Saying the Colts COULD and saying the Colts WOULD is a big difference. (That's directed at Ob)
If the Irsay lies were as frequent as you imply, then please find me one. If you can produce a television show, then surely you can use google. I follow the Colts closely and pay attention to nearly everything that comes from the organization. I posted a concrete piece of evidence from January in which Irsay said that we were taking a quarterback. That should have been a huge red flag to anyone who followed this team that Manning wasn't coming back. Saying that the Colts could keep both the number one draft choice and Manning is not a lie. It was a factual statement as we could have done that. But he didn't say that we were going to do that. Irsay *always* tempered those sort of remarks with a disclaimer saying that he and Peyton still had to meet before anything was decided, etc etc etc.
Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-23-2012 at 02:28 PM.
Being the RV expert that he is, I'm guessing its a show like...
You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....
The Colts couldn't trade Luck for a 2nd round pick right now?
Omg thats hilarious.
Colts could trade Luck for the next two number 1 overall picks right now if they wanted to.
Luck is every bit the leader that the NFL scouts said he would be. He is cool, calm and collected when he is in the pocket, and he is helping his rookie receivers develop into NFL stars. Without a doubt, Andrew Luck is more than living up to the hype that was surrounding him
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...uth-must-readsLuck: The Colts' passing game was unimpressive, but Luck impacted the game positively with his legs. Indianapolis isn't a playoff-caliber team, but Luck could make it that way sooner rather than later. He gets a 4 (last week was a 2; overall this season, he's a 73.3 percent team savior).
The arguments about who is better between Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III stir passion.
They also stir the numbers.
Today's article of the day comes from Chase Stuart writing for the New York Times, who once again points out that Luck and Griffin are playing completely different styles of football.
While RGIII dominates the traditional stats, Luck edges him out in metrics like QBR, which try to take a more holistic view of quarterback value. This is a classic example of how statistics don't lie, but sometimes you have to work hard to find the right stats.
Stuart does an excellent job tracing just how vertical the Indianapolis offense has been and how little help Luck has received from backs and wideouts.
There's no point in trying to discredit Griffin's play, which has been beyond superlative, but simply slapping up a passer rating and declaring him the run-away winner in a mythical race would be foolish.
The only relevant question is which quarterback will develop into the better pro in the long run, and there's plenty of evidence that what Indianapolis is doing with Luck will well-situate him for running a dynamic offense, just as soon as they find other players who can play that style.
Luck's value has been subtle, but the effects on the field are obvious. No sane analyst would cite "quarterback wins" as a valid metric, but the fact is that the Colts have possibly less raw talent than any team in football, yet stand 3-3 with wins over the Minnesota Vikings and Green Bay Packers.
There's little question that were Griffin on the Colts, his numbers would not be nearly as pristine as they are with the Redskins.
It's important to note that Luck has no running game right now. Teams know that we have to throw the ball a lot. That's not exactly a desirable position for a rookie QB to be in. Peyton had Marshall Faulk in his rookie year and then Edgerrin James for the next 7. RGIII has that Alfred Morris who has looked very sharp. Luck doesn't have anything close to what Manning and RGIII had in their rookie seasons.
Olblu, you harp on Luck's stats, yet imply that Tannehill has looked better? He has 4 TDs 6 picks and a 76.5 rating. Luck has 7/7 and a 72.3
Luck is about what you'd expect of a rookie on a mediocre team with no running game. He is about exactly where Manning was as a rookie. That in no way shape or form is met to imply that he'll be as great as Manning, but it shows you that even one of the greatest ever struggled in his rookie season. Heck, Peyton struggled significantly in his fourth season!
Luck had two awful road losses in NY and Chicago which ding his stats significantly. Those two games account for 1/3 of his total games played. And he of course didn't look that good in the second half of last week. But he led impressive game winning drives against Green Bay and Minnesota, who are both good teams. He led what should have been a game winning drive against Jacksonville. And we're 3-3 with him. I miss Peyton too, but I really don't think that the Luck era could have started off any better than it has.
Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-23-2012 at 06:02 PM.
I don't care about that blah blah blah completion percentage blah blah blah blah QB rating 31 blah blah blah gifts from Green Bay and Minnesota blah blah blah weakest division blah blah blah RG3 RG3 RG3 RG3 RG3 RG3 superstar superstar superstar blah blah blah.