National Football League

Page 48 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Haha, further evidence (was more needed?) that Steeler fans are idiots:

When Mike Wallace died on Sunday, a number of NFL fans heard the news and wondered if the Mike Wallace in question was the Pittsburgh Steelers receiver, not the legendary CBS newsman.
Most people quickly figured out that it was the latter, by either clicking on a link, reading a headline, sticking around through a commercial break to see the news segment or using some common sense. A few hundred Twitter users didn't.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/mike-wallace-steelers-receiver-confused-mike-wallace-deceased-144138058.html

How far the mighty have fallen. Anyone remember superagent Leigh Steinberg, the guy who signed so many NFL players to multimillion dollar contracts? He’s bankrupt now:

The agent's Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing from Jan. 11 accentuates the point. Asked to list his assets, Steinberg could produce only the car ($6,700), a Vizio flat-screen TV ($1,000), miscellaneous personal effects ($650) and a Wells Fargo checking account containing $100. That isn't much to go on for Richard Marshack, attorney for the bankruptcy trustee, whose mandate is to find potential assets and redistribute the money to Steinberg's long list of creditors, which include the Irvine Co. ($1.4 million in rent on his old office space); San Diego Private Bank (a $400,000 loan); his younger brother, Don (a $7,500 loan); and a dentist ($7,000 in fees). Sixteen creditors are listed, combining for $3.2 million in total debt. The bankruptcy proceedings should wipe the slate clean -- with the exception, possibly, of one claim that could crush Steinberg's professional revival.
An ex-client, NFL special-teamer Chad Morton, alleges that Steinberg owes him as much as $858,851, plus interest. In 2003 a Steinberg employee took a $300,000 loan from Morton, allegedly to fund a business venture in China that failed. Steinberg, who says he didn't know about the loan when it was made, agreed in 2008 to pay a settlement of $900,000. ("I didn't get into this business to do harm to athletes," he says.) He hasn't been able to come up with the money. Morton's lawyers say they plan to file a complaint alleging that Steinberg engaged in fraud, breach of fiduciary duty or willful malicious misconduct -- any of which would make his debt to Morton non-dischargeable, even after filing Chapter 7.
How good was he in his prime? How much money did he make?

He negotiated Steve Young's record $42 million rookie deal with the (now-defunct) USFL's Los Angeles Express in '84. Five years later, he did both Warren Moon's $10 million contract with Houston and Troy Aikman's $11.2 million rookie deal with Dallas. ("I thought, This is the smartest guy I've ever been around," Aikman recalls.) And the commissions -- typically 4% to 5% for contracts and 15% for endorsement deals -- rolled in.
And had a movie made based on his life. Then it all fell apart:

Among Steinberg's many failed businesses were a Dallas restaurant, a radio network and at least five Internet startups. "I had the right vision," Steinberg says. "We were just 10 years ahead." At his five-hour-long debtor's hearing last February, the recitation of his ill-fated web stocks grew so lengthy that lawyers cracked jokes at Steinberg's expense.
In April 2007 the agent who used to remind clients, "If you're going to drink, don't drive," did both in Newport Beach once again, crashing his Mercedes ML 500 into three parked cars and a fire hydrant around 1 a.m. (Steinberg pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges.) At upscale parties his drink of choice had been Grey Goose; steadily, though, he lowered his vodka standards from Blue Ice to Smirnoff to finally, "when I ran out of money," hefty plastic jugs of Popov.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/magazine/04/10/steinberg/index.html#ixzz1rr3Ryz5n
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
The thought that Tannehill should be drafted #3 on "potential" IS desperation.

What I have heard that makes some sense is if the Vikings aren't that impressed with Matt Kalil, and they wish to draft down. That I can see.

I'm starting to now believe that in the 2013 draft Matt Barkley and Landry Jones will go 1-2. Yes, I'm making predictions on the 2012 draft now.
Good commentary throughout that post, but I had to FIX the Tannehill desperation thought for ya.

Actually, the Vikes trading down could be a smart, shrewd move. Especially if they get a guy who will work just as well, also pick up some extra picks for the trade, and end up not paying #3 overall money for an offensive lineman. So Vikes fans should not lose heart if they do trade down. It might actually end up better for them by doing that.

Good prediction on Landry Jones and Matt Barkley. Anything can happen or go wrong during their senior season, but if they stay healthy and play as expected there will be some clamoring by teams to get into a position to draft them, gar-on-teed.

@Merckx index: Wow. Too bad about Steinberg's falling star status. Don't know much about the guy, but that kind of news is never pretty.
 
Colts owner Jim Irsay, who is half nuts and a Twitter junkie called Ryan Tannehill the hidden gem in this draft, and if you want him you need to move up to #3. What's he smoking?

Brian Billick must be reading this thread. The former Ravens coach instead compared Tannehill's rise to popularity with that of Jamarcus Russell."Both shot up the draft boards based on how they look in shorts" is what he Tweeted. Not that Tannehill will be the lazy headcase Russell was, but as far as actual known skill level, I think Billick has it about right.
 
When I "try" to think of Tannehill being a hidden gem, it would have to be at least two, three, or five years down the road, but not one that is going to yield immediate returns. He will not be able to carry a team in his first few years like Luck or RG3 are capable of. What would be really funny is if Irsay really felt that strongly about Tannehill that he'd be willing to give up Luck and RG3, trade down, take Tannehill at #3 overall, and only ask for a second to fourth rounder in return. That decision would be the all-time worst NFL GM decision. :D

All that said, I really hope Tannehill does not go to a team that forces him into a starting role right away, and that he ends up doing quite well after he has a chance to develop.
 
