Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Watson has never came close to throwing 40 TD's in a season, he had 33 this past season which was his best by far. Luck had 40 in 2014 and 39 in 2018. Not that the TD stat is everything but just pointing that out. Also Luck went into Houston during the 2018 playoffs when Watson had a fully loaded team and Luck spanked them on his hometurf. Luck was better so we will have to agree to disagree :thmup:

You can give me a sad face all you want but everything I said is fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ballard is a lot better  Nice attempt though 

Grigson had Luck. Ballard has built you an all around better team. 

ballard 4 years won 32 lost 32 grigson 5 years won 49 lost 31 ballard 4 years playoff wins 1 grigson 5 years playoff wins 3 and i didnt like grigson

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

FWIW, I am not a fan of passer rating or QBR rating. Both are wishy washy. If we went by that than RG3 was better in 2012 than any year Luck had lol, that was far from the case and we all know it. I go by TD's thrown because it is about points, clutch factor, and the ability to find a way to win. Luck never had a season where any of his teams were below .500 when he played a full season (basically a full season, he played 15 games in 2016). His worse record was 8-7 in 2016 where he played 15 games. As much I love Watson his team just went 4-12, Luck would never go 4-12 in a million years playing all 16 games.

To follow this up, I have seen many QB's with good passer ratings that don't cut the mustard when it comes to winning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Watson has never came close to throwing 40 TD's in a season, he had 33 this past season which was his best by far. Luck had 40 in 2014 and 39 in 2018. Not that the TD stat is everything but just pointing that out. Also Luck went into Houston during the 2018 playoffs when Watson had a fully loaded team and Luck spanked them on his hometurf. Luck was better so we will have to agree to disagree :thmup:

It's more about TD% than total TDs. It's simply the offensive scheme. Not saying Luck was bad. Just saying by just about every stat except total TDs for a couple years, Watson was better.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

It's more about TD% than total TDs. It's simply the offensive scheme. Not saying Luck was bad. Just saying by just about every stat except total TDs for a couple years, Watson was better.

I am not saying Watson is bad either. I am on record saying Watson is a top 5 QB in the league right now and I defend him a lot. I am just saying if you give me a roster that is identical and I have my choice of QB, I am taking Luck over Watson. It is very close but I trust Luck more by a hair, JMO.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I am not saying Watson is bad either. I am on record saying Watson is a top 5 QB in the league right now and I defend him a lot. I am just saying if you give me a roster that is identical and I have my choice of QB, I am taking Luck over Watson. It is very close but I trust Luck more by a hair, JMO.

You're hanging your hat entirely on TDs, and ignoring every other indicator. I prefer Luck's skill set too (and scheme), but he was in a scheme that stressed passing. Watson in a different scheme, yet the majority of his passing stats are still better than Luck's. There's a whole lot of context to consider. JMO. Then factor Watson can stay healthy and doesn't snowboard. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

You're hanging your hat entirely on TDs, and ignoring every other indicator. I prefer Luck's skill set too (and scheme), but he was in a scheme that stressed passing. Watson in a different scheme, yet the majority of his passing stats are still better than Luck's. There's a whole lot of context to consider. JMO. Then factor Watson can stay healthy and doesn't snowboard. 

Wipe Out Lol GIF by Outside TV

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

image.png.00ee98e023688a2a7c50831fd9e822ac.png

 

Did you believe the Colts were going to win a Super Bowl with Rivers? Would you be happy if the Colts brought in Fitzpatrick this year and then they brought in Big Ben next year? What about bringing in Kirk Cousins in 2023 and 2024? At some point the future has to start and the sooner the better. 

 

IMO waiting on a QB is never the right answer and he should have attempted to address it long term last year. You can't tell me its the most important position and put it anywhere but #1 on your priority list. I will admit hindsight is 20/20 but if the Colts decided to address QB last year we may have Herbert on this team right now. We will be able to play this game of who the Colts could/should of had forever until he makes a real decision on the position. That happened with Wentz.

