ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    For me its easy if Washington makes play-offs its RG3, sorry UD. Cant remember when Skins made the Play-offs. If not, I go for Luck. I'm not going by Stats, going by Rookie getting his Team to Big Dance. Seattle QB, has to be put into discussion too. He beat some good teams this year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bobbysu - don't even have an issue with people thinking someone else should win.  I just think Luck is absolutely in the conversation.  I think I'd be inclined to go with Seattle's Q instead of Griffin, if I didn't vote for Luck. 

    Remember Luck beat the Packers, but I guess RG did beat the Giants.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to tanbass's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]
    What a bunch of baloney.  Who exactly on the colts "took a knee" last year?  These are just biased rantings without legitimate basis. 
    [/QUOTE]


    Are you trying to deny the FACT that the entire Colts team tanked the season just to gain the number 1 pick??? So to answer your ridiculous question....THE WHOLE TEAM!!!

    If you truly believe that they didn't take a knee last year to get that pick, you are seriously delusional.

    I actually think Luck is a great QB who has the tools to be HOF. But he isn't even close to sniffing any kind of MVP this year.....get real.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am denying the ASSERTION, because you don't appear to have any facts to prove it.  Just saying they did it isn't a fact.  Surely, you've got SOME proof. 

    I see, so the coach tried to tank so he got fired.  The gm wanted to tank so he got fired.  The QB wanted to tank so he got fired.  The other players wanted to tank so they could devalue themselves to the market. 

    Please Please Please give me something to at least start the conversation.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here's my take.....

    Luck has put up great numbers, but in the history of the NFL, no rookie QB has ever "engineered" this big a turnaround on his own. Not even the GREAT (Just ask him or the millions of his adoring media, er, fans) Pay a ton Himself, Elway, etc. Kind of makes you wonder just how "dreadful" the Colts were last season, knowing that they had the clear road to draft him IF they played possum. Can't prove it, but just saying. It's like the Chinese female swimmer in the last Olymipics that shaved a ton of time (in minutes) off the Olympic MEN'S record, let alone the woman's record. Hmmmm...... happens all the time.

    RG3, on the other hand, has the 'Skins winning, as of today, 1 more game than last year. He's got all the "intangibles" that Luck doesn't have. Plus, I hate to do or say this, he's Afro American. Dare say it could come down to a racilayy motivated vote. But, eother way, ROY is one of them.

    MVP, to me, is still out now. Too many games left. If Flacco can run teh table and put up numbers as he did vs the Pats, he's got to get consideration. So does Schaub and Foster, if he gets on a big rushing roll, which we all know can happen. Brady gets consideration if he gets close to 5000 yds again and has a ridiculous TD/INT ratio. Sorry, I kick Old Horseface out of the equation, as he clearly gets the COmeback Player award. In my book, you don't win both unless your head and shoulders above the rest of the league, and Denver's altitude isn't counting.

    NFC candidates will ALWAYS include Rodgers (it's a Green Bay thing). Alex Smith, if he wasn't pulled because his HC falls for glitz, glimmer, and bright shiny objects, could have had redunculous numbers too, including a terrific Brady-like TD/INT ratio, on a 3-4 loss team. (Remember, he was a shanked FG away from going to last season's SB, and has out up better numbers this season.)  But, he's not flashy or a headline grabber. Too bad. If Adrian Peterson gets close to 2000 yds (can happen), he would be in the running (pardon the pun). Brees is out due to his team's fall from Grace. I'm not sold on Ryan or anything Falcons yet. I'd want to see how and if they can gut out tough playoff wins. Haven't yet, including last season (24-2 loss, anyone?).

    Thre just isn't one single player today that is all by himself the headline grabber in all markets. I'm sure that, even after the season is over, the winner will come down to regionalized voting results, a la Heisman Trophy.

    [/QUOTE]


    There was a QB, not a rookie because he was fourth string his first year.  But his first year playing he turned a 5-11 team into a Super Bowl winner.

    [/QUOTE]

    So you are saying that QB got an entire year in a professional system, got to practice against some of the best defensive players of the decade for an entire season and two offseasons, and although you correctly aren't calling him a rookie, you'd like to compare him to those rookies? 

