- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 72,772
- Reaction score
- 22,604
Really? This is who you are?There’s a bag of ****s with your name on it.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Really? This is who you are?There’s a bag of ****s with your name on it.
Really? This is who you are?
That still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the Colts protected Luck well enough?49ers were a laughing stock and then became good when Joe Montana arrived.
Bills were a laughing stock and then became good when Jim Kelly arrived.
Colts were a laughing stock and then became good when Peyton Manning arrived.
Saints were a laughing stock and then became good when Drew Brees arrived.
Seahawks were a laughing stock and then became good when Russell Wilson arrived.
Bucs were a laughing stock and then became good when Tom Brady arrived.
These teams were all considered to be crappy organizations with dumb GMs, idiot coaches, etc. Every one of them. Few or zero championships, huge stretches of incompetence.
Having a bad OL isn’t relevant to the question of whether playing as a rookie is troublesome.That still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the Colts protected Luck well enough?
That doesn't answer the question of whether or not the Colts protected Luck well enough?
Boy you really get obsessed, don't you.Having a bad OL isn’t relevant to the question of whether playing as a rookie is troublesome.
Disagree. Had they protected Luck better he would have lasted longer. Too bad.He had the same career sack pct as Brady and his two devastating injuries were on reckless scrambles outside the pocket. But beyond that, why does it matter? He played well his rookie year and got them to the postseason when he was able to stay healthy. He struggled with injuries/rehab and retired. This is the same story as tons of football players and athletes…it‘s a violent sport. How does that pertain to startimg a QB in year one or create some huge cautionary tale?
How does that pertain to startimg a QB in year one or create some huge cautionary tale?
I dont understand your comment.Boy you really get obsessed, don't you.
You are clogging this thread with foolish posts. Why? No one wants this
Uh, I said in Luck's case whether he started or not in his first year wasn't relevant. Read my posts.I dont understand your comment.
There is a discussion about the value of peril of playing a rookie qb.
I don’t see how a qb who sustained injuries throughout his career because he was playing behind a crap OL is pertinent.
If he played or didn’t play as a rookie, the injury issues caused by a crap OL would not have been any different.
Disagree. Had they protected Luck better he would have lasted longer. Too bad.
Ok then we agree. I mistook how you were using “protect”Uh, I said in Luck's case whether he started or not in his first year wasn't relevant. Read my posts.
They deserve criticism for the injury rehab/rush if anything. That would be on the organization. Him getting injured despite getting sacked no more than every other QB…that’s not a protection issue.
Russell Wilson has been sacked 394 times on 8.3% of his snaps. Andrew Luck was sacked 174 times on 5.0% of his snaps.
I could go through many of these…Luck was tied for most sacks in the league one season…but there are 180 instances where QBs have taken more sacks in a season than he did that year. It was a low sack leader total year, starting the narrative. Brady has been sacked more.
If you’re going to say they didn’t protect him, what specific data are you citing?
Bias? I see a veteran QB that's having trouble beating out a rookie. Thats not bias, it's troubling, coupled with the disaster last yearIt's the #1 relevant topic by far this month. Clearly this forum is divided and the bias on Cam is showing through if you don't even want to discuss.
I understood that approach under the assumption asking Jones to have command of the offense by week 1 was asking a lot. But I saw one exhibition game and he has better command of the offense (and cohesion in passing game concepts) than newton had at any point last year.Cam may win the starting job only because they want Mac to soak up as much as possible, but I think Cam’s leash will be short this season. The moment Cam struggles you’ll be hearing Mac chants at Gillette.
It’s insane to think Cam is going to have a solid season all of the sudden after struggling for years.
A sack isn't a sack. They are all different. One can be irrelevant another can be costly. The number of times you get sacked doesn't tell the story.
I have no doubt, it removes their responsibility.There was an article (can’t locate it now) quoting several in the organization that they’ve pleaded with him to change his style to protect himself.
| 14 | 822 |
| 18 | 2K |
| 11 | 2K |
| 7 | 1K |
| 19 | 552 |
From our archive - this week all-time:
May 22 - June 6 (Through 26yrs)