 

Its sort of funny that Ballard (and almost everyone here) says the more darts you can throw at the board the better your chances of hitting a bullseye. Why doesn't that apply to QB? 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

Luck couldn't carry Watson's jock or Wilson's for that matter or Stafford's and many more. He was never in range of Big Ben, Rodgers and many more. He just didn't have "it". He tried to apply a linebacker's mentality to QB and it damned near got him killed. I call that low football IQ. Brilliant man but not about football.

 

Ok, here is an interesting question for you. If both Watson and Luck were to be available to GM's having watched their pro NFL film and know their NFL skill set....but now they're starting over as rookies...

 

How many GM's choose Luck, and how many choose Watson. 

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

 

Did you believe the Colts were going to win a Super Bowl with Rivers? Would you be happy if the Colts brought in Fitzpatrick this year and then they brought in Big Ben next year? What about bringing in Kirk Cousins in 2023 and 2024? At some point the future has to start and the sooner the better. 

 

IMO waiting on a QB is never the right answer and he should have attempted to address it long term last year. You can't tell me its the most important position and put it anywhere but #1 on your priority list. I will admit hindsight is 20/20 but if the Colts decided to address QB last year we may have Herbert on this team right now. We will be able to play this game of who the Colts could/should of had forever until he makes a real decision on the position. That happened with Wentz.

 

Its sort of funny that Ballard (and almost everyone here) says the more darts you can throw at the board the better your chances of hitting a bullseye. Why doesn't that apply to QB? 

 

I responded to the comment you made that Ballard hasn't tried to find the answer at QB. You act like it's been years with the comments you made. 

He went into last year with a starting QB in Luck and was dealt a bad hand and you want to point a negative finger at him because he could.t find a equal talented QB before the start of last season. 

Sorry, that deserves a "huh". 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Ok, here is an interesting question for you. If both Watson and Luck were to be available to GM's having watched their pro NFL film and know their NFL skill set....but now they're starting over as rookies...

 

How many GM's choose Luck, and how many choose Watson. 

I bet it would be split pretty close to the middle.  Knowing Luck could retire early would be worrisome.   Knowing Watson may insist on coaching and management decisions could be worrisome.  It'd be a nice problem to have.  

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

 

Did you believe the Colts were going to win a Super Bowl with Rivers? Would you be happy if the Colts brought in Fitzpatrick this year and then they brought in Big Ben next year? What about bringing in Kirk Cousins in 2023 and 2024? At some point the future has to start and the sooner the better. 

 

IMO waiting on a QB is never the right answer and he should have attempted to address it long term last year. You can't tell me its the most important position and put it anywhere but #1 on your priority list. I will admit hindsight is 20/20 but if the Colts decided to address QB last year we may have Herbert on this team right now. We will be able to play this game of who the Colts could/should of had forever until he makes a real decision on the position. That happened with Wentz.

 

Its sort of funny that Ballard (and almost everyone here) says the more darts you can throw at the board the better your chances of hitting a bullseye. Why doesn't that apply to QB? 

 

This is a very poor post.   Move up to the 6th spot to draft Herbert, eh?   So we wouldn't have Buckner, Pittman or Taylor and other picks in that scenario.   It might be worth it.   Unless Herbert didn't work out.   Then you gave up the farm for a risk.   Ballard brought in Rivers who went 11-5.   Drafted Eason.  Now he brought in Wentz.   Seems some darts have been thrown.  I think Ballard has done great with the QB while keeping the team solid and competitive.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Myles said:

This is a very poor post.   Move up to the 6th spot to draft Herbert, eh?   So we wouldn't have Buckner, Pittman or Taylor and other picks in that scenario.   It might be worth it.   Unless Herbert didn't work out.   Then you gave up the farm for a risk.   Ballard brought in Rivers who went 11-5.   Drafted Eason.  Now he brought in Wentz.   Seems some darts have been thrown.  I think Ballard has done great with the QB while keeping the team solid and competitive.  

