OT: Irsay - Luck signed through 2021

XLIX said:

They kept Ty Law against his will in 2004. I think trading Branch had more to do with the fact they got a first rounder for a #2 WR (on most teams) with 1 year left on his contract. That's a good trade for NE.

Click to expand...

I think there's a bit more to it than that, since IIRC the Pats gave Branch permission to seek a trade with almost any other team. (Care to guess what the exception was?)

KontradictioN said:

Some of you are going to be in for a very rude awakening when Brady retires. Some of the posts around here act like you expect top quarterbacks (i.e. - the most important position in football) to do what Brady does. Newsflash: Brady is the only guy that does what Brady does. When he's gone and, should this franchise take a big **** for a few years, some of you will be begging for a quarterback that gives the team a chance and will probably cheer a signing that locks him up, no matter how big it is. That's just the way the league works now. Appreciate what Brady does because we more than likely will never see that again.

Click to expand...

It obviously helps him that (A) he makes more money than most QBs off endorsements (despite doing so few, relatively speaking), and (B) his wife makes more money, AFAIK, than any other football player's wife, ever.

KontradictioN said:

That's why I said should this franchise take a huge ****. Of course there is no guarantee it will happen right after Brady is gone. But it will happen one day. And, when that next guy comes along, the same people acting as if taking a pay cut is something every quarterback SHOULD be doing and acting like Luck is selfish for taking this kind of pay day will gladly pay the next guy top dollar to keep him around.

Click to expand...

I think every NFL player has the right to fight for every penny. I think it was more stupid for the Colts to give Luck this contract especially since he seems to be regressing (there is a real chance they are going to ruin the guy giving him no o-line) rather than Luck being greedy.

Rob0729 said:

I think every NFL player has the right to fight for every penny. I think it was more stupid for the Colts to give Luck this contract especially since he seems to be regressing (there is a real chance they are going to ruin the guy giving him no o-line) rather than Luck being greedy.

Click to expand...

They're in a tough position. Was there evidence that he was regressing or was there more to his injury situation that the average Joe doesn't know about? For their sake, I sincerely hope he's regressing. That would be high comedy.

KontradictioN said:

They're in a tough position. Was there evidence that he was regressing or was there more to his injury situation that the average Joe doesn't know about? For their sake, I sincerely hope he's regressing. That would be high comedy.

Click to expand...

He played like crap before he was injured.

Rob0729 said:

He played like crap before he was injured.

Click to expand...

I think he had something else that the Colts weren't disclosing before he went out for the year.

I hope it blows up in the Colts faces.

It would be poetic justice if it costs them MUCH more than a #1 and a #4 draft pick to remedy Luck not playing up to expectations, or for as long a career as the Colts hoped for.

Here here for Jimmy G eventually surpassing this guy in their version of Brady v Manning! Cheers.

The Colts are far from a balanced, all set team, on the opposite, they are a mess. This deal will cripple then for years and this is a sure thing. Good for them they play in a comedy of a division and I don't trust for a moment that those teams are improving and "getting there" although it seems like they are at least doing an effort.

Luck as talented as he is didn't show so far that he is capable of carrying that team on his shoulders to a Lombardi. Unless the stars align for the Colts in a given season like 5 top QBs going to the IR I think they wont sniff a SB appearance during these 6 years. Oh I forgot they extended Pagano and Grigson, LMFAO

KontradictioN said:

Some of you are going to be in for a very rude awakening when Brady retires. Some of the posts around here act like you expect top quarterbacks (i.e. - the most important position in football) to do what Brady does. Newsflash: Brady is the only guy that does what Brady does. When he's gone and, should this franchise take a big **** for a few years, some of you will be begging for a quarterback that gives the team a chance and will probably cheer a signing that locks him up, no matter how big it is. That's just the way the league works now. Appreciate what Brady does because we more than likely will never see that again.

Click to expand...

KontradictioN said:

That's why I said should this franchise take a huge ****. Of course there is no guarantee it will happen right after Brady is gone. But it will happen one day. And, when that next guy comes along, the same people acting as if taking a pay cut is something every quarterback SHOULD be doing and acting like Luck is selfish for taking this kind of pay day will gladly pay the next guy top dollar to keep him around.

Click to expand...

