ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

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

    THIS THREAD IS WHY INTERNET SHOULD BE BANNED FOREVER...!

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

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

    After the Pats beat the Texans and the 49ers over the next two weeks Brady will pretty much have the MVP award locked up. End of discussion. Now talk about the loser Colts somewhere else.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. 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 shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    give luck that d and vinitieri and bellichick same result? or peyton? :  )

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know, does the QB of the 7th best defense win the SB every year?  Did Manning win the year he had the #1 or #2 defenses in the NFL (despite what you heard Peyton had some of the best defenses in the NFL) - nope.  But Brady did.

     
  11. 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 shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    come on ur anti-luck agenda is so obvious ur embarassing yourself

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess the statistics and the guy that invented passer rating have an anti-luck agenda too.

    This situation reminds me of the Sanchize.  "Look how great he is". People couldn't stop fawning over him no matter how bad he played.  Don't get your football news from People magazine.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

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

    I heard it from several people here when I said that Luck would be better than Peyton Manning one day. Manning IMO is one of the top 3 QB to play the game so I'm not knocking him but saying that Luck is that good. Who knows he could be a one year wonder but I highly doubt it. He's smart, accurate, and always calm. He probably won't win MVP this year but he should get a lot of votes for it. If the Colts were to win out then he just may edge out Manning. There are 5 or 6 guys who have a legit shot at MVP, including Brady. This last month will determine who wins it.

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

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

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I heard it from several people here when I said that Luck would be better than Peyton Manning one day. Manning IMO is one of the top 3 QB to play the game so I'm not knocking him but saying that Luck is that good. Who knows he could be a one year wonder but I highly doubt it. He's smart, accurate, and always calm. He probably won't win MVP this year but he should get a lot of votes for it. If the Colts were to win out then he just may edge out Manning. There are 5 or 6 guys who have a legit shot at MVP, including Brady. This last month will determine who wins it.

    [/QUOTE]

    i dont think he is in consideration for mvp. i think hes tied for 3rd maybe on my list for rookie of year. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

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

    I wouldn't have even thought about him for MVP until seeing this thread but when you look at the Colts going from the worst record in the NFL to a playoff team he's going to get a look. IMO he wins rookie of the year edging out RG3. I think RG3 has had the better year and certainly has better numbers than Luck but the media has been all over Luck and he's thrown for a lot of yards. We won't know for a while but the media always has their favorites. For the MVP Manning has been getting the most talk but he's been about the same as Brady or Rodgers as far as overall play. They like the story of him missing a year , coming back from injury at 36 and what not. They could really give it to any of those 3 guys, that's why it's probably going to come down to December. If the Patriots were to run the table Brady should get it. I don't know, we will see.

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

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

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wouldn't have even thought about him for MVP until seeing this thread but when you look at the Colts going from the worst record in the NFL to a playoff team he's going to get a look. IMO he wins rookie of the year edging out RG3. I think RG3 has had the better year and certainly has better numbers than Luck but the media has been all over Luck and he's thrown for a lot of yards. We won't know for a while but the media always has their favorites. For the MVP Manning has been getting the most talk but he's been about the same as Brady or Rodgers as far as overall play. They like the story of him missing a year , coming back from injury at 36 and what not. They could really give it to any of those 3 guys, that's why it's probably going to come down to December. If the Patriots were to run the table Brady should get it. I don't know, we will see.

    [/QUOTE]

    agree on your mvp thoughts.

    on rookie of year, if wash wins 4 or 3 of 4, i think rg3 gets it.

    i agree luck is gettign the msot buzz. last week or so, rg3 buzz pickin up.

    nice chat

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

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



    ur comparing sanchez to luck?!

    wow...and u dont have an anti-luck agenda huh?

    [/QUOTE]


    The guy who started a thread to sell the NFL's 29th rated passer as an NFL MVP has an agenda.  I don't have a dog in the hunt.  But any objective observer can see that he's not even close to MVP worthy.

    In all honesty, Adrian Peterson should probably get it, maybe even Watt. 

    It isn't like Brady in 07, and 10.  Manning in 04, and Rogers last year.  Or even Brees in 2009 (when they inexplicably gave the MVP to a guy who had fewer TD's, more INT's, a lower rating, fewer yards, and a lower completion percentage- but that's another story)  No QB is having a historic year, several are having good years, but Manning, Brady and Rogers have all had better years. 

