Buckner deserves a little bit more credit beyond his stat-sheet line of six tackles (one for a loss). As the defensive line started to gel in the second half — that's when it limited Jacksonville to six combined rushing yards and had three of its four sacks — you began to feel Buckner much more consistently, and the attention placed on him allowed for others (I thought linebacker Bobby Okereke was fantastic in the second half) to make plays. Buckner also had the eighth-best week among all NFL interior defensive linemen in run stop win rate in Week 1, according to ESPN. Now, moving forward, of course you want to see more of those impact-type plays out of Buckner — sacks, big run stuffs, forced fumbles, defensive touchdowns, etc. But I think it's also important to to remember there are other ways for the three-tech to impact the game, and Buckner did a pretty good job of that last Sunday.”  
    • I’m a little surprised you don’t see a difference in dline play between  the two games.  I don’t have access to any of the services but I would suspect that The grades are significantly higher for the dline in Sunday compared to the Jax game.   but Sunday was even more dominant than i thought, and I thought it was dominant.  Between the opening drive during which MN gained 75 and scored a FG and their last meaningless drive for 75 yds and a TD, the Colts gave up a total of 25 other yds.    against Jax, we gave up around 60 yds rushing in the 1st half and the dline looked less than dominant then imo.  Jax had 5 of 8 drives during which they scored if you throw out the kneel downs at the end of each half.   Percentage of  tackles and sacks for linemen were very similar in both games.  You said that colts had more pressures during the mn game and I said probably a function of Jax short passing attack.   buckner had 6 tackles v Jax and 3 v mn.  He had no sacks v Jax but 1.5 tfl.  He had 1.5 sacks v mn but no other tfl.  Statistically counting sacks, tackles, and tfl he was “better” V Jax.  But you probably don’t think He was better Iwould suspect.   i would be shocked if the dline didn’t grade out higher v. Mn than Jax even though the tackles, tfl, and sacks were very similar over all.   im sure teams keep advanced stats that show a clearer pic of when a d lineman wins or loses on each Play that doesn’t necessarily match easier to see stats like tackles, etc.   do you have access to the grades?  I’d really be interested in the units grades in the two games.   i agree there can be other factors like obviously opponent strength and the play of LBs and dbs.  And mn looks like they might suck pretty bad surprisingly to me.  I think the main problem with lasts weeks game imo is the LBs are weak in coverage and Indy is as a result susceptible to short passing attacks.     that being said, rarely do dlines dominate the LOs like the colts did.   i maintain that a guy like Buckner and dts in general could have nit recorded a sack, had only a couple of tackles and be more dominant than In a game where he recorded a few tackles and a couple of sacks.    
    • Let's hire an exorcist!  
    • Didn't Nick Bosa get hurt this week too?
    • This might be helpful.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...