How many games will Indy win this year?

[Kuzzy Powers]

The more I watch Luck, the more I feel like this is nothing more than a talking point that has snowballed into an overblown exaggeration.

I'm obviously not a scout, but he doesn't look that fantastic to me.

Agree 100% with this.

 

[NAHSTE]

If it were last season where there was really no clear cut #1 .. I agree.. they should do everything they can to trade the pick.

The Colts have holes galore, but Andrew Luck is a once in a 15-20 year type prospect.

They have no other choice but to draft Luck should they finish with the worst record in football.

The more I watch Luck, the more I feel like this is nothing more than a talking point that has snowballed into an overblown exaggeration.

I'm obviously not a scout, but he doesn't look that fantastic to me.

I love Andrew Luck and won't hold the relatively bad Stanford game against him, but I think the whole "once in a generation" stuff is hooey. A) You can win with any QB in this league at this point; and B) We don't know how good the quarterbacks will be in ten years, or even two years. You can't just say that there will never be another great QB available down the road because none of us could possibly know. And of course, there are three or four other potential franchise quarterbacks also available in this particular year. If Andrew Luck wasn't around, we'd be hearing that Matt Barkley is a once in a generation prospect. The pundits love to slob on knobs. That's what they do. Every year the best quarterback coming out of college "HAS ALL THE TOOLS" and "is going to revolutionize the sport." I've heard those phrases uttered about at least 10 quarterbacks in my lifetime. I've heard "once in a decade" or "once in a generation" uttered about three or four in the last decade alone.

And even if I did believe in the "once in a generation" myth, I'd still say the Colts should trade the pick. They are the one team that can afford to pass on Andrew Luck. They have a million holes on both sides of the ball, and they also happen to have the best quarterback of all time under contract for at least 4 more seasons after this.

 

[Archer]

Zero.

Dream world - Trade the pick and somehow grab Barkley + extra help.

Polian World - Luck + awful big ten players.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

I love Andrew Luck and won't hold the relatively bad Stanford game against him, but I think the whole "once in a generation" stuff is hooey. A) You can win with any QB in this league at this point; and B) We don't know how good the quarterbacks will be in ten years, or even two years. You can't just say that there will never be another great QB available down the road because none of us could possibly know. And of course, there are three or four other potential franchise quarterbacks also available in this particular year. If Andrew Luck wasn't around, we'd be hearing that Matt Barkley is a once in a generation prospect. The pundits love to slob on knobs. That's what they do. Every year the best quarterback coming out of college "HAS ALL THE TOOLS" and "is going to revolutionize the sport." I've heard those phrases uttered about at least 10 quarterbacks in my lifetime. I've heard "once in a decade" or "once in a generation" uttered about three or four in the last decade alone.

And even if I did believe in the "once in a generation" myth, I'd still say the Colts should trade the pick. They are the one team that can afford to pass on Andrew Luck. They have a million holes on both sides of the ball, and they also happen to have the best quarterback of all time under contract for at least 4 more seasons after this.

Whens the last time you've heard of fans wanting their team to lose all their games since the first month of the season for a prospect?

Hes the most hyped of over-hyped prospects we've seen since Peyton Manning. I dont think hes that good though.

 

[ralaw]

Scouts seem to be enamored with Luck and much more so than any other prospect we've seen in recent memory. At this point people are probably just tired of hearing all of the cliche's with him, which tends to sour people. The real issue for the Colts is that do you need the "once in every 20 year prospect" to be successful. Over the years if nothing else all of the various rookie QB's have proven that they can come in and be successful in being part of their teams.

However, all of these successful QB's have proven to lack the ability to carry their teams. Yes, they're successful as "system guys," but when things get tough, the running game is struggling and plays breakdown they haven't consistently been able to still make the neccesary plays ala Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees and Big Ben. I've seen these guys carry their offenses while everyone around them is struggling. Scouts believe Luck is closer to Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees and Big Ben then he is to Ryan, Flacco, Bradford, Ponder, Newton, Dalton, etc etc.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I love Andrew Luck and won't hold the relatively bad Stanford game against him, but I think the whole "once in a generation" stuff is hooey. A) You can win with any QB in this league at this point; and B) We don't know how good the quarterbacks will be in ten years, or even two years. You can't just say that there will never be another great QB available down the road because none of us could possibly know. And of course, there are three or four other potential franchise quarterbacks also available in this particular year. If Andrew Luck wasn't around, we'd be hearing that Matt Barkley is a once in a generation prospect. The pundits love to slob on knobs. That's what they do. Every year the best quarterback coming out of college "HAS ALL THE TOOLS" and "is going to revolutionize the sport." I've heard those phrases uttered about at least 10 quarterbacks in my lifetime. I've heard "once in a decade" or "once in a generation" uttered about three or four in the last decade alone.