    Peterson is having a historic season.  Almost 1500 yards already at 6.2 per attempt is ridiculous.

     
  18. 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 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]


    NFC candidates will ALWAYS include Rodgers (it's a Green Bay thing)

    the bull u pats fans come up with! no it's not a "Green Bay" thing that Rogers will be there ALWAYS it's because he is one of if not the best QB in the NFL-that's why

    zero class as usual

    [/QUOTE]

      But yet, here you are. "just wanting to talk football" lmao. You are so full of yourself.

     
  19. 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]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Again, forget the conjecture.  Make the point then back it up.  Who are these teams every year that come back from a 2 win season the previous year that belie the sum of their parts due to some close wins?  

    Were any of them 8-4?

    [/QUOTE]


    In recent years the 9ers went from 6-10 to 13-3, the Pack went from 6-10 to 11-5, Saints went from 8-8 to 13-3.

    Look doggydoo, the whole world knows the Colts didn't lift a finger to stop the losing last year so they could get the first pick. Nobody here cares about your childish tactic saying "prove it". IT WAS OBVIOUS. Tool.

    [/QUOTE]

    6-10 or 8-8 is not anywhere near 2-14.  And remember the colts turned over about half or more of their roster this year, changed defensive scheme.  At least you could have brought up the 1998 colts who went 3-13 and then 13-3 the following year. 

    The fact is what the colts are doing this year is uncommon.  They are doing it with a significant roster change, change in defensive and offensive scheme, a rookie head coach with Cancer, a rookie GM.  What they are doing is remarkable, and much of that, given all of the changes and current personnel talent limitations, is due to Luck.

     
  20. 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 recent years the 9ers went from 6-10 to 13-3, the Pack went from 6-10 to 11-5, Saints went from 8-8 to 13-3.

    Look doggydoo, the whole world knows the Colts didn't lift a finger to stop the losing last year so they could get the first pick. Nobody here cares about your childish tactic saying "prove it". IT WAS OBVIOUS. Tool.

    [/QUOTE]

    6-10 or 8-8 is not anywhere near 2-14.  And remember the colts turned over about half or more of their roster this year, changed defensive scheme.  At least you could have brought up the 1998 colts who went 3-13 and then 13-3 the following year. 

    The fact is what the colts are doing this year is uncommon.  They are doing it with a significant roster change, change in defensive and offensive scheme, a rookie head coach with Cancer, a rookie GM.  What they are doing is remarkable, and much of that, given all of the changes and current personnel talent limitations, is due to Luck.

    [/QUOTE]

    I just mentioned a few doggydoo. I wasn't doing an exhaustive search. Nobody has said the turnaround is common. But of course tanking it last year is a factor in that as well. They just happened to win 2 of their last 3 once they sealed the suck for Luck deal including a win over the Texans. LMAO

    It's not due to luck, it's simply choosing not to suck.

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

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

    In response to sporter81's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I heard it from several people here when I said that Luck would be better than Peyton Manning one day. Manning IMO is one of the top 3 QB to play the game so I'm not knocking him but saying that Luck is that good. Who knows he could be a one year wonder but I highly doubt it. He's smart, accurate, and always calm. He probably won't win MVP this year but he should get a lot of votes for it. If the Colts were to win out then he just may edge out Manning. There are 5 or 6 guys who have a legit shot at MVP, including Brady. This last month will determine who wins it.

    [/QUOTE]


    One year wonder? You think the 29th rated QB is a "wonder"?

    The hype on this guy has become unbearable.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

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

    RGIII seems to have a winner's mentality.  He reminds me of Brady that way.  To succeed in the NFL, I think he may need to rely less on his legs (he's going to get hurt if he keeps running like a RB), but unlike a lot of other running QBs, I think he's an excellent passer (for a rookie at least) who makes good reads and has both power and accuracy in his throws.

    Luck has been up and down, but I guess that's expected when you're a rookie.  When he's up, he looks like the next Peyton Manning.  When he's down, he looks pretty average.  I think the potential is there for him to be an elite QB, but we'll have to see how he develops.  