Not sure you want to dump on people here. Most are saying they realize the Pats are in a wonderful situation because Brady is willing to take a team friendly deal. When Brady is gone we sure hope the team has a viable succession plan in place, like, oh, drafting a QB every few years and developing them in-house. What was the Colts plan? Would you call 'Suck for Luck' and continuing to pull in mediocre free agents and pay them the big bucks a plan? My expectation is that BB's eventual successor is someone who learned from him and will know better than that, but of course I'm prepared for it to not go anything like the past. However I'm not already in chicken little mode, that would be getting way ahead of events for no good reason.

KontradictioN said:

I think he had something else that the Colts weren't disclosing before he went out for the year.

Click to expand...

Unless he was injured the first game of the season, that is just an excuse. He was awful from the start of the season. In his first two games, he threw for a combined 3TDs, 5INTs, and completed just 54.7% of his passes.

Hell after four games in 2014, people were labeling Brady done and his production was no where as bad as Luck's start to the season last year.

Rob0729 said:

Unless he was injured the first game of the season, that is just an excuse. He was awful from the start of the season. In his first two games, he threw for a combined 3TDs, 5INTs, and completed just 54.7% of his passes.

Hell after four games in 2014, people were labeling Brady done and his production was no where as bad as Luck's start to the season last year.

Click to expand...

The NFL was already looking into how Indy reported Luck's injuries, so it's not far fetched. Glazer said he had cracked ribs since at least Week 3 in the season and then he suffered a shoulder injury before going out for the year. The guy was injured. That's the more likely excuse over saying that a 26 year old that tossed 40 touchdowns the year before is already regressing and playing as if he's past his prime. Further, while he had awful games, he still had excellent showings against the Pats and the Broncos, the two finalists in the AFC.

KontradictioN said:

The NFL was already looking into how Indy reported Luck's injuries, so it's not far fetched. Glazer said he had cracked ribs since at least Week 3 in the season and then he suffered a shoulder injury before going out for the year. The guy was injured. That's the more likely excuse over saying that a 26 year old that tossed 40 touchdowns the year before is already regressing and playing as if he's past his prime. Further, while he had awful games, he still had excellent showings against the Pats and the Broncos, the two finalists in the AFC.

Click to expand...

I don't remember how old you are, but the Pats ruined Tony Eason. And I think the Colts can do something similar to Luck. No, Eason was never 1/100th the player Luck is, but he was promising his first few years until he took too many hits and got shell shocked and either dove to the ground or just hucked the ball away whenever a defender got within 5 yards of him.

Andrew Luck got sacked last year once every 20 drop back attempt. For a guy who is prone to make stupid mistakes under perfect conditions like Luck does at least once a game, all those hits could make him start to see ghosts and rattle his psyche. There are plenty of QBs who this has happened to (see David Carr).

No he isn't past his prime. That is silly. But the fact the Colts give Luck no offensive line and has him constantly running for his life can ruin him if he isn't mentally tough enough. Many QBs have been ruined in that type of situation.

All that money for a QB that has failed to take them to the SB in 5 years.
I look at him as another failure.

Rob0729 said:

I don't remember how old you are, but the Pats ruined Tony Eason. And I think the Colts can do something similar to Luck. No, Eason was never 1/100th the player Luck is, but he was promising his first few years until he took too many hits and got shell shocked and either dove to the ground or just hucked the ball away whenever a defender got within 5 yards of him.

Andrew Luck got sacked last year once every drop back attempt. For a guy who is prone to make stupid mistakes under perfect conditions like Luck does at least once a game, all those hits could make him start to see ghosts and rattle his psyche. There are plenty of QBs who this has happened to (see David Carr).

No he isn't past his prime. That is silly. But the fact the Colts give Luck no offensive line and has him constantly running for his life can ruin him if he isn't mentally tough enough. Many QBs have been ruined in that type of situation.

Click to expand...

You're moving the goal posts now. Of course the Colts COULD do something similar to Luck, but that's not what you were insinuating earlier in the thread. You were arguing that they HAVE done that to him and, as a result, he regressed. My point was that it was tough to tell whether or not he regressed or if he was playing injured with my BET being that he was playing injured and citing reports that the Colts were getting cute with the injury report and Luck (what happened with that, by the way? That story disappeared like a fart in the wind).

In all, I think it's more probable that a guy who is 26 years old and threw 40 touchdowns the year before was playing more injured than he or his team let on than it is that he is regressing. That said, going forward, I would love to see him take more hits because **** that team and everything they stand for.

KontradictioN said:

You're moving the goal posts now. Of course the Colts COULD do something similar to Luck, but that's not what you were insinuating earlier in the thread. You were arguing that they HAVE done that to him and, as a result, he regressed. My point was that it was tough to tell whether or not he regressed or if he was playing injured with my BET being that he was playing injured and citing reports that the Colts were getting cute with the injury report and Luck (what happened with that, by the way? That story disappeared like a fart in the wind).

