| Forum Index > Sports |
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 18 2014 10:27 Mindcrime wrote: Yeah, because what the Indy front office really wants is a back who will average 3.1 yards per carry! Its possible. We are talking about the Colts front office here. They strive to find new ineptitudes every year. | ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
| ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10346 Posts
On November 18 2014 11:09 AgentW wrote: We are talking about a front office so adept they've managed to have two incredible QBs for all but one of the past 15+ seasons and have managed to make only two Super Bowls. Ahh, c'mon. Andrew Luck has only been an NFL QB for like 3 years, right? Brett Favre with the Packers only won one. Elway was on the verge of being an ultimate choker right up until the end. Eli Manning won 2 and won't even get a whiff of the HOF. I'm not big on Peyton (not that my opinion means shit), but c'mon, one ring and 5 billion records ain't bad. Stuff like Tom Brady winning 3 rings in 4 years is an amazing, unlikely novelty. One ring in 15 years is a rate I will take. | ||
Shellshock
United States97276 Posts
| ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
On November 18 2014 11:46 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Ahh, c'mon. Andrew Luck has only been an NFL QB for like 3 years, right? Brett Favre with the Packers only won one. Elway was on the verge of being an ultimate choker right up until the end. Eli Manning won 2 and won't even get a whiff of the HOF. I'm not big on Peyton (not that my opinion means shit), but c'mon, one ring and 5 billion records ain't bad. Stuff like Tom Brady winning 3 rings in 4 years is an amazing, unlikely novelty. One ring in 15 years is a rate I will take. Note how I didn't say wins. I count appearances more heavily than wins, as I think it paints a bit of a better picture. Manning has the least of those guys you mentioned along with Favre, and that's criminal. The Luck bit was a joke. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
Ok maybe not that bad. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 18 2014 11:54 andrewlt wrote: Another 3ish ypc running back should fit in the Colts' power running game they want to install. Because a power running game is clearly what you want if you have Andrew Luck at qb. TECHNICALLY if you get three yards every carry you would score a touchdown every time! | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On November 18 2014 11:09 AgentW wrote: We are talking about a front office so adept they've managed to have two incredible QBs for all but one of the past 15+ seasons and have managed to make only two Super Bowls. Yeah, let's chalk the past 15+ seasons (let us be honest, 16 seasons and that includes Manning's less than stellar initial seasons) to a front office which is on it's third season and in that time has changed a 2-14 team to what the Colts are today... EDIT: I'm pretty damn certain that quite a few fans wishes their teams had such an "atrocious" front office as the Colts. Are the Colts doing as good as one could hope? Definitely not. But they aren't doing nearly as bad as people here thinks. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The next CBA fight is going to be messy. The Exempt List basically exists for no purpose. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
On November 18 2014 20:19 Ghostcom wrote: Yeah, let's chalk the past 15+ seasons (let us be honest, 16 seasons and that includes Manning's less than stellar initial seasons) to a front office which is on it's third season and in that time has changed a 2-14 team to what the Colts are today... EDIT: I'm pretty damn certain that quite a few fans wishes their teams had such an "atrocious" front office as the Colts. Are the Colts doing as good as one could hope? Definitely not. But they aren't doing nearly as bad as people here thinks. Oh come on. The reason they were so atrocious was because of their incompetence for all those years, relying so heavily on Manning. Once he was gone, it truly proved his value. He should have won MVP that year. EDIT: I know it's a different regime, but I still think they're super reliant on Luck, just as Polian and friends relied on Manning. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32132 Posts
On November 18 2014 20:19 Ghostcom wrote: Yeah, let's chalk the past 15+ seasons (let us be honest, 16 seasons and that includes Manning's less than stellar initial seasons) to a front office which is on it's third season and in that time has changed a 2-14 team to what the Colts are today... EDIT: I'm pretty damn certain that quite a few fans wishes their teams had such an "atrocious" front office as the Colts. Are the Colts doing as good as one could hope? Definitely not. But they aren't doing nearly as bad as people here thinks. I think the point that he is trying to make is that the 2-14 proves how dependent the colts are to having a generational talent under the helm. Brady always had a top notch supporting cast in all three facets. Aside from a few offensive weapons (who probably would have been elite players anywhere) Peyton did not have that good of a supporting cast usually. e: yeah I'm basically saying the same thing Agent is saying. The Colts are like a 5 win team without Luck. They're totally dependent on him because they're not that good otherwise. Also yeah AP's whole process has been total bullshit. The PA is so limp dick they can't/won't do anything meaningful, and will probably just get stomped come cba again. The whole thing is just so annoying because if you have the audacity to think that the league handing out arbitrary indefinite suspensions is fucking stupid you support child abuse | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On November 19 2014 00:44 AgentW wrote: Oh come on. The reason they