Veteran NFL scout on Stanford QB Andrew Luck: "I don't think this kid is special in any way except his intangibles."

[Jason_]

I did not even have to root against them hardly at all. I knew they were going to lose most games. I picked them to lose all but one game last season in my group. (which I won btw )

What I felt or did had no impact on anything. I was pretty optimistic they might suprise and win a few many did not think they would, like the game vs. Pittsburgh. I felt that game was actually a season changer. After that loss I felt they would keep losing. If they had won that game I felt they might have won a few soon.

Of course it didn't. None of what anyone on this boards thinks, says or feels has any impact on anything Colts-related. It does, however, help to point out the growing hypocrisy in some people who continually say one thing but do another.

[Gavin]

actually I gotta agree it does make Demon honest. see giving ones opinion on a person being a troll and someone actually trolling which certain people have done in the past (no names) makes certain people trolls so theirfore Demon wasnt trolling he was just calling out one that in Im sure a few people eyes has trolled in the past

[Jules]

Of course it didn't. None of what anyone on this boards thinks, says or feels has any impact on anything Colts-related. It does, however, help to point out the growing hypocrisy in some people who continually say one thing but do another.

I guess we can't win them all. Nobody is perfect.

Such is life.

[Demon]

Your post not only added nothing to the discussion but also questioned another fan's fan-hood which is against the TOS and there have been numerous reminders from the mods about not doing this. So those two factors could easily, imo, classify your post as trolling.

If you think I'm trolling by pointing out the obvious, you are wrong. It has more to do with the fact that Jaz is constantly repeating himself - call it sophisticated trolling if you will. I think most people are aware of his dislike to Luck, yet he continue to find new ways to tell us.

[Fx Stryker]

I did not even have to root against them hardly at all. I knew they were going to lose most games. I picked them to lose all but one game last season in my group. (which I won btw )

What I felt or did had no impact on anything. I was pretty optimistic they might suprise and win a few many did not think they would, like the game vs. Pittsburgh. I felt that game was actually a season changer. After that loss I felt they would keep losing. If they had won that game I felt they might have won a few soon.

So why question team pride? They got blown out once. They lost by an average of two scores, field goal and a touchdown. Minus the Saints game they lost by one score. In '09 we could of been 7-9. That year we just happened to be on the right side of the "one score." So to say we were blown out this season is an exaggeration. We were just happened to be on the wrong side of the "one score."

[Jules]

So why question team pride? They got blown out once. They lost by an average of two scores, field goal and a touchdown. Minus the Saints game they lost by one score. In '09 we could of been 7-9. That year we just happened to be on the right side of the "one score." So to say we were blown out this season is an exaggeration. We were just happened to be on the wrong side of the "one score."

TBH I was sorta questioning the pride of things since week 16 against the Jets. Not that it was the players fault but I think I was becoming iffier and iffier on Polian and son since that week. And Caldwell.

Honestly, I hate to get into this discussion so maybe we should end it now.

I was a bit relieved when Irsay did some cleansing at the top when the season ended.

[Gavin]

Irsay is the owner its by all rights his team, he need not consult us on his decisions even if we have good ones thats how trouble starts everyone wants chiefs no one realizes they are better off as indians (no I am not racist) but ya get my point

His team= His decisions, he did what he thought was best, I happen to agree with him

time to look forward

[Fx Stryker]

TBH I was sorta questioning the pride of things since week 16 against the Jets. Not that it was the players fault but I think I was becoming iffier and iffier on Polian and son since that week. And Caldwell.

Honestly, I hate to get into this discussion so maybe we should end it now.

I was a bit relieved when Irsay did some cleansing at the top when the season ended.

Question the leaders of the team, but Polian, Chris, or Caldwell are not our team. Irsay isn't our team for that matter. The team was the current players. Not the future, not the prospected, but the current. So questioning their pride was unnecessary.

[Jason_]

Because if you're calling it now, it would hardly class as unexpected?

I don't understand though - you're saying Foles is not only a better passer than Luck and Griffin, but significantly better. Judging by your previous post, the only positive you seem to see in Luck over others is a learning curve, Foles included. Therefore why would you not think Foles is a better QB than Luck? Genuine question.