In all, I think it's more probable that a guy who is 26 years old and threw 40 touchdowns the year before was playing more injured than he or his team let on than it is that he is regressing. That said, going forward, I would love to see him take more hits because **** that team and everything they stand for.

Click to expand...

I never said that he has regressed (at least permanently) and never said the Colts definitely ruined him. He regressed last year even before his injuries, but that doesn't mean it is permanent. I am just countering your argument that he is only four years into the league and can only get better. I am arguing he could have plateaued and will never get any better or could potentially get worse. No one knows.

I said it has happened plenty times before where a good to great QB is put into a system where he gets clobbered all the time and forced to do too much and it screws with their heads. Not saying it will. I am saying it could. Some of his comments during the offseason and him talking about changing the way he plays and how he makes decisions could indicate he might start to over think things.

And you keep talking about the 40 TDs in 2014 with no context. it isn't as impressive when you mention the Colts had a whopping 9 rushing TDs that season (tied for 24th in the league). The Colts threw a lot in the red zone because they had no RB to pound it in on ... and goal situations. And let's not forget he had 16 INTs that year (many costly INTs in critical situations) and a 61.7% completion rating.

He was what I said he was - Brett Farve Lite. I think his ceiling is Brett Farve. That is good enough to be a top 3 QB in this league. The problem is that in today's day and age, it won't make him Brady or Rodgers level.

Rob0729 said:

I never said that he has regressed (at least permanently) and never said the Colts definitely ruined him.

Click to expand...

You sure did insinuate that...

Rob0729 said:

I don't blame the Colts for locking up Luck. He is a top 10 QB in this league (not or barely top 5 though). He could improve to be a top 2 or 3, but I think he could be regressing. I just think it is ridiculous money for a guy who is more media hype than actual production.

Click to expand...

Regressing insinuates that you believe it will continue to happen. If you didn't, then you sure are wasting your time and this website's bandwidth.

He regressed last year even before his injuries, but that doesn't mean it is permanent.

Click to expand...

How do we know that? Especially when you have the fact that the league was looking into the Colts' reporting of his injury on top of the fact that he had solid showings against the two best defenses he played before going out for the season: the Pats and the Broncos. If the guy was regressing, as you say, wouldn't he have had horrific outings in those two games as well?

I am just countering your argument that he is only four years into the league and can only get better.

Click to expand...

And now you're tossing out a straw man for good measure. Feel free to quote where I made that argument.

I am arguing he could have plateaued and will never get any better or could potentially get worse. No one knows.

Click to expand...

And what I'm arguing is that it's impossible to tell that because he was playing injured (much like Brady was when he was clearly still recovering from the knee injury in 2009). I'm arguing that the probability of Luck regressing and having plateaued is lesser than the probability that his play was hurt by the fact that he was injured compounded by the fact that the Colts have no OL and a mostly deep threat passing game with few options who can get openly quickly underneath (thus negating a pass rush).

I said it has happened plenty times before where a good to great QB is put into a system where he gets clobbered all the time and forced to do too much and it screws with their heads. Not saying it will. I am saying it could. Some of his comments during the offseason and him talking about changing the way he plays and how he makes decisions could indicate he might start to over think things.

Click to expand...

True. It could also indicate that he realizes that he can't simply try to run through LB's like a ****** with his head on fire too.

And you keep talking about the 40 TDs in 2014 with no context. it isn't as impressive when you mention the Colts had a whopping 9 rushing TDs that season (tied for 24th in the league). The Colts threw a lot in the red zone because they had no RB to pound it in on ... and goal situations. And let's not forget he had 16 INTs that year (many costly INTs in critical situations) and a 61.7% completion rating.

Click to expand...

Whatever way you want to cut it, the guy threw 40 TD's and passed for well over 4,000 yards in 2014. The probability that he suddenly just fell apart and declined is low when you compare it to the probability that he was simply playing injured from Week 1-3 on. See the GIF of how hard he winced at simply being tapped on the shoulder pads.

He was what I said he was - Brett Farve Lite. I think his ceiling is Brett Farve. That is good enough to be a top 3 QB in this league. The problem is that in today's day and age, it won't make him Brady or Rodgers level.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this.

KontradictioN said:

You sure did insinuate that...



