We are 4-3 and through 7 games, Luck is still alive. He's not getting killed out there like you predicted. If he can make it through this season then he will be fine as we will likely spend some money fixing the line.
With Manning, we have some evidence. Our last two backup QBs, Sorgi and Painter, can't even take a snap after leaving here. I realize that both of them have extremely minimal talent, but if learning under Manning was as valuable an experience as you make it out to be, then I'd at least think that one of them could have extended their career beyond Indy and made it as a backup somewhere.
By no means is that meant to be a criticism of Manning. Manning's job is to win games and prepare for the next week's opponent. He's not supposed to be wasting time tutoring players of inferior talent. But I just fail to see how spending time holding a clipboard, wearing a hat and headset, and engaging Manning in some sideline talk can do much to improve ones skills. It's not near as valuable as taking snaps, practicing, and learning the speed of the game yourself. That's what makes one a better QB. When Luck is making the pro bowl in a couple of years, I guarantee you he'll be reflecting on how taking his licks as a rookie in 2012 helped mold him into a better QB. That's what Manning says about his own career.
Now the 1998 team certainly made a dramatic improvement in 1999. We drafted Edge, Manning became a premier passer, and Harrison became a premier receiver. But as of now, Luck's Colts are better than rookie Manning's Colts.
software suggestion for everyone: MacAfee Moron Block 2.0
The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).
I'm (maybe) back after being repetedly banned, merely for supporting a different NFL team than do certain forum moderators.
In week 1 the Jags were +3.5 against the Vikings. They lost by 3. 1-0.
In week 2 they were +6.5 against Houston. They lost by 20. 1-1.
In week 3 they were +3 against the abysmal Andrew Luck led Colts. They won by 5. 2-1.
In week 4 they were -1.5 against Cincy. They lost by 17. 2-2.
In week 5 they were +6.5 against Chicago. They lost by 38. 2-3.
In week 6 they were on a bye.
In week 7 they were +6 against Oakland. They lost by 3. 3-3
In week 8 they were +15.5 against Green Bay. They lost by 9. 4-3.
The only game that was even close to the spread and which could alter the result because of a different line than Vegas (which you're making up but I'll play along anyway) was week 1. So even in your made up scenario, you're looking at them being 3-4 against the spread. You cannot possibly be up 5-2 by betting against them. It simply isn't possible.
I don't mind your blatant and repetitive trolling but to just purely make something up in your trolling attempt is the height of stupidity. Especially when this "fact" is so easily checked.
"I had to take her down like Chris Brown."
I think you're missing the point though. A vegas spread being different from another spread by 1.5 points? Ok that's believable, but a Vegas spread and your "site's" spread would have to be astronomically different for you to be 5-2 with the Jags.
Also, it cracked me up when you said some advertise that they have the most favorable sports betting odds in the world. Do you really believe that? Do you pull over for every highway casino that has the loosest slots too?