I'm not calling it now. Foles' stock was on the rise all season long. He started out being a 3rd/4th round pick in September and steadily rose to the point of being a late first to early second round pick by the end of the college season and was gaining ground on being considered as the consensus #3 QB in this draft. His lack of athleticism would have prevented him from surpassing Luck or RG3. However, Arizona didn't qualify for a bowl game so his stock sort of stymied (no idea if that's really how you spell that lol) whereas Luck, Weeden, Griffin etc did not. Then came the combine and then Arizona's pro-day. Didn't watch any of this myself but it was after this that Foles stock fell again. I still don't know the specifics of what happened but have only been able to find issues with his spiral at his pro day which was partially due to inclement weather. Not saying that weather is an excuse because in the NFL you don't just get to play games indoors or in perfect weather conditions.

Why isn't Foles a better overall QB than Luck? It takes a lot more than just accuracy to be a successful NFL QB. I think that Foles does a lot of things very well and that he possesses all of the required traits that you'd want in a franchise QB. However, Luck has some bonus abilities such as his athleticism. Foles has very good pocket presence but is not really a mobile QB. I'd compare him to a Jay Cutler in that regard. He can manipulate the pocket to buy time but if he takes off to run he's probably going to get you about 5-7 yards at the most whereas Luck has the speed to get more like a 10-15 yard gain. Luck has (from what the experts say) the proven ability to read the defense and call his own plays at the LOS whereas Foles was not afforded the opportunity until the final 2 or 3 games of the season after Arizona's Head Coach was fired. He did get the chance in those last couple of games to call his own plays in spurts but because it wasn't explored until that late in his career it was not something he was able to develop. Some of the experts say that Foles played in a very simplistic offense that didn't require pre-snap reading of the defense so he is inferior to Luck in that regard as well. Still though, imo it's hard to say how accurate that is because whether he was reading the defense pre-snap or post-snap, Foles was very successful the majority of the time.

I think that Foles would be a perfect developmental QB to bring in for a team that can work with him for a year or so on reading defenses and things like that. Unless he turns out to be a complete head-case like Leaf was then I do think Foles will be a mid to late round steal for some team because I fully believe he has all the physical tools to be a successful QB.

[Jason_]

TBH I was sorta questioning the pride of things since week 16 against the Jets. Not that it was the players fault but I think I was becoming iffier and iffier on Polian and son since that week. And Caldwell.

Honestly, I hate to get into this discussion so maybe we should end it now.

I was a bit relieved when Irsay did some cleansing at the top when the season ended.

That part I definitely agree with, only I'd say I was definitely more than just a bit relieved. lol

[Dan]

I'm not calling it now. Foles' stock was on the rise all season long. He started out being a 3rd/4th round pick in September and steadily rose to the point of being a late first to early second round pick by the end of the college season and was gaining ground on being considered as the consensus #3 QB in this draft. His lack of athleticism would have prevented him from surpassing Luck or RG3. However, Arizona didn't qualify for a bowl game so his stock sort of stymied (no idea if that's really how you spell that lol) whereas Luck, Weeden, Griffin etc did not. Then came the combine and then Arizona's pro-day. Didn't watch any of this myself but it was after this that Foles stock fell again. I still don't know the specifics of what happened but have only been able to find issues with his spiral at his pro day which was partially due to inclement weather. Not saying that weather is an excuse because in the NFL you don't just get to play games indoors or in perfect weather conditions.

Why isn't Foles a better overall QB than Luck? It takes a lot more than just accuracy to be a successful NFL QB. I think that Foles does a lot of things very well and that he possesses all of the required traits that you'd want in a franchise QB. However, Luck has some bonus abilities such as his athleticism. Foles has very good pocket presence but is not really a mobile QB. I'd compare him to a Jay Cutler in that regard. He can manipulate the pocket to buy time but if he takes off to run he's probably going to get you about 5-7 yards at the most whereas Luck has the speed to get more like a 10-15 yard gain. Luck has (from what the experts say) the proven ability to read the defense and call his own plays at the LOS whereas Foles was not afforded the opportunity until the final 2 or 3 games of the season after Arizona's Head Coach was fired. He did get the chance in those last couple of games to call his own plays in spurts but because it wasn't explored until that late in his career it was not something he was able to develop. Some of the experts say that Foles played in a very simplistic offense that didn't require pre-snap reading of the defense so he is inferior to Luck in that regard as well. Still though, imo it's hard to say how accurate that is because whether he was reading the defense pre-snap or post-snap, Foles was very successful the majority of the time.

I think that Foles would be a perfect developmental QB to bring in for a team that can work with him for a year or so on reading defenses and things like that. Unless he turns out to be a complete head-case like Leaf was then I do think Foles will be a mid to late round steal for some team because I fully believe he has all the physical tools to be a successful QB.

A very interesting and well reasoned response.