    Is that what you are saying?

    [/QUOTE]
    Yeah, because 2nd year guys who were 4th stringers always light up the NFL.  Name one.

    Compare him to second year players if you want, or to players who are playing their first year.  Either way he comes out on top

    2001- Won a SB- led game winning drive

    2002- led league in TD's (How many years before Manning did that?)

    2003- Won a SB in a shootout

    2004- another SB

    First 4 years in the NFL

     

    But this isn't about Brady.  Luck shouldn't win ROY, no way.  He may be good one day, but he isn't now.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    THIS IS A LAME HYPOTHETICAL THREAD...  THE SEASON HAS 4 GAMES LEFT...!

    Figures a ditz like jintz started it.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I remember so clearly when pats fans were gnashing their teeth over Manning getting credit over Brady due to his stats while Brady had the rings.  My how pats fans have done a 180 on that argument in the last few years.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More nonsense. Manning got credit for his stats. It's just that tools like you wanted to discredit Brady's wins and rings as being applicable.

    You    are    a    phoney.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not nonsense at all.  Pats fans happily throw around Brady's stats today, but as his stats have improved he has no rings to show for them.  This isn't at all a criticism of Brady, its simply a reminder of the way things were around here and how they've changed and how that change has changed regarding your perceptions of others. 

    A phoney wouldn't stand by his statement.  I stand by this. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More nonsense. Of course they throw around his stats. Just like they threw around his SB wins. It's a total you phoney. Nobody ever denied Manning used to have the better stats. Nobody ever said stats didn't matter. It's just that disingenuous types like you cherry pick everything that boosts the agenda you push and discredit any pertinent factors that don't fit your agenda.

    Glad to see you are a convert to winning mattering (now that it suits your agenda). Because it always has mattered.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The point I am trying to make is that the colts just aren't very good, and many here know I mean this because I've said it countless times.

    [/QUOTE]


    The Colts aren't very good, but they are 8-4 because of the 29th rated QB?

    Sometimes you make even Rusty look intelligent (and honest).

    [/QUOTE]

    Depends on the rating that makes your case for you.  ESPN's QBR ranks him 6th.  Rusty always makes you look dumb. 

    [/QUOTE]


    There you have it folks! If you had a shred of doubt about doggydoo, his asinine cheering of Rusty's insane ramblings should put them to rest.

    Of course you do share the same fetish as him with the anti-Brady agenda. Not a big shock then, that you endorse his BS.

    Nobody even knows what espn's rating system is but them, you clown. But apparently any port in the storm will suffice for your pathetic phoniness.

    Do me a favor. Find ONE person here that thinks you are worth a damn.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to jri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Martin 1

    RGIII 2

    Wilson 3

    Luck 4

    That takes away nothing from Luck, as long term he most likely will be the best player of the group. We are voting on an indivisual award where as of today Martin & RGIII have better numbers. we still have 4 games left so things can change.

    [/QUOTE]


    ok by me, but if Luck ends up being the only one in the playoffs, I think he gets it.  Especially with the substantial roster churn this year, the cancer stricken coach, and new first time GM. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I remember so clearly when pats fans were gnashing their teeth over Manning getting credit over Brady due to his stats while Brady had the rings.  My how pats fans have done a 180 on that argument in the last few years.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More nonsense. Manning got credit for his stats. It's just that tools like you wanted to discredit Brady's wins and rings as being applicable.

    You    are    a    phoney.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not nonsense at all.  Pats fans happily throw around Brady's stats today, but as his stats have improved he has no rings to show for them.  This isn't at all a criticism of Brady, its simply a reminder of the way things were around here and how they've changed and how that change has changed regarding your perceptions of others. 

    A phoney wouldn't stand by his statement.  I stand by this. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More nonsense. Of course they throw around his stats. Just like they threw around his SB wins. It's a total you phoney. Nobody ever denied Manning used to have the better stats. Nobody ever said stats didn't matter. It's just that disingenuous types like you cherry pick everything that boosts the agenda you push and discredit any pertinent factors that don't fit your agenda.

    Glad to see you are a convert to winning mattering (now that it suits your agenda). Because it always has mattered.

