Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Andrew Luck Pro Day Live Viewing @ 2:00 Eastern Espn3


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

I also didn't like his Offensive Coordinator calling out Phil Simms. What is the man 6 years old? You can't handle criticism.

I don't blame him one bit for calling out Phil Simms. SImms thinks he's a know it all and has drawn repeated critiscism from numerous others (Peyton Manning and others). Guy just seemed to be a little mad that his son is a terrible NFL QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to prove his arm strength why put the long throws in the beginning? I think after so many throws to prove his arm is still capable after being worked.

Makes sense.

There are various scripts that they could follow. I'd want the bulk of the throws to be between 10-30 yards. A couple of short/BLOS touch passes and a few longer 40+ with a couple showing him really airing it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame him one bit for calling out Phil Simms. SImms thinks he's a know it all and has drawn repeated critiscism from numerous others (Peyton Manning and others). Guy just seemed to be a little mad that his son is a terrible NFL QB.

Yea, but there is a difference between Luck and Simms. One SB Champions other College Qb. Shaq has the best attitude about that, If you haven't played in my sport don't critique me. If you have then please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No? Phil has played in the NFL, and has been successful. He can say what he wants about anyone he pleases.

Doesn't mean it holds any water. And I say that because if it did, people would watch his lackluster joke of a show. Kurt Warner has more of a voice than he does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who can't watch live...

http://www.indystar....dyssey=nav|head

Some interesting tid bits..

  • The Colts are represented only by QB coach Clyde Christensen and area scout Matt Terpening.
  • Luck's workout is scheduled to include 48 passes --- 46 percent from shotgun, 25 percent five-step drops, 15 percent play action, 6 percent three-step drops, 4 percent seven-step drops and 4 percent one-step drops.
  • ESPN.com's Paul Kuharsky quotes a scout who calls Luck's workout today a "formality" because the Colts will take him first regardless of how he performs. Another scout said it would take a "catastrophic" workout for Luck to fall from the top spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean it holds any water. And I say that because if it did, people would watch his lackluster joke of a show. Kurt Warner has more of a voice than he does.

Well if Phil SImms means nothing then don't take his words to heart. If the OC can't handle a little criticism then don't be part of a game where your players always are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if Phil SImms means nothing then don't take his words to heart. If the OC can't handle a little criticism then don't be part of a game where your players always are.

I don't think its a matter of handling it. Its a matter of someone who has no place saying anything putting his nose in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its a matter of handling it. Its a matter of someone who has no place saying anything putting his nose in it.

He's an NFL analyst for CBS

He's an NFL analyst for Showtime.

He's a 14 year NFL vet at the same position.

He's a Super Bowl MVP

Disagreeing with his opinion is fair or fine, but I don't see how he has "no place saying anything". It's basically his job to analyze the NFL, and players and if he's asked his opinion he's going to give it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's an NFL analyst for CBS

He's an NFL analyst for Showtime.

He's a 14 year NFL vet at the same position.

He's a Super Bowl MVP

Disagreeing with his opinion is fair or fine, but I don't see how he has "no place saying anything". It's basically his job to analyze the NFL, and players and if he's asked his opinion he's going to give it.

I know its his job. Lots of people get paid to sit there and be talking heads. Doesn't mean they are anymore crediable than joe blow on a mic paying himself to talk. but like I said, what Simms says usually doesn't have any water with anyone in significant journalism circles. Yes he played the game for a number of years. Rich Gannon did too. No one watches his show, He's just mad his kid blew in the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its his job. Lots of people get paid to sit there and be talking heads. Doesn't mean they are anymore crediable than joe blow on a mic paying himself to talk. but like I said, what Simms says usually doesn't have any water with anyone in significant journalism circles. No one watches his show, He's just mad his kid blew in the league.

Actually his resume gives him credibility.

Big difference from Joe Blow filming a scouting report on youtube.

Steve Bono, another former NFL QB just gave a positive review of Luck. I guess his opinion is valid. Who cares about journalism circles? You'd take Kravitz opinion over Simms? Ryan Leaf's opinion is more valid than the "typical" journalist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually his resume gives him credibility.

Big difference from Joe Blow filming a scouting report on youtube.

Steve Bono, another former NFL QB just gave a positive review of Luck. I guess his opinion is valid. Who cares about journalism circles? You'd take Kravitz opinion over Simms? Ryan Leaf's opinion is more valid than the "typical" journalist.