I assume you watched/have seen footage of Andrew Luck's pro day? He faced conditions similar to those Foles faced, if slightly worse. Out of 50 passes, 48 were bang on the money, every scout watching commented on how incredible his accuracy was that day, in particular on the 70 yard bomb into the wind we all know so well! Foles, on the other hand, didn't seem to have quite the accuracy. ". "[Foles] was terrible. He couldn't throw a spiral. Obviously, the weather conditions played a part in that but in reality, it only accentuated that he couldn't throw a spiral." Not glowing words from a scout there to watch him... other reports seem to say his accuracy is solid at times but also can be streaky and erratic as he struggles with progressions and decision making, as well as this he has problems with touch and doesn't seem to know when to take something off his throws - Luck's touch at different levels is something he's been praised for by many different people. Thus it would seem to me, Luck is a better passer.

He could well be a good developmental product, though. I've seen comparisons to Chad Henne which wouldn't instill me with confidence. It's interesting to hear how well you think of him, though, and as with all rookie QBs I'll be keeping a keen eye on him.

[Coltssouth]

This thread has been cleaned up. A reminder of the forum rules:

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Personal attacks are not Allowed. We will not tolerate personal attacks. While you may argue about the football-related actions, decisions or comments of an individual, you may not attack the individuals themselves. The Ownership, Coaching, Players, Staff and all members should be afforded the same respect as one another. Threads with the intention to "call out" another member or question their "fanhood" are not allowed.

Lets discuss the topic, not the other posters please.

[Jay305]

OMG... how about "we" consider the source? IE OP.

Crap please dont tell anyone im an NFL scout

[Jay305]

I remember that game. Really ugly performance. The lucky bounce, the possible INT's when throwing into traffic on multiple occasions, the backwards pass, obviously nothing but spread plays, poor deep ball accuracy/chemistry, looked to scramble far too often, held the ball too long via improvisation (aka Roethlisberger style), took some vicious hits (those hits at the NFL level could be injuries) and a bad snap. Granted, it's hard to blame RGIII on all of that, but this kid to me never did look like a 1st overall pick.

Some people say RGIII does not scramble as some suggest, but you wouldn't know it watching this game!

Yet he still persevered and won the game. We also have Roethlisbergers old OC who did alright with the improvisation to the tune of two sbs

[Jason_]

A very interesting and well reasoned response.

I assume you watched/have seen footage of Andrew Luck's pro day? He faced conditions similar to those Foles faced, if slightly worse.

I have seen some brief footage of Luck's pro-day but saw none of Foles'. I do know that Luck was throwing with a lot of wind blowing but I believe it was raining at Arizona's pro-day...so the weather, from my understanding, was worse for Foles than for Luck. Again though, I'm not going to let weather be an excuse (and I don't think Foles would use that as an excuse) because a QB is going to have to throw in all types of conditions.

Out of 50 passes, 48 were bang on the money, every scout watching commented on how incredible his accuracy was that day, in particular on the 70 yard bomb into the wind we all know so well!

I agree. The passes I saw from Luck at his pro-day were as accurate as they could have been. He was incredible at his pro-day, there's no way I'd try to take that away from him. I can't say the same for what I saw of him in game though. He was consistently inaccurate (usually throwing high) on the deep out and comeback routes, 2 very important routes in most NFL offenses. Foles was more accurate on these types of throws on a more consistent basis.

Foles, on the other hand, didn't seem to have quite the accuracy. ". "[Foles] was terrible. He couldn't throw a spiral. Obviously, the weather conditions played a part in that but in reality, it only accentuated that he couldn't throw a spiral." Not glowing words from a scout there to watch him...

Well like I said, I didn't see any footage of Foles' pro-day but I don't doubt it was a poor showing. His performance has been pretty consistently referred to as poor and disappointing. I don't know what his problem was at the pro-day nor why he performed so poorly. Maybe he just had an off day...every player has them. I'm not trying to make excuses, but at the same time I don't think it's at all fair to grade him just on his pro-day performance without considering the rest of his body of work as a collegiate QB. No, his win-loss record is nothing compared to guys like Luck, Griffin, Kellen Moore, Brandon Weeden etc but at the same time, he didn't have nearly the same caliber team around him as those guys.

other reports seem to say his accuracy is solid at times but also can be streaky and erratic as he struggles with progressions and decision making, as well as this he has problems with touch and doesn't seem to know when to take something off his throws - Luck's touch at different levels is something he's been praised for by many different people. Thus it would seem to me, Luck is a better passer.