And even if I did believe in the "once in a generation" myth, I'd still say the Colts should trade the pick. They are the one team that can afford to pass on Andrew Luck. They have a million holes on both sides of the ball, and they also happen to have the best quarterback of all time under contract for at least 4 more seasons after this.

Might be the dumbest shit I've ever read on VSN.

List of recent Super Bowl QBs...

Aaron Rodgers
Peyton Manning
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Tom Brady
Eli Manning

They also happen to be the best QBs in football.

Coincidence?

I think not.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Scouts seem to be enamored with Luck and much more so than any other prospect we've seen in recent memory. At this point people are probably just tired of hearing all of the cliche's with him, which tends to sour people. The real issue for the Colts is that do you need the "once in every 20 year prospect" to be successful. Over the years if nothing else all of the various rookie QB's have proven that they can come in and be successful in being part of their teams.

However, all of these successful QB's have proven to lack the ability to carry their teams. Yes, they're successful as "system guys," but when things get tough, the running game is struggling and plays breakdown they haven't consistently been able to still make the neccesary plays ala Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees and Big Ben. I've seen these guys carry their offenses while everyone around them is struggling. Scouts believe Luck is closer to Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees and Big Ben then he is to Ryan, Flacco, Bradford, Ponder, Newton, Dalton, etc etc.

I think the Colts are the epitome of the answer to that question is an emphatic YES.

 

[DJ Fog]

Calling it now. Miracle victory vs the Patriots for their one win.

 

[DSpydr84]

This season is exactly what Peyton Manning needed to solidify himself as a Hall of Fame quarterback. People actually thought this team was good and it was Manning's fault for not winning the big game. I laugh at that now.

 

[Kuzzy Powers]

This season is exactly what Peyton Manning needed to solidify himself as a Hall of Fame quarterback. People actually thought this team was good and it was Manning's fault for not winning the big game. I laugh at that now.

Peyton Manning didnt need this season to solidify himself as a HOF QB, thats long been done.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Remember when people said Manning's success was a direct Result of Polian's focus on the offensive side of the ball?

you know, the comparisons that Brady was throwing to shit receivers and getting it done while Manning was throwing to all pros.

I can think of 2 guys Manning has played with that can make an argument that their success wasn't a Direct result of manning. and truthfully, only one of them has any legitimacy to his argument.

 

[DSpydr84]

Remember when people said Manning's success was a direct Result of Polian's focus on the offensive side of the ball?

you know, the comparisons that Brady was throwing to shit receivers and getting it done while Manning was throwing to all pros.

I can think of 2 guys Manning has played with that can make an argument that their success wasn't a Direct result of manning. and truthfully, only one of them has any legitimacy to his argument.

Jacob Tamme?

 

[ThunderHorse]

ha, Think 99-05

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Remember when people said Manning's success was a direct Result of Polian's focus on the offensive side of the ball?

you know, the comparisons that Brady was throwing to shit receivers and getting it done while Manning was throwing to all pros.

I can think of 2 guys Manning has played with that can make an argument that their success wasn't a Direct result of manning. and truthfully, only one of them has any legitimacy to his argument.

Obviously Faulk, while only playing one year...was a beast.

Edge would have been a beast anywhere he played in his prime.

Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are legit talents that would have succeeded anywhere.

Tarik Glenn was an elite tackle and Jeff Saturday was a top pivotman in football for years.

Most of the rest are pretty much interchangeable players, IMO.

 

[Senser81]

Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are legit talents that would have succeeded anywhere.

I agree with everything you said, but I don't know if the above are true. I think Harrison probably would have had success anywhere, but being Manning's #1 WR really helped him. Harrison wasn't a physical freak like a Moss or a Fitzgerald. I don't know if other teams would have been comfortable featuring him so prominently in their offense.

I think Wayne is a nice pro, but not a great player, to be honest. If he wasn't on Indy, his career would resemble a Ricky Proehl's career, IMO.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Obviously Faulk, while only playing one year...was a beast.

Edge would have been a beast anywhere he played in his prime.

Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are legit talents that would have succeeded anywhere.

Tarik Glenn was an elite tackle and Jeff Saturday was a top pivotman in football for years.

Most of the rest are pretty much interchangeable players, IMO.

I give it to Edgerrin. before buddy's knee went he was a fucking problem - nobody knew what to do.

Marvin was a great player but like Senser said, he didn't have the physical tools a lot of receivers do. Dude had jets, hands, and could run some crazy crisp routes but I think Manning took Harrison's career to the next level.

I was focusing more on skill players. but post 2006 the offensive line in large part has been in shambles. bad drafting, free agency, and time has destroyed what was a pretty damn good offensive line in Glenn, Lilja, Saturday, Scott, and Diem.