Quote:As to the emphasized portion, I would not argue so much different eras, though there is an argument to be made for that. But I do contend that the first 4-5 years of Manning's career were in a tougher overall division (the then AFC East) than Luck has faced during the similar point in his career.
I think nobody can seriously deny that Luck is a fine QB and among the league's best. But having seen both in person first hand and being on the wrong end of way too many Colts QB performances, I maintain Manning is flat out a superior QB to Luck.
Thanks, Bullseye, for actual football talk.
Looking at other divisions in the NFL over the past 6 years I've noticed that most divisions usually have 2 good teams and 2 below average/bad teams. I think the AFCS was no different, with the exception of 2014 when the Texans only won 2 games. The Colts and Texans have actually been the best teams in the division over that span -- both having winning records simultaneously. In 2016, there were 3 teams with an even or winning record in the AFC South. I think going forward, the AFCS will be a tightly contested division, so we will see how Luck fairs the remainder of his career.
You may have a point in comparing the AFC East in Manning's time VS AFCS in Luck's, however, there are too many variables to consider, such as, the division only accounts for 6 games out of 16 games played in a season. How tough were the other teams that they played against is something to consider as well.
Lastly, the Manning led Colts had a better O-line at the start of Manning's career, as well as a better run game (Faulk and then E. James) and an all-pro receiver, M. Harrison. Luck has not had a good O-line, or a good run game, or a good defense. T.Y. has been terrific, but that's really about it.
Quote:And what point did I prove?
(I don't write for PFF .gif "Laughing")
)
It's a little early to be drinking on a Friday, my friend.
Not sure why you pretend debate when talking to you is like talking to a wall. Zero comprehension from you.
https://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/to.../?p=994372
PFF is disconnected from reality with their rankings, which are retooled until a desired outcome is obtained.
You can't do that when you ask the players who they feel the best players are. You know, the players who actually play against them. Their peers.
Look, we get it. We've always got it. You think you've got "the guy." Congrats that you feel that way. If he were the guy I'm not sure why you would be triggered by those who don't share that opinion, but hey... confident folks would't behave that way.
We can agree to disagree on what and who you feel Luck is, but make no mistake whatsoever:
Your opponents do not share that opinion.
The NFL doesn't fear Luck, nearly as much as you seem to be confident in him.
In fact, I'm happy you've got him instead of Peyton, too.
Peyton was a serious factor to be reckoned with. Luck isn't the same. He's just another factor.
So, enjoy your vacuum of comfort, while you're still comfortable with him.
From our perspective, you can keep him as long as you like.
He may be Peyton to you, but he certainly has been no Peyton to us (or the rest of the NFL.)
Quote:Not sure why you pretend debate when talking to you is like talking to a wall. Zero comprehension from you.
https://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/to.../?p=994372
PFF is disconnected from reality with their rankings, which are retooled until a desired outcome is obtained.
You can't do that when you ask the players who they feel the best players are. You know, the players who actually play against them. Their peers.
Look, we get it. We've always got it. You think you've got "the guy." Congrats that you feel that way. If he were the guy I'm not sure why you would be triggered by those who don't share that opinion, but hey... confident folks would't behave that way.
We can agree to disagree on what and who you feel Luck is, but make no mistake whatsoever:
Your opponents do not share that opinion.
The NFL doesn't fear Luck, nearly as much as you seem to be confident in him.
In fact, I'm happy you've got him instead of Peyton, too.
Peyton was a serious factor to be reckoned with. Luck isn't the same. He's just another factor.
So, enjoy your vacuum of comfort, while you're still comfortable with him.
From our perspective, you can keep him as long as you like.
He may be Peyton to you, but he certainly has been no Peyton to us (or the rest of the NFL.)
Pirkster, a couple items of note:
1. Regarding NFL Networks Top 100:The players do not get a chance to play against every team, every year, and as such, you could have someone from a team that you did not play against cast a vote in your favor or against it, which would lead to a less informed viewpoint. It's a fun show to watch, but it is in no way an accurate representation of a player's actual abilities or rank within the NFL in their particular position. When NFL execs (not players, but people who are paid to evaluate players and lead teams) where asked which player would they choose to lead their franchise, Luck was the top pick with Rogers in second.
2. With Peyton, you have the benefit of hindsight (16 years Vs 5 years). My point was that at the same point in their careers, Luck is ahead. It remains to be seen how they compare as their careers progress. Manning was incredible years 6+. It appears that you are comparing Manning in his prime to Luck at the start of his career, which is an intellectually dishonest comparison.
3. Luck may not match Manning's heights. That is a clear possibility as Manning is considered one of the best to ever play the game. As a Colt's fan, I have no problem stating that. It does bother me a bit when I see a post that says "Luck was supposed to break all of Manning's records." As I stated, Luck can't possibly do that only having played 5 seasons compared to Manning's 16. I then provided facts that show that Luck is ahead at this stage in their respective careers.
You responded with pictures and no substance. Is there any true objection to the points I have brought up?
Quote:Pirkster, a couple items of note:
1. Regarding NFL Networks Top 100:The players do not get a chance to play against every team, every year, and as such, you could have someone from a team that you did not play against cast a vote in your favor or against it, which would lead to a less informed viewpoint. It's a fun show to watch, but it is in no way an accurate representation of a player's actual abilities or rank within the NFL in their particular position. When NFL execs (not players, but people who are paid to evaluate players and lead teams) where asked which player would they choose to lead their franchise, Luck was the top pick with Rogers in second.