    At this point, I'd say RGIII is looking more like a guy who could lead his team somewhere this year.  Again, it's kind of that Brady thing.  He seems to have the attitude of a winner and leader who can motivate others to do well.  Luck I'm not so sure.  Maybe we're looking at the next generation of Brady-Manning, with Griffin the Brady like guy who wins all the time and Luck the Manning like guy who has great stats and maybe is the best "pure" QB in the game, but doesn't win like Brady does.  

     

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

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

    Luck deserves votes, for sure. 1-15(?) to winning. HE won't come close to getting it, but a few votes for sure. 

    Don't be suckered by pure stat lines either. 

    HE's been asked to do much more than RGIII IMO from a QBing perspective. RGIII takes off and runs, this masks the fact that he has only thrown for 2000 yards, and might not break 3000. Sorry, but I can't see a clear cut advantage in a QB in who has that RB, that defense, and doesn't crack 3000 yards. RGIII could get a vote, but he isn't head and shoulders above Luck.

    In five years, Luck will be going to Pro Bowls while RGIII will be a footnote. 

    Personally, I think Brady is a slam dunk at this point, kind of dragging a bad defense over the threshhold again, putting up historic numbers with an offense that has been terribly injured. But there are others who deserve votes. Luck is surely one of them.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino'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 recent years the 9ers went from 6-10 to 13-3, the Pack went from 6-10 to 11-5, Saints went from 8-8 to 13-3.

    Look doggydoo, the whole world knows the Colts didn't lift a finger to stop the losing last year so they could get the first pick. Nobody here cares about your childish tactic saying "prove it". IT WAS OBVIOUS. Tool.

    [/QUOTE]

    6-10 or 8-8 is not anywhere near 2-14.  And remember the colts turned over about half or more of their roster this year, changed defensive scheme.  At least you could have brought up the 1998 colts who went 3-13 and then 13-3 the following year. 

    The fact is what the colts are doing this year is uncommon.  They are doing it with a significant roster change, change in defensive and offensive scheme, a rookie head coach with Cancer, a rookie GM.  What they are doing is remarkable, and much of that, given all of the changes and current personnel talent limitations, is due to Luck.

    [/QUOTE]

    I just mentioned a few doggydoo. I wasn't doing an exhaustive search. Nobody has said the turnaround is common. But of course tanking it last year is a factor in that as well. They just happened to win 2 of their last 3 once they sealed the suck for Luck deal including a win over the Texans. LMAO

    It's not due to luck, it's simply choosing not to suck.

    [/QUOTE]

    *THAT* I believe there is an element of truth to. I still don't think it discredits Luck, but anyone who isn't *laughing out loud* at how obvious the bag job was last season just doesn't have a sense of humor.

    Part of that losing choice was starting Collins .... who was never good, and was basically senile looking last season. 

    Luck has thrown some picks, rookies throw picks when they are forced to throw, but he adds value with his arm overall. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

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

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Luck deserves votes, for sure. 1-15(?) to winning. HE won't come close to getting it, but a few votes for sure. 

    Don't be suckered by pure stat lines either. 

    HE's been asked to do much more than RGIII IMO from a QBing perspective. RGIII takes off and runs, this masks the fact that he has only thrown for 2000 yards, and might not break 3000. Sorry, but I can't see a clear cut advantage in a QB in who has that RB, that defense, and doesn't crack 3000 yards. RGIII could get a vote, but he isn't head and shoulders above Luck.

    In five years, Luck will be going to Pro Bowls while RGIII will be a footnote. 

    Personally, I think Brady is a slam dunk at this point, kind of dragging a bad defense over the threshhold again, putting up historic numbers with an offense that has been terribly injured. But there are others who deserve votes. Luck is surely one of them.

    [/QUOTE]

    Z, it's a good point that Luck has been asked to do way more than just about any rookie QB ever (he's averaging 40 passes a game, I think, while RGIII is under 30 per game).  But still, RGIII's stat line (while it isn't everything) is pretty impressive. I think he's got a completion percentage of about 66%, his TD to Int ratio is 3 to 1, and he's got a QB rating in the 100s.

    Maybe he'll be a flash in the pan, but it's his leadership qualities, from what I've seen, that will carry him forward to more success.   (By the way, I think Luck will be quite good too, though statistically he's not that great at this point.)

     

     

Share