were so atrocious was because of their incompetence for all those years, relying so heavily on Manning. Once he was gone, it truly proved his value. He should have won MVP that year. EDIT: I know it's a different regime, but I still think they're super reliant on Luck, just as Polian and friends relied on Manning. Green Bay is super reliant on Aaron Rodgers. Denver on Manning. New England on Brady. The incompetance was not relying on Manning, it was trying to force a defensive system which didn't work. The defensive scheme has been entirely revamped. It really does not make much sense to compare the Manning/Luck regimes. On November 19 2014 01:10 QuanticHawk wrote: I think the point that he is trying to make is that the 2-14 proves how dependent the colts are to having a generational talent under the helm. Brady always had a top notch supporting cast in all three facets. Aside from a few offensive weapons (who probably would have been elite players anywhere) Peyton did not have that good of a supporting cast usually. e: yeah I'm basically saying the same thing Agent is saying. The Colts are like a 5 win team without Luck. They're totally dependent on him because they're not that good otherwise. If you read very carefully you'll see that the point I'm making is not that the Colts didn't rely on Manning. The point I'm making is that it is idiotic to call a front office which turned a previous disaster into a winning team with an 8-9 record against .500 teams over 2.5 seasons for incompetent. If that is incompetence I would really like to know how you would describe Oakland... I agree fully that the Polian era didn't build a proper team around Manning, but I think that has a lot more to do with the philosophy than simply relying on your quarterback. | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
On November 19 2014 01:49 Ghostcom wrote: Green Bay is super reliant on Aaron Rodgers. Denver on Manning. New England on Brady. The incompetance was not relying on Manning, it was trying to force a defensive system which didn't work. The defensive scheme has been entirely revamped. It really does not make much sense to compare the Manning/Luck regimes. Well, the Patriots did go like 10-6 and barely missed the playoffs without Brady in 2008. That's quite a difference from the Colts going 2-14 without Manning. The Packers have also put up a really good fight at least when Rodgers has been out. | ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
On November 19 2014 01:52 Teoita wrote: Well, the Patriots did go like 10-6 and barely missed the playoffs without Brady in 2008. That's quite a difference from the Colts going 2-14 without Manning. The Packers have also put up a really good fight at least when Rodgers has been out. I can't pull up their record without him last year, but I thought they were at least competent without Rodgers. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On November 19 2014 01:52 Teoita wrote: Well, the Patriots did go like 10-6 and barely missed the playoffs without Brady in 2008. That's quite a difference from the Colts going 2-14 without Manning. The Packers have also put up a really good fight at least when Rodgers has been out. Extrapolating the numbers for the games without Rodgers to an entire season would leave Packers with an 4.5 game season. What a good fight! And that was playing the crappy part of their schedule. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 19 2014 01:49 Ghostcom wrote: Green Bay is super reliant on Aaron Rodgers. Denver on Manning. New England on Brady. The incompetance was not relying on Manning, it was trying to force a defensive system which didn't work. The defensive scheme has been entirely revamped. It really does not make much sense to compare the Manning/Luck regimes. Green Bay's front office hasn't been knocking it out of the park much recently either. Their offensive and defensive lines have been pretty lackluster since the 15-1 season, and the secondary has been shaky since Clay Matthews no longer just bumrushes the QB every play. The Broncos/Pats are both "reliant" on their QBs in the sense that they are elite teams with the QB, and mediocre without them. Both teams, if healthy, however would be ~ 8-9 wins without their QB, while the Pack/Colts would be ~5. Brady had to throw like 10 passes to beat the Colts. The Broncos are more "Manning reliant", but that is actually intentional because they leveraged the 2016/17 seasons to try and optimize this 3 year window. The Patriots did the same thing in 2007-2008, unfortunately for them Brady got hurt in year 2, and came back for the 09/10 "rebuilding" years. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On November 19 2014 01:49 Ghostcom wrote: If you read very carefully you'll see that the point I'm making is not that the Colts didn't rely on Manning. The point I'm making is that it is idiotic to call a front office which turned a previous disaster into a winning team with an 8-9 record against .500 teams over 2.5 seasons for incompetent. If that is incompetence I would really like to know how you would describe Oakland... I agree fully that the Polian era didn't build a proper team around Manning, but I think that has a lot more to do with the philosophy than simply relying on your quarterback. Oakland wasn't bad enough to get the no. 1 pick. The Colts haven't done anything of note other than drafting Luck. They turned it around by drafting Luck and nothing else. Don't act like they made a series of moves that turned it around. It was 1 move and 1 move only, drafting Luck. And then they did the Trent Richardson trade... | ||
| ||
RSL Revival
Season 5: Group A
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
SC Evo League
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
IPSL
eOnzErG vs TBD
G5 vs Nesh
Patches Events
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