 

I would trade DeFo (and his contract), Pitt and Taylor for Herbert in a heartbeat...and I am a huge Taylor fan. QBs are just that valuable...especially one like Herbert on a rookie deal. The Colts would have nearly twice as much cap space as they do now in this scenario (because they wouldn't have taken on Wentz's deal). They could very likely sign a top FA WR and target some cap-strapped team to get their hands on an impact DL player.

 

And I would gladly a 3rd round pick, a 2022 1st round pick and whatever else it might have taken to move up and draft a QB this year.

 

This team has taken half-measures at QB since Luck retired. It might work...it might not...this remains to be seen.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

I would trade DeFo (and his contract), Pitt and Taylor for Herbert in a heartbeat...and I am a huge Taylor fan. QBs are just that valuable...especially one like Herbert on a rookie deal. The Colts would have nearly twice as much cap space as they do now in this scenario (because they wouldn't have taken on Wentz's deal). They could very likely sign a top FA WR and target some cap-strapped team to get their hands on an impact DL player.

 

 

 

At this time, I would too.   But it isn't as much of a gamble now.  Would you have bee fine with the same trade but drafting Trubisky, who was also mocked to go in the later half of the top 10.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Myles said:

This is a very poor post.   Move up to the 6th spot to draft Herbert, eh?   So we wouldn't have Buckner, Pittman or Taylor and other picks in that scenario.   It might be worth it.   Unless Herbert didn't work out.   Then you gave up the farm for a risk.   Ballard brought in Rivers who went 11-5.   Drafted Eason.  Now he brought in Wentz.   Seems some darts have been thrown.  I think Ballard has done great with the QB while keeping the team solid and competitive.  

Are you serious right now? Do you honestly think the Chargers would trade Herbert right now today for Buckner, Pittman and Taylor? Not in a million years. It sounds like you're suggesting that price would be too high for the Colts to pay?

 

Did you see what it took to get Matt Stafford? Do you hear what it would take to get Watson or Wilson? The entire NFL knows what half of this forum doesn't seem to understand - a franchise QB is worth whatever it costs to get them and you get them whenever you can. You know the best way not to give up 3 firsts and 2 seconds for Watson? Draft one yourself. Ballard knew 1000000% that Luck wasn't coming back last year and you're happy that he got a DT, RB, and WR instead of a franchise QB? If Ballard thinks a team will win a Super Bowl with average QB play that's supported by an All Pro DT he's wrong and so are you if you think average QB's win Super Bowls. 

 

Its also so funny to me that in this SPECIFIC thread I hear nonstop that Grigson only got good results because he drafted a great QB. His record and playoff wins dont count because he drafted a great QB. Then why aren't you and everyone else on this forum destroying Ballard for NOT drafting a great QB? Heck that's all it takes right, just ask Grigson?

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mitch Connors said:

Are you serious right now? Do you honestly think the Chargers would trade Herbert right now today for Buckner, Pittman and Taylor? Not in a million years. It sounds like you're suggesting that price would be too high for the Colts to pay?

 

Did you see what it took to get Matt Stafford? Do you hear what it would take to get Watson or Wilson? The entire NFL knows what half of this forum doesn't seem to understand - a franchise QB is worth whatever it costs to get them and you get them whenever you can. You know the best way not to give up 3 firsts and 2 seconds for Watson? Draft one yourself. Ballard knew 1000000% that Luck wasn't coming back last year and you're happy that he got a DT, RB, and WR instead of a franchise QB? If Ballard thinks a team will win a Super Bowl with average QB play that's supported by an All Pro DT he's wrong and so are you if you think average QB's win Super Bowls. 

 

Its also so funny to me that in this SPECIFIC thread I hear nonstop that Grigson only got good results because he drafted a great QB. His record and playoff wins dont count because he drafted a great QB. Then why aren't you and everyone else on this forum destroying Ballard for NOT drafting a great QB? Heck that's all it takes right, just ask Grigson?