    [/QUOTE]

    coming from you, the bolded phrase above might be the most ironic statement of the year.

    And as I noted, I am not necessarily a "converted to winning" guy.  Winning always mattered, but I have always believed wholeheartedly in the "team" concept where team records are concerned.  an individual within a team gets deserves extra adulation for winning when it can be effectively demonstrated that the team around the individual isn't all that much, and I believe I have done that earlier in this thread. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    [/QUOTE]

    I am denying the ASSERTION, because you don't appear to have any facts to prove it.  Just saying they did it isn't a fact.  Surely, you've got SOME proof. 

    I see, so the coach tried to tank so he got fired.  The gm wanted to tank so he got fired.  The QB wanted to tank so he got fired.  The other players wanted to tank so they could devalue themselves to the market. 

    Please Please Please give me something to at least start the conversation.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, you must be right....they went from a playoff team to 1-15 overnight. Wake up. I don't need any proof....especially for some jack-ass Dolts fan that gets off hanging around a Pats forum. You go on thinking they just sucked last year....the rest of the country will go on knowing they tanked just to get a single player. You need to lay off the crack.....and maybe...just maybe....hnag around your own forum>Oh yah....Your team sucks balls and you don't have one.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The point I am trying to make is that the colts just aren't very good, and many here know I mean this because I've said it countless times.

    [/QUOTE]


    The Colts aren't very good, but they are 8-4 because of the 29th rated QB?

    Sometimes you make even Rusty look intelligent (and honest).

    [/QUOTE]

    Depends on the rating that makes your case for you.  ESPN's QBR ranks him 6th.  Rusty always makes you look dumb. 

    [/QUOTE]


    There you have it folks! If you had a shred of doubt about doggydoo, his asinine cheering of Rusty's insane ramblings should put them to rest.

    Of course you do share the same fetish as him with the anti-Brady agenda. Not a big shock then, that you endorse his BS.

    Nobody even knows what espn's rating system is but them, you clown. But apparently any port in the storm will suffice for your pathetic phoniness.

    Do me a favor. Find ONE person here that thinks you are worth a damn.

    [/QUOTE]

    Failed again babe.  What's new? 

    I rarely cheer Rusty, or you for that matter, but I like to respond in kind just for effect. 

    Further, I am not at all anti-brady.  Never have been.  That's just your inability to see past anyone elses appreciation for another player. 

    There are plenty of people on this board that appreciate me as a colts fan and see through senseless agendas like yours (at times and now).  That said, I really couldn't tell you who those people are, because although I've read some of their nice comments, I don't tally them up somewhere as proof for a sophomoronic request like yours. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I remember so clearly when pats fans were gnashing their teeth over Manning getting credit over Brady due to his stats while Brady had the rings.  My how pats fans have done a 180 on that argument in the last few years.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More nonsense. Manning got credit for his stats. It's just that tools like you wanted to discredit Brady's wins and rings as being applicable.

    You    are    a    phoney.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not nonsense at all.  Pats fans happily throw around Brady's stats today, but as his stats have improved he has no rings to show for them.  This isn't at all a criticism of Brady, its simply a reminder of the way things were around here and how they've changed and how that change has changed regarding your perceptions of others. 

    A phoney wouldn't stand by his statement.  I stand by this. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More nonsense. Of course they throw around his stats. Just like they threw around his SB wins. It's a total you phoney. Nobody ever denied Manning used to have the better stats. Nobody ever said stats didn't matter. It's just that disingenuous types like you cherry pick everything that boosts the agenda you push and discredit any pertinent factors that don't fit your agenda.

    Glad to see you are a convert to winning mattering (now that it suits your agenda). Because it always has mattered.

    [/QUOTE]

    coming from you, the bolded phrase above might be the most ironic statement of the year.

    And as I noted, I am not necessarily a "converted to winning" guy.  Winning always mattered, but I have always believed wholeheartedly in the "team" concept where team records are concerned.  an individual within a team gets deserves extra adulation for winning when it can be effectively demonstrated that the team around the individual isn't all that much, and I believe I have done that earlier in this thread. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Only to a depraved mind such as yours would find it ironic.