Yes I will admit that Foles' accuracy can be streaky, but the same is true of every QB to some degree, even Luck. Luck gets rattled in the face of pressure too. For those who think he has no weaknesses at all, that simply isn't true. Everyone has weaknesses and like most QB's, one of Luck's is getting rattled under pressure. And yes I genuinely believe that Foles is better under pressure than Luck. However, a lot of that was due to the protection Luck was afforded on a pretty consistent basis. Yes, Stanford's offensive line did struggle at times, but they were very solid for the most part. Arizona's offensive line consisted of 5 starters who were first time starters. They struggled all the time so Foles was consistently under pressure whereas Luck was not. So, just like Luck is better at calling his own plays because he was able to do it consistently and develop the ability, Foles was able to develop the ability to handle the pass rush because he was never afforded the protection that Luck was.

He could well be a good developmental product, though. I've seen comparisons to Chad Henne which wouldn't instill me with confidence. It's interesting to hear how well you think of him, though, and as with all rookie QBs I'll be keeping a keen eye on him.

Yeah I recently saw the comparison to Henne. I've also seen comparisons to Phillip Rivers. Personally I think the best comparison is to Jay Cutler but with (imo) better accuracy.

So yeah, I know that Foles' stock has really dropped recently because of a poor showing at his pro-day and that's fair. However, I also know the player that I watched week in and week out and I know what I believe to be his potential in game. I guess it's like when people talk about a player who has a slow 40 yard dash time but try to explain it by saying they play the game much faster then they're timed. Or something like that.

[Fx Stryker]

I agree. The passes I saw from Luck at his pro-day were as accurate as they could have been. He was incredible at his pro-day, there's no way I'd try to take that away from him. I can't say the same for what I saw of him in game though. He was consistently inaccurate (usually throwing high) on the deep out and comeback routes, 2 very important routes in most NFL offenses. Foles was more accurate on these types of throws on a more consistent basis.

The only thing I had a problem with is Luck missed both of his fade throws in the corner of the endzone. He over threw the first, and the second Fleener had to turn and jump to catch it. I've seen Stanford make that play many times. So if that is there definition of a fade then I have concerns of him making those throws. That is where Reg was most lethal.

[Malakai432]

He used the word CULTS not COLTS.

Which fits some 100%.

I know Jim which is why I'm confused because I've heard people who dislike the Colts use the term "Cults." Thus = my confusion...

[Dan]

I have seen some brief footage of Luck's pro-day but saw none of Foles'. I do know that Luck was throwing with a lot of wind blowing but I believe it was raining at Arizona's pro-day...so the weather, from my understanding, was worse for Foles than for Luck. Again though, I'm not going to let weather be an excuse (and I don't think Foles would use that as an excuse) because a QB is going to have to throw in all types of conditions.

Well as you say weather is no excuse either way, but it's still nice to see Luck can cope with adverse weather conditions. It's certainly more impressive that he and Foles tried, rather than running indoors to do it (cheap shot on Griffin, ooooh)

I agree. The passes I saw from Luck at his pro-day were as accurate as they could have been. He was incredible at his pro-day, there's no way I'd try to take that away from him. I can't say the same for what I saw of him in game though. He was consistently inaccurate (usually throwing high) on the deep out and comeback routes, 2 very important routes in most NFL offenses. Foles was more accurate on these types of throws on a more consistent basis.

Sadly Luck has a tendency to air deep balls, something he'll need to adjust (and I have no fear he will). Deep passes are the one area of his game I'm not impressed with, but who's perfect coming out of college?

Well like I said, I didn't see any footage of Foles' pro-day but I don't doubt it was a poor showing. His performance has been pretty consistently referred to as poor and disappointing. I don't know what his problem was at the pro-day nor why he performed so poorly. Maybe he just had an off day...every player has them. I'm not trying to make excuses, but at the same time I don't think it's at all fair to grade him just on his pro-day performance without considering the rest of his body of work as a collegiate QB. No, his win-loss record is nothing compared to guys like Luck, Griffin, Kellen Moore, Brandon Weeden etc but at the same time, he didn't have nearly the same caliber team around him as those guys.

I'd agree that judging anybody by their win/loss record is inappropriate in college because of the discrepancies in standard of team and conference. If we followed that logic then we could say Luck bottled it in his bowl game thus lacks a killer instinct, when anybody who saw the game knows how brilliant his performance was and that the loss eventually came down to one person. On supporting cast I agree that on the whole Arizona is some way off the likes of Stanford and Oklahoma but I'd say Foles was throwing to better receivers. Criner is a late 2nd, early 3rd player, as is Buckner next year. Good receivers in a QB friendly system will always help you out, as it did with Griffin. Luck, however, ran a pro style system with a bunch of scrubs, except for a tight end.