 

You are too emotional.   I was speaking of trading for an unknown.   So you would have been fine making that trade to draft Trubisky, who was predicted to go in the same draft position as Herbert?

  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

Are you serious right now? Do you honestly think the Chargers would trade Herbert right now today for Buckner, Pittman and Taylor? Not in a million years. It sounds like you're suggesting that price would be too high for the Colts to pay?

 

Did you see what it took to get Matt Stafford? Do you hear what it would take to get Watson or Wilson? The entire NFL knows what half of this forum doesn't seem to understand - a franchise QB is worth whatever it costs to get them and you get them whenever you can. You know the best way not to give up 3 firsts and 2 seconds for Watson? Draft one yourself. Ballard knew 1000000% that Luck wasn't coming back last year and you're happy that he got a DT, RB, and WR instead of a franchise QB? If Ballard thinks a team will win a Super Bowl with average QB play that's supported by an All Pro DT he's wrong and so are you if you think average QB's win Super Bowls. 

 

Its also so funny to me that in this SPECIFIC thread I hear nonstop that Grigson only got good results because he drafted a great QB. His record and playoff wins dont count because he drafted a great QB. Then why aren't you and everyone else on this forum destroying Ballard for NOT drafting a great QB? Heck that's all it takes right, just ask Grigson?

 

It helps when you're drafting #1 overall 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

A. Ballard knew 1000000% that Luck wasn't coming back last year and you're happy that he got a DT, RB, and WR instead of a franchise QB? If Ballard thinks a team will win a Super Bowl with average QB play that's supported by an All Pro DT he's wrong and so are you if you think average QB's win Super Bowls. 

 

 

 

We didn't sniff a SuperBowl with a very good QB in Luck because the roster was not good.   If Wentz can regain his form, we will have a very good QB on a very good team.  Nice job Ballard.  

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

You are too emotional.   I was speaking of trading for an unknown.   So you would have been fine making that trade to draft Trubisky, who was predicted to go in the same draft position as Herbert?

  

100% yes I would trade up to get a QB and Id keep drafting them until I found one. 

 

Almost 100% of the time a franchise is turned around from bad to good you can isolate 1 pick that did it. And its always a QB.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mitch Connors said:

How many teams in the playoffs last year had a starting QB that wasn't drafted in the first round?

 

100 % of the teams that won the Super Bowl last year didn't

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvan1973 said:

100 % of the teams that won the Super Bowl last year didn't

 

No point beating a dead horse. You can marginalize the conversation by leaning on the greatest outlier in all of sporting history and ignore all the other data but I'll not stick around for that. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

Did you believe the Colts were going to win a Super Bowl with Rivers? Would you be happy if the Colts brought in Fitzpatrick this year and then they brought in Big Ben next year? What about bringing in Kirk Cousins in 2023 and 2024? At some point the future has to start and the sooner the better. 

 

IMO waiting on a QB is never the right answer and he should have attempted to address it long term last year. You can't tell me its the most important position and put it anywhere but #1 on your priority list. I will admit hindsight is 20/20 but if the Colts decided to address QB last year we may have Herbert on this team right now. We will be able to play this game of who the Colts could/should of had forever until he makes a real decision on the position. That happened with Wentz.

 

Its sort of funny that Ballard (and almost everyone here) says the more darts you can throw at the board the better your chances of hitting a bullseye. Why doesn't that apply to QB? 

 

 

Wentz is the first real dart throw...but it's still somewhat of a half-measure. And this has really been the theme since Luck got retired.

 

First, they tried to turn the backup QB into a franchise QB by giving him money and trying to speak it into existence.

 

Second, they signed a very old vet QB with a very good track record that had experience with Reich to a low-risk one-year deal to make a push.