     

    You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING. Even a simpleton can figure out that a 29th rated QB who is leading the NFL in INTs isn't the prime reason for the Colts' winning record. So either you can't rise to even the level of a simpleton, or you're stumbling again over your agenda.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    SOMEBODY PUT THIS THREAD OUT OF ITS MISERY...

     

     

     

    LUCK gets ...  ROOKIE of the TANK YEAR...!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I remember so clearly when pats fans were gnashing their teeth over Manning getting credit over Brady due to his stats while Brady had the rings.  My how pats fans have done a 180 on that argument in the last few years.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More nonsense. Manning got credit for his stats. It's just that tools like you wanted to discredit Brady's wins and rings as being applicable.

    You    are    a    phoney.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not nonsense at all.  Pats fans happily throw around Brady's stats today, but as his stats have improved he has no rings to show for them.  This isn't at all a criticism of Brady, its simply a reminder of the way things were around here and how they've changed and how that change has changed regarding your perceptions of others. 

    A phoney wouldn't stand by his statement.  I stand by this. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More nonsense. Of course they throw around his stats. Just like they threw around his SB wins. It's a total you phoney. Nobody ever denied Manning used to have the better stats. Nobody ever said stats didn't matter. It's just that disingenuous types like you cherry pick everything that boosts the agenda you push and discredit any pertinent factors that don't fit your agenda.

    Glad to see you are a convert to winning mattering (now that it suits your agenda). Because it always has mattered.

    [/QUOTE]

    coming from you, the bolded phrase above might be the most ironic statement of the year.

    And as I noted, I am not necessarily a "converted to winning" guy.  Winning always mattered, but I have always believed wholeheartedly in the "team" concept where team records are concerned.  an individual within a team gets deserves extra adulation for winning when it can be effectively demonstrated that the team around the individual isn't all that much, and I believe I have done that earlier in this thread. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Only to a depraved mind such as yours would find it ironic.

     

    You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING. Even a simpleton can figure out that a 29th rated QB who is leading the NFL in INTs isn't the prime reason for the Colts' winning record. So either you can't rise to even the level of a simpleton, or you're stumbling again over your agenda.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd imagine that some others, if they happen to read the thread, might chuckle a bit at your statements.  No one parses stats like you.  You're the All-Pro. 

    Why don't you refute my comments rather than making assertions.  I am happy to have that discussion.  At least when you make a comment with stats, and I refute it, I provide some support for my position. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    SOMEBODY PUT THIS THREAD OUT OF ITS MISERY...

     

     

     

    LUCK gets ...  ROOKIE of the TANK YEAR...!

    [/QUOTE]


    HEY COOLADE!  brings back memories.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from laurienyc13. Show laurienyc13's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    You know that MVP is going to go to Manning, all the love that he an gets is so sickening. I mean really, it is just one man crush love fest by all the commentators all the time. Brady doesn't even get mentioned, he is having a great year. I know Peyton is coming off an injury but enough already. Besides if they gave an award for which player is uglier it would be hard to choose between the dork Manning and horse face Luck, just saying. I am a woman an I tell you Brady is not only a great QB but he is the best looking guy in NFL... That's gotta be worth something. The other guys keep your helmets on, it's really scary when they take them off... 

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I remember so clearly when pats fans were gnashing their teeth over Manning getting credit over Brady due to his stats while Brady had the rings.  My how pats fans have done a 180 on that argument in the last few years.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    More nonsense. Manning got credit for his stats. It's just that tools like you wanted to discredit Brady's wins and rings as being applicable.

    You    are    a    phoney.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not nonsense at all.  Pats fans happily throw around Brady's stats today, but as his stats have improved he has no rings to show for them.  This isn't at all a criticism of Brady, its simply a reminder of the way things were around here and how they've changed and how that change has changed regarding your perceptions of others. 

    A phoney wouldn't stand by his statement.  I stand by this. 

    [/QUOTE]


    More nonsense. Of course they throw around his stats. Just like they threw around his SB wins. It's a total you phoney. Nobody ever denied Manning used to have the better stats. Nobody ever said stats didn't matter. It's just that disingenuous types like you cherry pick everything that boosts the agenda you push and discredit any pertinent factors that don't fit your agenda.

    Glad to see you are a convert to winning mattering (now that it suits your agenda). Because it always has mattered.