Yes I will admit that Foles' accuracy can be streaky, but the same is true of every QB to some degree, even Luck. Luck gets rattled in the face of pressure too. For those who think he has no weaknesses at all, that simply isn't true. Everyone has weaknesses and like most QB's, one of Luck's is getting rattled under pressure. And yes I genuinely believe that Foles is better under pressure than Luck. However, a lot of that was due to the protection Luck was afforded on a pretty consistent basis. Yes, Stanford's offensive line did struggle at times, but they were very solid for the most part. Arizona's offensive line consisted of 5 starters who were first time starters. They struggled all the time so Foles was consistently under pressure whereas Luck was not. So, just like Luck is better at calling his own plays because he was able to do it consistently and develop the ability, Foles was able to develop the ability to handle the pass rush because he was never afforded the protection that Luck was.

Yep that's fair, I'm sure behind the Colts O-line Luck will have to learn very quickly to adapt to pressure though! At least, for Luck, when he does get rattled he shows that fire to make up for it, and raises his game because of it, rather than getting upset and frustrated and becoming erratic as a result. Of course, Foles may do this too - I didn't watch enough full games to know - but it's a positive to Luck either way.

Yeah I recently saw the comparison to Henne. I've also seen comparisons to Phillip Rivers. Personally I think the best comparison is to Jay Cutler but with (imo) better accuracy.

So yeah, I know that Foles' stock has really dropped recently because of a poor showing at his pro-day and that's fair. However, I also know the player that I watched week in and week out and I know what I believe to be his potential in game. I guess it's like when people talk about a player who has a slow 40 yard dash time but try to explain it by saying they play the game much faster then they're timed. Or something like that.

I suppose any comparison at this stage (pre-NFL) is unreliable!

That's fair enough then. I'm sure he's better than other 6th round talents in the past (a certain blonde guy whose existence I try to wipe from my memory).

So I know you say you prefer Luck to Foles - where exactly do you judge Luck's potential? You rated Foles as a potentially great development project, how about Andrew? Do you think he can live up to the hype and become a great QB, or do you think he'll be "alright, nothing special"?

[bavanlan]

Technically the statement is true though simplistically obvious. Considering none of the players have played a down in the NFL then yes, their current NFL careers are all on equal standing. That doesn't mean that their potential in the NFL is the same though. So in essence, you baited FX into saying what you wanted him to say but he didn't say it exactly the way you wanted so you slightly twisted his words, or the intent behind them, in order to use your reductio ad absurdum argument.

While technically a true literal meaning of the statement, a tautological statement advancing no argument at all is considered logically moot; at which point the position remains undefended and unsupported. For the statement to have any logical merit whatsoever, the closest interpretation of the statement must be to interpret that comment as to their NFL potential, which I volunteered on my own out of necessity to help keep his argument open. If the poster wishes to simply stop on what he said, then he has effectively contributed nothing and the position goes undefended.

[Jay305]

^You guys are all politicians

[Jason_]

While technically a true literal meaning of the statement, a tautological statement advancing no argument at all is considered logically moot; at which point the position remains undefended and unsupported. For the statement to have any logical merit whatsoever, the closest interpretation of the statement must be to interpret that comment as to their NFL potential, which I volunteered on my own out of necessity to help keep his argument open. If the poster wishes to simply stop on what he said, then he has effectively contributed nothing and the position goes undefended.

And your "well we should just draw names out of a hat" without any additional explanation also added nothing to further your side of the debate and that's all the point I was trying to make. The post you made without any additional explanation simply makes you come off as an illogical, narcissistic prig who is incapable of formulating a well reasoned argument. Your post with the added explanation from a few posts later was a much more logical argument that could have kept the debate rolling. In written text, all the reader has to go by is what you actually write. What you "imply" may or may not always come across. Just something to keep in mind.

[Jules]

How I am starting to feel.....

[Jason_]

On supporting cast I agree that on the whole Arizona is some way off the likes of Stanford and Oklahoma but I'd say Foles was throwing to better receivers. Criner is a late 2nd, early 3rd player, as is Buckner next year. Good receivers in a QB friendly system will always help you out, as it did with Griffin. Luck, however, ran a pro style system with a bunch of scrubs, except for a tight end.