No it doesn't. I could go out and say Warren Sapp is a credible media folk because he played in the league for x amount of years and won a SB. Let me not mention his little snitch spout the other day. In a way, I would say he (Kravitz) is more crediable, depending on what he says and how he backs it up. A lot of times I've seen Phil Simms its a lot of "well what I would do is" and more of personal feelings rather than using reasonable points like writers like Kravitz and other crediable reporters who actually went to school for journalism do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually his resume gives him credibility.

Big difference from Joe Blow filming a scouting report on youtube.

Steve Bono, another former NFL QB just gave a positive review of Luck. I guess his opinion is valid. Who cares about journalism circles? You'd take Kravitz opinion over Simms? Ryan Leaf's opinion is more valid than the "typical" journalist.

You, Sir, are correct.

SImms could be dead wrong, but his opinion is an educated one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't. I could go out and say Warren Sapp is a credible media folk because he played in the league for x amount of years and won a SB. Let me not mention his little snitch spout the other day. In a way, I would say he (Kravitz) is more crediable, depending on what he says and how he backs it up. A lot of times I've seen Phil Simms its a lot of "well what I would do is" and more of personal feelings rather than using reasonable points like writers like Kravitz and other crediable reporters who actually went to school for journalism do.

Warren Sapp is more credible than a typical member of the media. He played the game at a high level.

About the only thing journalism school will give them would be the nuts and bolts of writing/broadcasting. It's not going to teach them the game of football. Which is why in general your Play by play man is the broadcaster with the formal education and the color guy is the former player.

Would Kravitz write a better article than 95%+ of NFL players? yes.

Would 95%+ of NFL players with 10+ years of experience be more credible in commenting about the game of football? yes.

Big difference between the two. It's rather simple to see, but I guess not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You, Sir, are correct.

SImms could be dead wrong, but his opinion is an educated one.

Unless Simms had a direct reason to be biased, it is a valid one. If his son that played at UT this year was in RGIII's position and going neck and neck in some circles then he would likely recuse himself from commenting about it, but if he did then at that point I would question his opinion about being biased. Since that is not the case, you just have to view it as one opinion of many when it comes to the topic.

It simply can't be dismissed because it goes against ones own thought process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren Sapp is more credible than a typical member of the media. He played the game at a high level.

About the only thing journalism school will give them would be the nuts and bolts of writing/broadcasting. It's not going to teach them the game of football. Which is why in general your Play by play man is the broadcaster with the formal education and the color guy is the former player.

Would Kravitz write a better article than 95%+ of NFL players? yes.

Would 95%+ of NFL players with 10+ years of experience be more credible in commenting about the game of football? yes.

Big difference between the two. It's rather simple to see, but I guess not.

In a lot of circumstances I would say former players are more crediable but there are cases where they too can be biased and lose crediablity (ie. the Warren Sapp example I stated). Yes I would take a Kurt Warner's opinion over a beat writer in NY but I would also take a beat writer who's been in the business for over 20 years over a kicker who played in the league for 13 years, depending on the topic. It works both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a lot of circumstances I would say former players are more crediable but there are cases where they too can be biased and lose crediablity (ie. the Warren Sapp example I stated). Yes I would take a Kurt Warner's opinion over a beat writer in NY but I would also take a beat writer who's been in the business for over 20 years over a kicker who played in the league for 13 years, depending on the topic. It works both ways.

Not really.

I'm not sure where Sapp is biased about his "bounty" gate comments. If anything he'd be supporting Shockey since they both are members of the Hurricane fraternity.

Simms is a quarterback talking about quarterbacks. That beat writer might know as much as a kicker but many of these kickers played other positions in high school and only became specialists in college. So in cases like that it's on a case by case basis, but Simms talking about QB's is a valid opinion whether you agree or disagree with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really.

I'm not sure where Sapp is biased about his "bounty" gate comments. If anything he'd be supporting Shockey since they both are members of the Hurricane fraternity.

Simms is a quarterback talking about quarterbacks. That beat writer might know as much as a kicker but many of these kickers played other positions in high school and only became specialists in college. So in cases like that it's on a case by case basis, but Simms talking about QB's is a valid opinion whether you agree or disagree with it.

Yet if its that so, why would he call him out the way he did and go off on a twitter spout with Shockey? Doesn't seem too professional to me. Not sure if you quite know what happened.

Just because a kicker played the position in high school doesn't mean he's gonna know more about being a QB than a journalist who's been writing about football for 20 years. Thats just not true.