    [/QUOTE]

    coming from you, the bolded phrase above might be the most ironic statement of the year.

    And as I noted, I am not necessarily a "converted to winning" guy.  Winning always mattered, but I have always believed wholeheartedly in the "team" concept where team records are concerned.  an individual within a team gets deserves extra adulation for winning when it can be effectively demonstrated that the team around the individual isn't all that much, and I believe I have done that earlier in this thread. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Only to a depraved mind such as yours would find it ironic.

     

    You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING. Even a simpleton can figure out that a 29th rated QB who is leading the NFL in INTs isn't the prime reason for the Colts' winning record. So either you can't rise to even the level of a simpleton, or you're stumbling again over your agenda.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd imagine that some others, if they happen to read the thread, might chuckle a bit at your statements.  No one parses stats like you.  You're the All-Pro. 

    Why don't you refute my comments rather than making assertions.  I am happy to have that discussion.  At least when you make a comment with stats, and I refute it, I provide some support for my position. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Your imagination is as inept as your football acumen.

    What is there to refute? You state the rest of the Colts aren't a very good team. Very well. But neither is Luck a very good QB. What, were his 17 TDs and 16 INTs what produced the 8-4 record?

    Half their wins were won with an average of 4 points. Whoopee. A couple or three of those could have easily gone the other way. You see a team or two every year that has a record which belies the sum of its parts due to some close wins. Nothing new.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jerh5. Show jerh5's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Don't get me wrong I think Luck has shown he could be really good, but I don't think a guy leading the league in turnovers should sniff MVP.

    [/QUOTE]


    the turnovers are one of those numbers i can overlook when i see where this team may finish compared to last year-i think the big numbers are overated and they might as well rename it the qb award but still luck's impact has been amazing...btw he IS really good already in many of the ways a qb has to be and his game is not based on leaving the pocket like rg3 so i believe while teams may adjust to rg3 what luck has u can't adjust to

    who cares about his "hall of fame" receiver? amazing how people use certain things to create whats not there or minimize accomplishment-thats just clutching at straws-what, other mvp's didn't have either a great system or great receivers or both?

    besides there are 4 games left and i said "if"

    [/QUOTE]


      You might look past the turnovers, but no one else will. Look, Luck is a great Qb and will only get better. He will probably win an MVP someday. But you can reverse your  argument and say that "there are 5 or 6 teams in the league that---if they were to lose their Qb, they would drop  from an 11 win team to a 2 win team. The difference is, most of those Qbs are not making some really bad rookie mistakes. I know he makes a lot of good plays, but he is still a ROOKIE.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know Luck will get some very stiff ROTY competition RG3-who is fantastic-and I know some will cite numbers like QBR, TDs vs INTs, etc...but to me, if the Colts get 10-11 wins and Luck plays at the same level-including directly winning a couple like vs Detroit, I say the MVP has got to get serious consideration.

    To be honest, just the hope and excitement he brought with him is worth MVP consideration.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The amount of nonsense, selective "facts" and anti-Luck because he's a Colt c**p on this thread is ridiculous but very good for a hearty belly laugh!

    This "numbers" garbage shows how much BSPN and Fantasy Geeks have taken over sports fans thinking. You bet Luck can thrown 24 tds and 20 ints and have a 90 QBR and be the ROTY and MVP. Stats are not what the MVP is about and even less so in Luck's case. It's who means the most to his team and if-you all forget that I said IF-colts go 10-6 and Luck pulls another one or two out then there is no way you can't look at the turn around in record combined with the comebacks combined with the hype and pressure of being the number 1 pick-called the "best pro prospect since John Elway"-which RG3 didnt have...well that smells like an ROTY/MVP to me!

    As for RG3 love the guy, love watching him play, makes the skins better immediately BUT...

    still get the feeling his game is the type the league will catch up to and defend eventually. He is throwing to his primary receiver and running out of necessity too often. Will he be great? Win MVP's and SB's? Sure it's possible and I am a fan of his but the NFL has a way of stopping the latest fad/unstoppable player/system and he may end up being very good but not what he is now IF the league figures him out a bit. Still could be ROTY and all-time great.