Well, Luck had 3 TE's not just one. ;) Ertz and Toilolo are considered top of their respective classes as of now, which granted is very early for trying to predict the 2013 and 2014 classes. The one thing that Luck had that was infinitely better was the offensive line. He didn't have the greatest receivers but he did have 3 very good TEs and a great OL. He also had a top notch running game that averaged over 200 yards per game and was in the top 10 (I believe) in the nation out of all teams and was closer to top 3 among teams who ran a pro-style offense. Arizona's running game averaged around 60 yards per game (I believe) and was in the bottom 5-10 in the nation. It's also important to keep in mind that Juron Criner, while considered a 2nd-3rd round pick, was very inconsistent this past year due to nagging injuries. He definitely didn't play consistently like a 2nd round prospect all year long. I would say David Douglas was actually probably Foles' most consistent receiver. He could be another Jordy Nelson type and someone to take a look at later in the draft.

That's why I never got the Luck-Manning comparisons, but then again there are different ways you could compare one player to another. The Luck-Manning comparisons referred to Luck's playstyle but not the situation he was in with the team he played for. He played for a team with a great OL and a top notch running game whereas Foles played for a team with a horrible OL, a very weak running game and he comprised the majority of the offense along with a couple of good skill position players. When you think about it in that context, Foles becomes a much closer comparison to Manning (during his last few years with the Colts) and Luck compares closer to a Phillip Rivers or Tom Brady (in regards to the OL...the Pats haven't really ever had the running game comparable to what Stanford had last year).

Yep that's fair, I'm sure behind the Colts O-line Luck will have to learn very quickly to adapt to pressure though! At least, for Luck, when he does get rattled he shows that fire to make up for it, and raises his game because of it, rather than getting upset and frustrated and becoming erratic as a result. Of course, Foles may do this too - I didn't watch enough full games to know - but it's a positive to Luck either way.

With Luck I think he really did actually get rattled because he didn't face pressure on a consistent basis. Foles didn't so much get rattled as much as, imo, he got frustrated and got to the point where he was trying too hard to make something happen. That's not really a good characteristic to have either because in the NFL, a QB has to be patient and take what the defense gives him and if "it's not there" then just throw it away. I do think Foles has a bit of the Favre-like gunslinger in him and it's the desire to make something happen that causes him to make mistakes whereas with Luck it was getting rattled and making poor decisions because of the pressure. This is not to say that Luck can't or won't improve...not at all. Just simply pointing out that at this point in their careers, Foles is better in the face of a constant pass rush than Luck.

So I know you say you prefer Luck to Foles - where exactly do you judge Luck's potential? You rated Foles as a potentially great development project, how about Andrew? Do you think he can live up to the hype and become a great QB, or do you think he'll be "alright, nothing special"?

I think they both have a lot of potential. Luck is going to have to adjust to playing without an elite running game and OL, though the Colts have made a very obvious attempt to bolster the OL and that's something I hope they continue to do. That would be important no matter who the QB is. My fear all along with Luck was that he was more a product of a system rather than the once in a decade type player he has been touted to be. A lot of people say that Coby Fleener looks better than he really is because of Luck, but personally I've always felt it was Fleener's athleticism and height (same is true of Ertz and Toilolo) that bailed Luck out on several occasions. I never saw Luck play in a game where he was constantly under pressure and his running game didn't give him any help so I simply don't know how he'll respond once he's in that type of situation. That's something we will find out though. I'm very critical of Luck not so much because of who he is, but because of what he's costing us in order to get him. Getting Luck cost us perhaps the GOAT QB as well as the #1 pick in a year where that pick could have been traded in for a plethora of additional picks. That was my preference up until the point when Manning was released. Now that Manning is gone then I do agree that it becomes much more important to get the guy who is pro-ready now and who will have the easiest learning curve (not to say that his learning curve will be easy, but it will be easier than the other QB prospects). We no longer have the luxury of taking a more developmental type guy.

I do think that, talent wise, Foles could definitely be considered as the 2nd best QB in this draft or at worst 3rd. I would consider him significantly ahead of guys like Osweiler (who, imo, would have been much better served going back to ASU for another year), Kirk Cousins, Ryan Tannehill, Russell Wilson and yes, even RG3. RG3 never really impressed me as a passer except with his deep ball on a Go route. However, that route isn't going to be open very often in the NFL, not like it was for him at Baylor. I think Foles and Weeden are very comparable as far as physical talent goes. Weeden probably has a better head on his shoulders simply because he's older, more mature and he also had experience as a pro in baseball. His age though is going to be a deterrent to a lot of teams but I think a team like Cleveland or Miami could be a good fit for him if he could get into a starting role right away.