I realize that it makes his opinion validated since he played but that doesn't make it crediable. He's been wrong numerous times on numerous issues and like I said, isn't considered a valid opinion in a lot of circles, including players (ie. Peyton Manning)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet if its that so, why would he call him out the way he did and go off on a twitter spout with Shockey? Doesn't seem too professional to me. Not sure if you quite know what happened.

Just because a kicker played the position in high school doesn't mean he's gonna know more about being a QB than a journalist who's been writing about football for 20 years. Thats just not true.

I realize that it makes his opinion validated since he played but that doesn't make it crediable. He's been wrong numerous times on numerous issues and like I said, isn't considered a valid opinion in a lot of circles, including players (ie. Peyton Manning)

I didn't see it live, but from what I have read he was asked about it and said Shockey was the snitch. If that's the case then that is the case. I never said that some of these guys are the most professional. I'd rather have an inhibited and blunt Jon Gruden on Monday Night Football than the sugar coated version that is there every Monday.

Which is why I said it would have to be on a case by case basis. Some players would have more knowledge about other positions than a journalist. Some wouldn't.

I don't see how it can be validated but not credible. Whether some respect it or not is a whole different story just as whether or not the masses agree with it or not.

The same guys going gaga over Luck/RGIII were the same guys saying Cam Newton would struggle and that Gabbert was underrated. The same ones praising most every 1st round qb over the past 15-20 years whether they amounted to anything or not.

You disagreed with Simms and attempted to invalidate his opinion, when it's quite clear his opinion is credible and valid. Whether or not it was accurate or not remains to be seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see it live, but from what I have read he was asked about it and said Shockey was the snitch. If that's the case then that is the case. I never said that some of these guys are the most professional. I'd rather have an inhibited and blunt Jon Gruden on Monday Night Football than the sugar coated version that is there every Monday.

Which is why I said it would have to be on a case by case basis. Some players would have more knowledge about other positions than a journalist. Some wouldn't.

I don't see how it can be validated but not credible. Whether some respect it or not is a whole different story just as whether or not the masses agree with it or not.

The same guys going gaga over Luck/RGIII were the same guys saying Cam Newton would struggle and that Gabbert was underrated. The same ones praising most every 1st round qb over the past 15-20 years whether they amounted to anything or not.

You disagreed with Simms and attempted to invalidate his opinion, when it's quite clear his opinion is credible and valid. Whether or not it was accurate or not remains to be seen.

The other points you made kinda level off here but in terms of Simms opinion, Luck apparently just delievered a perfect 70 yard bomb that the reciever dropped. So much for lack of arm strength.

And what I mean by valiadated and crediable is that while Simms has the crediantials to have a valid opinion, it doesn't make it right or as you put it, accurate, thus making him not crediable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other points you made kinda level off here but in terms of Simms opinion, Luck apparently just delievered a perfect 70 yard bomb that the reciever dropped. So much for lack of arm strength.

And what I mean by valiadated and crediable is that while Simms has the crediantials to have a valid opinion, it doesn't make it right or as you put it, accurate, thus making him not crediable.

Being wrong doesn't make someone not credible. Everyone is wrong at some point. Polian didn't hit on every draft pick, Is he not credible? Grigson will make a miss if he hasn't already. Irsay's made mistakes.

For someone not to be credible to me is the Joe Schmo you mentioned ranting and raving on youtube, or some blog. They might get some things right, they might not, but I wouldn't say their opinion is as credible as a player that played the position for 14 years.

For clarification purposes.

In an interview on Tuesday with Adam Schein and Rich Gannon of SiriusXM NFL Radio, Simms said the hype surrounding Luck "is a little too much" , becoming one of the few high-profile analysts to express doubt about the collegian's potential.

"I mean, what's he going to do to match what they say he can do?," Simms asked. After discussing Luck's attributes, Simms did sound a note of caution about the Heisman candidate's abilities.

"I just don't see big time NFL throws. I don't care what anybody says. I've watched a lot of him. He never takes it and rips it in there. And you can say what you want but, man, you’ve got to be able to crease that ball every once in a while," Simms said. "There's not a lot of rotation on the ball and there’s not a tremendous amount of power. Not that you need to have that power arm. I’m not saying you’ve got to have that exclusively but, man, it sure helps when you can do that because there’s four or five plays a game it is about arm strength."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/phil-simms-andrew-luck_n_1073314.html

I'm not so sure he's talking about the deep ball as opposed to really putting one in a tight spot. Some of those throws by RGIII and Luck yesterday and today both lacked a little zip, and they were 15-20 yard throws.

I'm a little past my prime and could go outside and sling it 70 yards. So it's not all about length.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...