Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Conversations are moderated for civility. We ask that you please stay on topic. For more info, see our Community Guidelines ×
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Rewinding history

vinatierifan4

By vinatierifan4
in Colts Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

vinatierifan4 Walk On

vinatierifan4

Posted
Posted

So lets say we go back in time, and change Peyton getting cut by the colts, now as you all know we had the first pick, so lets say they still take Luck. IF peyton had the same preseason he did right now (throwing 0 touchdowns and 3 pics) and luck had his preseason the way he's been having it, would there have been people saying we should start Luck over Peyton...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Fish Active Roster

The Fish

Posted
Posted

So lets say we go back in time, and change Peyton getting cut by the colts, now as you all know we had the first pick, so lets say they still take Luck. IF peyton had the same preseason he did right now (throwing 0 touchdowns and 3 pics) and luck had his preseason the way he's been having it, would there have been people saying we should start Luck over Peyton...?

All I can say is it didn't happen for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nobody Walk On

Nobody

Posted
Posted

So lets say we go back in time, and change Peyton getting cut by the colts, now as you all know we had the first pick, so lets say they still take Luck. IF peyton had the same preseason he did right now (throwing 0 touchdowns and 3 pics) and luck had his preseason the way he's been having it, would there have been people saying we should start Luck over Peyton...?

Luck would've been playing against backups and third stringers. Obviously some would be saying that, but most wouldn't. Doesn't matter anyway, it won't happen. Hate these hind of threads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustAColtsFan Walk On

JustAColtsFan

Posted
Posted

This is a duplicate thread with just a few words move around LOL. As I said in another one, I have watched both Luck and Manning's two pre-season games. Both played against the apposing teams starters and Manning seemed uncomfortable and very rusty while Luck looks like he is ready to take the world by the horns! Manning will shake the rust off and have a good season (and it kills me to see him in that uniform :( ), however, I am very pleased that we have Luck with 10 to 15 years ahead of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAC Walk On

MAC

Posted
Posted

Amongst the available options, I never wanted both QBs on the team at the same time (as many have noted). It would have been a ridiculous waste of resources, and a ridiculous waste of a career. Whose, I don't care to conjecture.

But you should look a little closer at Denver before insinuating that he is off to a bad start. FAR from it. Considering the injury, the layoff, the new offense and the new team-mates, he has looked fantastic. The stats you quote are very miss-leading. Only one of the interceptions was a bad pass, and he could easily have three TDs. In fact I only saw one bad pass period. He will be fine. Meanwhile Luck has been uncomfortably close to two additional "pick sixes" on top of the one he threw. but for a rookie, that's great. He will be fine as well. I'm delighted that they aren't both here.

Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • richard pallo
      Moore and Paye ruled out against Steelers

      By richard pallo · Posted

      I predict all of the players listed as questionable will play.  The Steelers offense is meh.
    • John Waylon
      If Eberflus was fired by Chicago would you want him back

      By John Waylon · Posted

      The problem with hiring a defensive guy and tasking him with building that offensive support system is that most of them just don’t have it, and they’re not really capable of building it. There aren’t enough Tom Moore types out there to help institute that long-term knowledgeable stability.    We got lucky with Pagano and Luck having Arians in the building, and largely being the head coach for the majority of Luck’s rookie season. But watching Pagano flail to fill an offensive staff post-Arians was painful, and most of the defensive head coaches struggle in the exact same way. It’s out of their specialty and out of their comfort zone and it just makes it harder than it needs to be on everyone involved.    The most advantageous way to hire a defensive HC is with an already established QB and system that he can just come in and not have to build from the ground up. 
    • Superman
      Samuel Womack getting the start in week 4?

      By Superman · Posted

      You should double check. I just did. Womack started both games, with Jaylon Johnson on the other side, and Kenny Moore at nickel.    Against the Packers, Womack got 20 snaps, Flowers got 19. Against the Bears, Womack got 28 snaps, Flowers got 41 (and he left before the game ended, so maybe he would have gotten more). Maybe Flowers was on his way to taking Womack's spot in the lineup, but Womack was on the field as a starter in both games.
    • Superman
      Is Shane Calling Plays to Win Games or to Groom AR?

      By Superman · Posted

      Game on the line, inconsistent passer at QB, and the OL is the strength of the team. Everyone in the world knew that the first priority was to stop JT. And they couldn't.    I don't know what's with this myth that there's something deficient about JT as a RB. It's nonsense.
    • Superman
      Is Shane Calling Plays to Win Games or to Groom AR?

      By Superman · Posted

      I think he's probably only using 25% of his playbook so far, for various reasons. Some of that is intentional, as they work in some concepts with a young QB and a young-ish supporting cast.   Another part of it is that the Colts game script has been heavily skewed, especially in the first two games, so the gameplan had to be reduced as the game went along. The offense couldn't stay on the field, and the defense couldn't get off of it. It was better against the Bears, but their offense still ran 30 more plays than ours. Total, our offense has run 87 fewer plays than our opponents. Teams usually script their first 15 offensive plays, and I wonder if the Colts have gotten through that opening script in any of the first three games. So I think there are some things that they'd like to have run, but so far they have not been able to get to them.   I don't think it's a binary 'do we call winning plays, or do we call plays to develop the QB' consideration. I don't necessarily agree that those priorities have to compete with one another, but it does require a balance to do them both justice. I don't think it does this team any good, short term or long term, to restrict Richardson to 15 passing attempts/game, or to use him as an option QB like this is the Navy team, even if they felt like that could be a way to win some games. I also don't think they should coach him as if every game is "winner take all," and have him lay his body on the line or try to drop back 50 times a game.    And we have to blame Richardson and the WRs to a certain extent. There have been a lot of missed throws, drops, and turnovers. Those plays have stalled or ended several possessions, and that's not on the play calling.

  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...