    Wilson? how anyone here BREDBRU can put him ahead of Luck is fall down funny. Wilson is a nice story playing very well and has poise and arm strength, etc...but he is not going to be unstoppable or all-time by any stretch. He-to me anyway-will settle into that 10-15 area: very good, can win and have great games but not a super star. Not made for that.

    Luck has been bred for this and in certain respects looks like a pro already not a rookie. I will say barring something crazy he will be -in 3 or 4 years-the best QB in the NFL. He can be like Brady, Manning, etc...no tricks, no need to run and throw, no razzle dazzle to fool a D-just drop back, scan the field and hit the open man.

    Then again who knows? I actually like RG3 and Wilson too along with dalton and some of the other young qbs. Think the future looks bright whoever turns out to be great.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok, let's not use "statistics". Give me one good reason why Luck should be the MVP.  Should we just use your "feelings"

    Or better yet, if being one of the worst QBs in the NFL is worthy of MVP than what would Luck have to do to not get the MVP?  Does he have special rules?  He gets the MVP as long as he throws less than 30 interceptions?  Why are QBs with identical play not being considered for MVP?

    If we are all using selective facts because he's a Colt than why isn't anyone anywhere besides you talking about Luck as an MVP candidate? 

    The reality is, the media told you he was the next Brady and Manning and now no matter what he does you believe it.  But he is playing just like Ponder and Gabbert and all the other guys the media didn't hype.  Ask yourself, outside of the circus that surrounded Luck what has he done better than all the QBs drafted in the last 5 years to make you think he's better, let alone an all time great?  He's done nothing.  He's shown nothing in the NFL that warrant the thinking he's a "great QB".  He's a Joe Namath type right now, living on name recognition.

     

     Theres nothing special about his rookie year, there is for RGIII and Wilson who are playing like veterans.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    RGIII Wins ROY. Too many INTS for Luck to win anything. Not enough people want AP to win MVP. Too bad he's having a great year.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    RG3 will win the ROTY and it won't even be close. RG3 will also get MVP votes, and Luck will not.

     

    Both are great, but RG3 has been much better.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    The amount of nonsense, selective "facts" and anti-Luck because he's a Colt c**p on this thread is ridiculous but very good for a hearty belly laugh!

    This "numbers" garbage shows how much BSPN and Fantasy Geeks have taken over sports fans thinking.

    [/QUOTE]


    Did Rusty hack your account or something jints? He's usually the one who craps on the numbers and expects all to bow to his opinion as supreme. No offense, but that is how he rolls.

    The reality is the Colts are no longer a big rivalry with fetus head gone. It was fun while it lasted. Pats' fans are doing nothing more to Luck than they have done to Sanchez for years now. The numbers suck, so he sucks. Why should Luck be treated any differently?

    What is this thing for Luck you have? The Eli connected to Payton connected to the Colts thing? Have you just bought into the massive hype this kid got from day one?

    Well, whatever, I just don't see this guy within a light year of a single MVP vote and don't think he deserves ROY either. But never sell hype short.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    WHY IS THIS THREAD NOT DEAD YET...?

    It's STUPID BEYOND BELIEF...!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JintsFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    The amount of nonsense, selective "facts" and anti-Luck because he's a Colt c**p on this thread is ridiculous but very good for a hearty belly laugh!

    This "numbers" garbage shows how much BSPN and Fantasy Geeks have taken over sports fans thinking.

    [/QUOTE]


    Did Rusty hack your account or something jints? He's usually the one who craps on the numbers and expects all to bow to his opinion as supreme. No offense, but that is how he rolls.

    The reality is the Colts are no longer a big rivalry with fetus head gone. It was fun while it lasted. Pats' fans are doing nothing more to Luck than they have done to Sanchez for years now. The numbers suck, so he sucks. Why should Luck be treated any differently?

    What is this thing for Luck you have? The Eli connected to Payton connected to the Colts thing? Have you just bought into the massive hype this kid got from day one?

    Well, whatever, I just don't see this guy within a light year of a single MVP vote and don't think he deserves ROY either. But never sell hype short.

    [/QUOTE]

    He just thinks it will irk Pats fans on this forum.

    That's why he's here.

     

Share