Regressing insinuates that you believe it will continue to happen. If you didn't, then you sure are wasting your time and this website's bandwidth.



How do we know that? Especially when you have the fact that the league was looking into the Colts' reporting of his injury on top of the fact that he had solid showings against the two best defenses he played before going out for the season: the Pats and the Broncos. If the guy was regressing, as you say, wouldn't he have had horrific outings in those two games as well?



And now you're tossing out a straw man for good measure. Feel free to quote where I made that argument.



And what I'm arguing is that it's impossible to tell that because he was playing injured (much like Brady was when he was clearly still recovering from the knee injury in 2009). I'm arguing that the probability of Luck regressing and having plateaued is lesser than the probability that his play was hurt by the fact that he was injured compounded by the fact that the Colts have no OL and a mostly deep threat passing game with few options who can get openly quickly underneath (thus negating a pass rush).



True. It could also indicate that he realizes that he can't simply try to run through LB's like a ****** with his head on fire too.



Whatever way you want to cut it, the guy threw 40 TD's and passed for well over 4,000 yards in 2014. The probability that he suddenly just fell apart and declined is low when you compare it to the probability that he was simply playing injured from Week 1-3 on. See the GIF of how hard he winced at simply being tapped on the shoulder pads.



I don't disagree with this.

Click to expand...

First, regression doesn't mean that I expect it to continue to do so. Just like if I said he progressed that I mean I expect him to continue to do so. Saying he regressed means that he was a worse QB in 2015 than he was in 2014. That it is.

To why he regressed, none of us know. But don't forget that he was pretty ordinary in the playoffs during the 2014 season. He was lucky (no pun intended) enough to meet the forever imploding in the playoffs Bengals, the QB-less Broncos, and then they got crushed by the Pats. He had 3 TDs and 4 INTs, completing 58.5% of his passes in that playoff run. He also had an awful December in 2014 where he went on a three game stretch where he threw for 4 combined TDs and 5 combined INTs. So I can argue the regression started in 2014.

Also, you keep on harping on those 40 TDs, but 17 of those TDs came in four games against bad defense (Jax, Tenn, Giants, and WAS). I know it a little unfair to cherry pick stats like that, but you take away those four games and he threw 23 TDs and 14 INTs for the rest of the season. Not all that impressive. He had some stellar games against some awful defenses to make his stats look better than he played.

Imagine how much Luck could get paid if he was a really good quarterback??

Maybe he can stop making those creepy pizza commercials with his kitty( the p word is one of the seven deadly ones)!!!

Rob0729 said:

First, regression doesn't mean that I expect it to continue to do so. Just like if I said he progressed that I mean I expect him to continue to do so. Saying he regressed means that he was a worse QB in 2015 than he was in 2014. That it is.

To why he regressed, none of us know. But don't forget that he was pretty ordinary in the playoffs during the 2014 season. He was lucky (no pun intended) enough to meet the forever imploding in the playoffs Bengals, the QB-less Broncos, and then they got crushed by the Pats. He had 3 TDs and 4 INTs, completing 58.5% of his passes in that playoff run. He also had an awful December in 2014 where he went on a three game stretch where he threw for 4 combined TDs and 5 combined INTs. So I can argue the regression started in 2014.

Also, you keep on harping on those 40 TDs, but 17 of those TDs came in four games against bad defense (Jax, Tenn, Giants, and WAS). I know it a little unfair to cherry pick stats like that, but you take away those four games and he threw 23 TDs and 14 INTs for the rest of the season. Not all that impressive. He had some stellar games against some awful defenses to make his stats look better than he played.

Click to expand...

Wait, a quarterback padded his stats against lesser teams and defenses? Stop the presses. Of course he did. Most quarterbacks tend to. Doesn't change the fact that he ended the season with 40 touchdowns and well over 4,000 yards against NFL competition. That's impressive no matter which way you want to slice it. Luck is what he is: a very good quarterback that makes dumb mistakes from time to time. Your comparison to Favre is spot on. But I don't see legitimate evidence that he *COULD BE* regressing (your words). At least not yet. Guys that obviously play injured behind a sieve of an offensive line with zero options to get open quickly underneath tend to fall back when it comes to their stats. I don't think you can make a determination one way or another on it. You can say that he had regressed, and that's fine. Because that's open to interpretation as to why. To say that he *COULD BE* regressing means something else entirely. Like I said before, though, I'd love to see him continue to absorb highlight reel hits going forward. I just don't see clear cut evidence that Luck is regressing just yet, having taken into account is off (and short) 2015 season.