 

Third, they finally traded some real draft capital for a younger post-hype QB (already under contract) who had fallen out of favor with his former team. But they even hedged this move by making one of those picks conditional...because even they know this move is a risky move that they aren't 100% confident in.

 

But it's not surprising...because these moves sort of follow a theme or a philosophical approach to the QB position. And maybe it's just coincidental...but there are a lot of parallels between the moves made by Ballard's previous org.'s and the moves made by the Colts. 

 

CHI (2001-2012)

  • Drafted (1) QB in the 1st round and that was Rex Grossman at #22 in 2003. CHI had the #4 pick that year and traded back for #13 and #22. Not only did they trade back to #13, they didn't even take a QB with that pick. (That seems like a very Ballard type of move if you ask me.)
  • The only other QB drafted in the top 4 rounds during his entire tenure was Kyle Orton, in the 4th round of 2005 draft. 
  • After the initial options don't work, and because CHI is stuck in QB purgatory by being no worse than 7-9, CHI makes a big trade and sends Orton and picks to DEN for Jay Cutler, a former 1st round pick QB thought to have huge upside. 
  • But Cutler also came with some potential locker room issues and had requested a trade after his relationship with their HC became irreconcilable. (Sounds very familiar).
  • Cutler has some success in CHI, but only wins (1) playoff game in 8 years at QB. 

KC (2013 - 2017)

  • Ballard arrives in KC after the 2013 draft. In March, KC had traded (2) 2nd round picks for Alex Smith, with one of those picks being conditional upon playing time. (This is very similar to the type of offer that Ballard gave to PHI.)
  • Smith was a former #1 overall pick QB who had ups and down...and had just been replaced by a backup QB...coincidentally also a 2nd round pick. He had reportedly been working back channels to get out of SF. (Sounds familiar again.)
  • Through Reid's coaching, Smith is actually a pretty damn good QB, but KC only wins (1) playoff game in five seasons (the same number as Cutler in CHI).
  • During this time, KC doesn't draft a QB before the 5th round until 2017 when Ballard is already in Indy. At that point, they make an aggressive trade up in the NFL draft for Mahomes and let Smith mentor him for a season before trading Smith to WAS.

So based on this timeline, the Colts are currently several years away from actually drafting a legit QB and thus competing for SBs. I am kidding of course. But there are a lot of parallels here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

No point beating a dead horse. You can marginalize the conversation by leaning on the greatest outlier in all of sporting history and ignore all the other data but I'll not stick around for that. 

Even if Brady was a first rounder,   the bucs didn't spend a first on him.   He was a free agent.   Manning went to 2 super bowls in denver.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Myles said:

At this time, I would too.   But it isn't as much of a gamble now.  Would you have bee fine with the same trade but drafting Trubisky, who was also mocked to go in the later half of the top 10.  

 

No...but I would have done that move for the two QBs drafted after him. We would just have to assume that Ballard is not Ryan Pace and that he wouldn't draft Tribuskaye.

 

But of course it's a gamble. Addressing QB is a challenge nearly all teams must face. And it's what separates teams. That's what made KC a perennial playoff team that would lose on WC weekend into the #1 team in the NFL. Or takes a perennial 8-8 team like BUF and makes them into a team that can compete with a team like KC. 

 

Trading (with conditions) for a QB coming off a terrible season is a gamble as well. It's just less of a gamble because Reich knows Wentz and because of a perceived lower cost...and because they can bail pretty quickly. Which is exactly why it's a half-measure. They know they aren't committing to Wentz any further than the first 75% of next season. I can understand the appeal of that...but with a position like QB...I am not convinced it will get them where they want to go.

 

But we will just have to see it play out.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

If Ballard thinks a team will win a Super Bowl with average QB play that's supported by an All Pro DT he's wrong and so are you if you think average QB's win Super Bowls. 