[Gavin]

Wow still going on about the Luck pick and Manning release

Get over it, its done and over and it didnt put us in cap room heck on top of that to keep a guy who if your looking at stats clearly isnt THE greatest of all time, one of them yest but NOT the greatest, and admitted a while back that he couldnt play like he would like to at the time and we wouldnt know if he could until it was to late, 28 million for 1 year on a Quarterback who we dont know beyond a shadow of a doubt that could play is insane, the right move was made

[Fx Stryker]

Wow still going on about the Luck pick and Manning release

Get over it, its done and over and it didnt put us in cap room heck on top of that to keep a guy who if your looking at stats clearly isnt THE greatest of all time, one of them yest but NOT the greatest, and admitted a while back that he couldnt play like he would like to at the time and we wouldnt know if he could until it was to late, 28 million for 1 year on a Quarterback who we dont know beyond a shadow of a doubt that could play is insane, the right move was made

You ignore the rest of his point because he mentions Manning. I'd say that is was more about Foles than anything.

[Fx Stryker]

How I am starting to feel.....

Can always go back to the Packer band wagon.

[Jason_]

How I am starting to feel.....

Our apologies, We'll try to keep the threads more interesting for you...at least the ones that you're clearly forced to read.

;)

[Jason_]

Wow still going on about the Luck pick and Manning release

Get over it, its done and over and it didnt put us in cap room heck on top of that to keep a guy who if your looking at stats clearly isnt THE greatest of all time, one of them yest but NOT the greatest, and admitted a while back that he couldnt play like he would like to at the time and we wouldnt know if he could until it was to late, 28 million for 1 year on a Quarterback who we dont know beyond a shadow of a doubt that could play is insane, the right move was made

Yeah, you weren't even in the same zip code as the point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to rehash the should we or shouldn't we have let Manning go debate....not at all. I said from the start that I could see them going in either direction and that either direction wouldn't necessarily be infinitely smarter than the other. The only position I was ever truly against was keeping Manning and drafting Luck. I said from the start you choose one or the other and go all in with that guy.

You ignore the rest of his point because he mentions Manning. I'd say that is was more about Foles than anything.

Thank you

[The Peytonator]

"I don't think he's Peyton Manning, John Elway, Dan Marino, any of those guys. Those guys were special. I don't think this kid is special in any way except his intangibles." - One Seasoned Scout

Well since One Seasoned Scout said it, it simply must be true!!!!

Nevermind that all the other scouts say he's about the surest thing you could possibly find. One Seasoned Scout says he isn't special, so that's enough for me.

[OZOC01]

What else would you like to talk about? What else is supposed to pump up the fanbase? From what I gather, most Colts fans are not expecting very many wins. They can be excited about Luck's potential though. This kid is a stud.

I guess I'm one of the few Colts fan that is anticipating several wins this year, but not so much because of Luck. The Colts' cupboard is definately not bare now (despite what so many ESPN 'experts' want the world to believe), and the roster will be better after the draft and training camp. If the new 3-4 defense keep games close, seven wins is not beyond belief...

[MIColtsFan]

Luck reminds me of vegetables. He might not look as exciting as some of the other stuff on the plate but once you break it down and consider all of the vitamins and nutrients offered you realize that its the best thing for you.

come on, that's not fair to the veggies, everyone knows the asparagus is the most exciting thing on the plate! GO LUCK, EAT YOUR VEGGIES! ;)

[ColtsPRIDE11]

Hmmm...I'm beginning to wonder if any of those parties "discussing" on this thread are going to realize that no one is going to convince the other side to agree with them... ...not really an argument that anyone is going to "win."

Luck is an excellent QB.

Griffin is an excellent QB.

All indications suggest that we will draft Luck and Washington will draft Griffin. (Of course this won't be set in stone until Thursday, which can't come soon enough in my opinion...) And both teams (IMO) will be looking towards a bright future. Shanahan and the Redskin staff will do wonders with Griffin, and Arians will do wonders with Luck. (Let's not forget who was here with the Colts at the beginning of Peyton's career...that's right, Arians was a Colts coach before he went to Pitt.)

Both young men seem to have a bright future in the NFL, and I for one am a fan of both. I do think (just my opinion here) that Luck will bring the type and style of football to us that we Colts fans are used to.

I'm geared up and ready for Thursday and Friday to get here. I for one can't wait to see how Grigson handles the draft, and I really can't wait to see some missing pieces of the puzzle to be "found."

[OZOC01]

I'm ignoring the premise and 99% of the comments in this thread, but if the NFL wanted excitement around the draft then they make it a true lottery, and for the first round they give each team 20 minutes.