2. With Peyton, you have the benefit of hindsight (16 years Vs 5 years). My point was that at the same point in their careers, Luck is ahead. It remains to be seen how they compare as their careers progress. Manning was incredible years 6+. It appears that you are comparing Manning in his prime to Luck at the start of his career, which is an intellectually dishonest comparison.
3. Luck may not match Manning's heights. That is a clear possibility as Manning is considered one of the best to ever play the game. As a Colt's fan, I have no problem stating that. It does bother me a bit when I see a post that says "Luck was supposed to break all of Manning's records." As I stated, Luck can't possibly do that only having played 5 seasons compared to Manning's 16. I then provided facts that show that Luck is ahead at this stage in their respective careers.
You responded with pictures and no substance. Is their any true objection to the points I have brought up?
You make very good points. Very good ones.
I'd also add... it's possible to have both a serious discussion and have a little fun/sense of humor, too (and be able to identify both.)
Quote:Thanks, Bullseye, for actual football talk.
Looking at other divisions in the NFL over the past 6 years I've noticed that most divisions usually have 2 good teams and 2 below average/bad teams. I think the AFCS was no different, with the exception of 2014 when the Texans only won 2 games. The Colts and Texans have actually been the best teams in the division over that span -- both having winning records simultaneously. In 2016, there were 3 teams with an even or winning record in the AFC South. I think going forward, the AFCS will be a tightly contested division, so we will see how Luck fairs the remainder of his career.
1. You may have a point in comparing the AFC East in Manning's time VS AFCS in Luck's, however, there are too many variables to consider, such as, the division only accounts for 6 games out of 16 games played in a season. How tough were the other teams that they played against is something to consider as well.
2. Lastly, the Manning led Colts had a better O-line at the start of Manning's career, as well as a better run game (Faulk and then E. James) and an all-pro receiver, M. Harrison. Luck has not had a good O-line, or a good run game, or a good defense. T.Y. has been terrific, but that's really about it.
(Numbering added)
1. Prior to realignment, the AFC East, like most divisions, had 5 teams, so for Manning, he had eight (8) division games a year, not six (6) like Luck had. In 1998, Manning's divisional opponents had records of 12-4, 20-6, 10-6, and 9-7. In 1999, the records were 11-5, 9-7, 8-8 and 8-8. In 2000, they were 11-5, 9-7, 8-8 and 5-11. 2001 showed AFC East records as 11-5, 11-5, 10-6, and 3-13. Note: 2001 was the season Brady and Belichick won their first Super Bowl together. Luck's divisional opponent's records? 2012: 12-4, 6-10 and 2-14. 2013: 7-9, 4-12, 2-14. 2014: 9-7, 3-13, 2-14. 2015-9-7, 5-11, 3-13. Without even figuring out which two games replaced the divisional games, you'd be hard pressed to argue Luck faced a comparable schedule over his first four years vs. Manning's.
2. I agree Manning had better surrounding talent than Luck had during the same period listed above.
Luck still hasn't thrown a ball this offseason
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl...375177001/
This quote is of particular interest...
"And that’s to be expected. Luck’s recovery from surgery on a partially torn labrum in that throwing shoulder is expected to require anywhere from six to nine months of rehabilitation. He’s nearly five months in."
If the high end of this time frame is his actual recovery time, Luck may not see the field until October, though I suspect he'll be back before then.
I will say the Colts are smart to be very cautious with his return.
(06-07-2017, 01:20 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]He'll be fine.
![[Image: mPL9j4.gif]](https://j.gifs.com/mPL9j4.gif)
Pfft.
They better hope so.
I think they had a better draft this year than they have in recent memory, but I don't think their defense is good enough yet to really carry the Colts if Luck is out for a sustained period of time.
At least he knows where to go when his pain meds are running low. " Irsay pharmaceuticals, How may we help you? "
I see the Colts going 7-9.
(06-14-2017, 07:07 PM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]I see the Colts going 7-9.
Is this assuming Luck plays 16 games, misses games due to this shoulder, or misses games due to subsequent injury behind a bad OL?
This is starting to look bad. I am always hesitant to speculate about off season surgery (who really knows how or what goes on) but this thing has been lingering for years. If Luck can't rebound the Colts are going to be in big trouble. IF this is a career altering thing (which it may be considering his history) that franchise is going to have trouble because outside of Luck and a few other pieces, there isn't much talent on that team. He has truly been the difference (imho.)
(06-15-2017, 09:31 AM)Vicbow Rules Wrote: [ -> ]This is starting to look bod. I am always hesitant to speculate about off season surgery (who really knows how or what goes on) but this thing has been lingering for years. If Luck can't rebound the Colts in going to be in big trouble. IF this is a career altering thing (which it may be considering his history) that franchise is going to have trouble because outside of Luck and a few other pieces, there isn't much talent on that team. He has truly been the difference (imho.)
I love your phrasing when you talk about "career altering" because as you say, it may be just that.
Whenever he comes back, irrespective of whether he is deemed fit to play, the question is will he be the same Andrew Luck.
I think the league as a whole is better with a 100% Andrew Luck, but if this injury throws off his throwing motion or his arm strength or his mechanics, I agree with you that the Colts could be in trouble at least short term.
They look like they had a strong defensive class, but I don't think even with these draft and FA additions, that defense is strong enough/experienced enough to carry them. If their current GM can continue his solid drafting, if things go well, he might be able to build a balanced enough team in time to offset the lack of a dominant QB, but that might be years down the road.
I can read between the lines here.... Some of ya'll are hoping his shoulder injury drags out...
By the time we face the clots (Oct 22), Luck will be on the field.
We won't get to face off against Stephen Morris or Scott Tolzien