 

Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD
Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD
Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD
Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco (MVP), 3TDs
Super Bowl 52: Nick Foles (MVP), 3 TDs
 

Here are some average QB's who won the Super Bowl.  Great supporting casts.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Four2itus said:

Ok, here is an interesting question for you. If both Watson and Luck were to be available to GM's having watched their pro NFL film and know their NFL skill set....but now they're starting over as rookies...

 

How many GM's choose Luck, and how many choose Watson. 

Watson and it isn't even close. He might get to a Super Bowl with a good team. Luck wouldn't.

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

Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD
Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD
Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD
Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco (MVP), 3TDs
Super Bowl 52: Nick Foles (MVP), 3 TDs
 

Here are some average QB's who won the Super Bowl.  Great supporting casts.

 

Dilfer and Johnson were a long time ago. NFL has changed since then.

 

You basically have Flacco...who had a historical playoff performance...the highest QBR of all time. And then you have Foles...who was not far behind Flacco but he was also the backup QB (not their plan A for the season).

 

If the argument is that an average QB with a great supporting cast gives you the best chance to win a SB...I strongly disagree.

 

 

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

 

No...but I would have done that move for the two QBs drafted after him. We would just have to assume that Ballard is not Ryan Pace and that he wouldn't draft Tribuskaye.

 

But of course it's a gamble. Addressing QB is a challenge nearly all teams must face. And it's what separates teams. That's what made KC a perennial playoff team that would lose on WC weekend into the #1 team in the NFL. Or takes a perennial 8-8 team like BUF and makes them into a team that can compete with a team like KC. 

 

Trading (with conditions) for a QB coming off a terrible season is a gamble as well. It's just less of a gamble because Reich knows Wentz and because of a perceived lower cost...and because they can bail pretty quickly. Which is exactly why it's a half-measure. They know they aren't committing to Wentz any further than the first 75% of next season. I can understand the appeal of that...but with a position like QB...I am not convinced it will get them where they want to go.

 

But we will just have to see it play out.

 

 

 

 

 

All of what you say may be true.    But it doesn't matter.

 

In the judgement of Ballard and Reich,  acquiring Wentz for the price that they did was the best option they had.    It may never get us to the Super Bowl.     We had Andrew Luck and didn't.    We had Peyton Manning and went to two, and there are many who are STILL angry we only went to two.

 

But we want to be competitive,    We want to make it to the playoffs.   You can't reach the Super Bowl without making the playoffs.     And Wentz, assuming he gets "fixed" should be able to get us to the playoffs.     At that point,  you do the best you can and take your chances.     Who was calling Tampa the SB favorites?     No one, as far as I can tell.    They caught lightning in a bottle.   They got hot at the right time.    So did the NY Giants with Eli --- twice.    It happens.   Sometimes the breaks go your way.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

If the argument is that an average QB with a great supporting cast gives you the best chance to win a SB...I strongly disagree.

That's not the argument on my behalf.  Never said it gives you the best chance.  My point is that Super Bowl's have and can be won with average QB's if you have a great supporting cast.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

Dilfer and Johnson were a long time ago. NFL has changed since then.

 

You basically have Flacco...who had a historical playoff performance...the highest QBR of all time. And then you have Foles...who was not far behind Flacco but he was also the backup QB (not their plan A for the season).

 

If the argument is that an average QB with a great supporting cast gives you the best chance to win a SB...I strongly disagree.

 

 

How about the Old Colts with Johnny U. They won championships and he wasn't close to be first round.

 

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

Watson and it isn't even close. He might get to a Super Bowl with a good team. Luck wouldn't.

Nonsense.    

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

Luck was a total disaster. He ran up some numbers but he wasn't anything other teams worried about playing against. He never won a big game in his life. I am not a fan of quitters. 

He has won bigger games than Watson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

Luck was a total disaster. He ran up some numbers but he wasn't anything other teams worried about playing against. He never won a big game in his life. I am not a fan of quitters. 


Wow.   This has gone from bad to worse. 
 

Good luck with this.    :peek:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Nonsense.    