Goodell comes on stage and draws a team out a hat, and says Team X is now on the clock. Teams can then scramble to trade for the pick, or make the best selection for their own team. Obviously if a team like Giants get the #1 pick, then they will look at Richardson, Kaiehl, Blackmon, or trading it to a team like the Colts that are in need of a QB.

Goodell then comes back out and says the Giants select, or the Giants trade, and then announce the trade and that team y selects player z out of Any State U.

It would be a huge headache for the front offices, but it sure would be exciting for the fans. After the first round, then they announce the draft order for Friday, and then for Saturday at the end of the draft on Friday.

There would be a LOT of team college scouts out of a job...not to mention no reason to watch NFL Network in the off-season.

[OZOC01]

Hmmm...I'm beginning to wonder if any of those parties "discussing" on this thread are going to realize that no one is going to convince the other side to agree with them... ...not really an argument that anyone is going to "win."

Luck is an excellent QB.

Griffin is an excellent QB.

All indications suggest that we will draft Luck and Washington will draft Griffin. (Of course this won't be set in stone until Thursday, which can't come soon enough in my opinion...) And both teams (IMO) will be looking towards a bright future. Shanahan and the Redskin staff will do wonders with Griffin, and Arians will do wonders with Luck. (Let's not forget who was here with the Colts at the beginning of Peyton's career...that's right, Arians was a Colts coach before he went to Pitt.)

Both young men seem to have a bright future in the NFL, and I for one am a fan of both. I do think (just my opinion here) that Luck will bring the type and style of football to us that we Colts fans are used to.

I'm geared up and ready for Thursday and Friday to get here. I for one can't wait to see how Grigson handles the draft, and I really can't wait to see some missing pieces of the puzzle to be "found."

And this, boys and girls, is the reason Luck fans are excited and RGIII fans seem to not get...

[FireJimCaldwell]

There would be a LOT of team college scouts out of a job...not to mention no reason to watch NFL Network in the off-season.

How?

They would still have to scout players. If anything they would have to scout more players, and might have to hire more scouts. It would have nothing to do with the NFL network.

[OZOC01]

How?

They would still have to scout players. If anything they would have to scout more players, and might have to hire more scouts. It would have nothing to do with the NFL network.

My response was meant to be 'tongue in cheek', but I'll play along. Scouting EVERY player eligible for the draft, especially equally since teams would not know whom they will end up with, would be an amazing waste of time and money that a lot of owners would not be willing to spend. Even though some owners care about winning, they are ALL (exception beginning Green Bay, since they are publicly owned) in the business of making money, and hiring more people to do the same job does not accomplish that.

As far as the NFL Network, if they cannot draw on emotional debates (such as Luck vs Griffin, or who's draft stock is rising or falling), which would be taken away with a blind grab bag draft, then what use are they?

[FireJimCaldwell]

My response was meant to be 'tongue in cheek', but I'll play along. Scouting EVERY player eligible for the draft, especially equally since teams would not know whom they will end up with, would be an amazing waste of time and money that a lot of owners would not be willing to spend. Even though some owners care about winning, they are ALL (exception beginning Green Bay, since they are publicly owned) in the business of making money, and hiring more people to do the same job does not accomplish that.

As far as the NFL Network, if they cannot draw on emotional debates (such as Luck vs Griffin, or who's draft stock is rising or falling), which would be taken away with a blind grab bag draft, then what use are they?

Well, first of all not every prospect would be scouted. Teams might be forced to expand their scouting, but by doing that I'm sure quite a few of them would stumble upon a player that they might not have. Secondly it was a response to your comment of putting scouts out of a job. So you want to disagree with more scouts and fewer scouts. How convenient.

Those debates would still be there if you use this year as an example, in fact there would be more debate, because you have teams that are in obvious need of a quarterback(of course if this was in place the Colts might not be one of them), but as things stand you still have the Colts/Redskins/Dolphins/Browns and a couple of others that would be interesting in moving up for Luck/RGIII.

Again, it's not going to happen and the original comment was a response to the NFL wanting more suspense in the draft and to help take away from the negativeness of Luck v. RGIII and the inaccuracies of comparing either to Peyton Manning.

[Jay305]

And this, boys and girls, is the reason Luck fans are excited and RGIII fans seem to not get...

But the thing about it is you guys are wrong

[ColtsPRIDE11]

But the thing about it is you guys are wrong

In your opinion.

[Jules]

But the thing about it is you guys are wrong

Over the years your pets in football never impressed me much. You will probably point out though anytime Griffin does something right and if Luck does something wrong.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Maureen
Personal shot