Thank you someone had to say it and I’m glad it didn’t have to be me. 

 

3 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

Luck was a total disaster. He ran up some numbers but he wasn't anything other teams worried about playing against. He never won a big game in his life. I am not a fan of quitters. 

This is the most ridiculous hot take I’ve seen in a long awhile

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of Trent Richardson came up this morning in our fantasy football league chat. We have a resident Pats fan who is just one of those Pats fans you love to hate. Just an absolutely abhorrent dude to be around. 
 

Anyways, when Richardson’s name came up he said that he “was somewhat productive” for us, and that Luck helped open up things for him that the Browns could not. I made a screenshot just so no one would think I’m lying. Someone seriously called Richardson’s time here “somewhat productive”. 
 

DB6338-B2-ACCC-4-C04-ABFA-48-C3014-BB079

 

The whole point being, until Ballard gets fleeced half this bad there just isn’t a comparison between the two. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pretty bizarre discussions going on here.  First of all, I think it is a joke to say that Luck wasn't as good as Watson.  Someone is drinking the Watson kool aid.   Let's break down a few things.  What has Watson ever won in the NFL?  And don't tell me the guy didn't have talent around him. He played with Watt, Hopkins, and Clowney to name a few.  And I will never forget something Venturi said about him.  He said keep Watson on the pocket and he becomes a very average QB.  Everything this year is talking about Watson like it would take 4 #1 picks to get him.  What a joke.  So he puts up a bunch of garbage stats when they are losing?  Wow, that is impressive.  I hope he does he traded, because unless he goes to a team like the Saints, I think he will be exposed.

 

It is stunning in hindsight to see what Luck was working with most of his career. Other than AC at LT, most of the time Grigson had castoffs from other teams in front of him.  Same with the entire defense.  Boom Herron running the ball.  It is amazing how bad Grigson was at bringing in players.  The one time Luck plays under Reich he throws 39 TDs after starting the season slow and not playing the previous year.  And that is with only one good receiver, TY Hilton.  We won playoff games with him we had no business winning.  The other teams were much more talented.  

 

I admit I didn't fully appreciate Luck until after he left and then went back and looked at who he had around him compared to the how the team is now.  Had Luck been on this current team, I think there would have been several SB rings on his fingers.  To say Watson or Wilson is better than him is a joke.  Wilson is another guy that the love to talk up, but the fact is the guy can't consistently move the ball.  He is hit or miss.  He makes one read and then starts running around.  He is the biggest reason why he gets sacked so much.  He has always had really good talent around him. Look at the receivers he played with last year?  A speedster and a superman.  And at times, they still couldn't score points.  They won because of the Legion Of Boom.  Wilson was the caretaker.  Luck was a far superior QB to either of these guys, if you compare what talent they had around them and winning games.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, joecolts said:

Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD
Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD
Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD
Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco (MVP), 3TDs
Super Bowl 52: Nick Foles (MVP), 3 TDs
 

Here are some average QB's who won the Super Bowl.  Great supporting casts.

I think you could add that Peyton Manning was very average when he won Super Bowl 50 during his final season, 2015. He threw nine TD passes that year and 17 interceptions. Had a QB rating of 67.9, compared to his career average of 96.5. 

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

That's not the argument on my behalf.  Never said it gives you the best chance.  My point is that Super Bowl's have and can be won with average QB's if you have a great supporting cast.


Fair enough...but there are outliers for most things. Why point them out if you aren’t using them to refute the OP’s claim about the best approach? Sounds like you are at least using those examples to validate having an average QB. 

 

I mean...I am sure statistically poor defenses (which would be a big part of a supporting cast) have won SBs, likely by playing at a high level for a stretch. In fact, Colts fans saw this firsthand. 
 

But just because it has happened, it doesn’t mean that makes it a good or valid approach. 
 

A team can’t guarantee results...it can only take the best approach. And I think that approach begins with QB.

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...