In a strange twist, it may benefit him to actually fall in the draft, for two reasons. First, if he ends up on a team where he's expected to sit for a season, it will obviously help him. But in addition to that because of the new NFL rookie cap as part of the CBA, he's not going to have to do much with his agent, the difference won't be a great deal of money.

NFL.com has a mock draft that I've been following. Here's the link.

ESPN showed the Baylor-Oklahoma game last night from last year. What a 4th quarter. Landry Jones threw for 479 yards in that game, but OK couldn't stop RG3. His perfectly thrown final 35 yard TD pass moving to his left, across the field to his right with 8 seconds to go and no time outs was something.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Speaking of Mike Wallace, he is playing a game of chicken with the Steelers. The Texans must try to land him.

They have lost 7 players this year, 6 starters I believe. They have pretty much replaced zero of them.....on the whole right side of the line they just moved up the backups so now their depth on O line is down. Next year's schedule will not be the cakewalk this year's was. I believe they have NE, Det, and GB on their schedule and the division should be getting better.

I believe they will be in for a big letdown this year.
 
The only player they really should have lost is Williams. That guy was overpaid, hurt a lot, and as you know played great...every so often. The team I like in the AFC South is now Tennessee. I think they are going to battle Houston for the division.

The other team who may be a sleeper, as they seemed to have done very well in free agency, is Chicago. Problem is they play in the same division as GB and Detroit. That NFC North is going to be tough.

Denver is of course going to be quite good.

Saints have settled on platoon coaching for the year. That division is back open, with Atlanta, and quite possibly Carolina pushing them for the division.

Losers so far seem to be Miami, Cleveland and Oakland. They lost players, got little in return, and have many gaps to fill. All three teams could be in the Barkley/Jones 2013 sweepstakes. :D
 
ChrisE said:
Speaking of Mike Wallace, he is playing a game of chicken with the Steelers. The Texans must try to land him.

They have lost 7 players this year, 6 starters I believe. They have pretty much replaced zero of them.....on the whole right side of the line they just moved up the backups so now their depth on O line is down. Next year's schedule will not be the cakewalk this year's was. I believe they have NE, Det, and GB on their schedule and the division should be getting better.

I believe they will be in for a big letdown this year.
I don't think they will be as bad as you think. They still have all their skill positions on offense intact (WRs, QB, RBs). Yeah, the lost a TE but they are a dime a dozen. They lost a couple linemen, but Winston was injured some. At least they signed their most important guy after the LT, and that be Center Chris Meyers. So that's a plus. Defensively they lost Mario and a ProBowl LB who's name I forget. But that's about it.

Edit: Since success in the NFL is built offensively around passing, and defensive success is built around a good pass rush (a great secondary is not enough these days... a rush is vital), it could be interesting how the Texans do against good passing teams. But as Alpe pointed out, Mario was injured a lot anyway, so they may not be hurt at all by losing Mario. They can only get better if they address that. Oh, as an afterthought I found what DraftTek thinks about the Houston situation... here it is:
Houston's defense did not lose a step when Mario Williams went down with an injury last year; however, now that he's taken his talents to Buffalo, the depth is extremely thin at OLB. Andre Branch is custom-built to play OLB in Wade Phillips' 3-4 defensive alignment, adding a 3rd starting talent to Connor Barwin and Brooks Reed . . . and with the pressure Uncle Wade likes to bring (from a variety of locations), you can never have too many pass-rushers!
http://www.drafttek.com/CMDRound1_17-32.asp
 
Buffalo has apparently joined the madness, and had a private workout with Ryan Tannehill. Before this, both KC and Miami did. Reports are Cleveland too. Brian Billick's spot-on comments have created quite the stir, but I think Tannehill is more likely to be the next Blaine Gabbert or going back a few years, Joey Harrington. Two guys with great college talent that were still question marks for the NFL, but were drafted really high anyway. So we're going to see a guy who should be taken in the 2nd round and sit for at least a year, get taken in the top 10 because some teams are so desperate.

Giants owner John Mara is looking to eliminate the kickoff. He's one of the most respected owners in the NFL, and said this is being discussed. I'm not in favor of it, but I do think more changes could be made to make it safer, but still interesting. Ideas like kicking from the 34 yard line, but forcing both teams to line up eight guys within 10 yards of each other at the 50 yard line. This way you'd have less guys flying at each other at high speed. It would be more like a punt.

Draft coming up. I'll write later why I'm not only certain Luck will be taken #1, but also why I would pick him.
 
Interesting idea eliminating the kickoff is. That would eliminate kickoff team roster positions, and would allow teams to stockpile depth at other key positions (e.g. OL, DL, QB, WR, etc). The trade off is how stockpiling players at those other positions would impact a team's positioning against the salary cap, because kickoff teamers are generally at the low end of the pay scale whereas the salary of those other positions may not be. Funny though, Mara's idea to get rid of the kickoff was my first reaction ("Why even have a kickoff?") to the modified kickoff rules that were put in place last season.

Can't wait to hear the reasons why you'd pick Luck over RG3. Bleacher report ran an article why they thought RG3 would DO BETTER than Luck, most of which has to do with the fact the Skins are a better team at the moment than the Colts (which is entirely different thought than WHY PICK HIM). bleacherreport.com/3-reasons-robert-griffin-iii-could-be-better-than-andrew-luck. But before you post your reasons, read page 4 of the Bleacher report article, which claims RG3 is the better athlete and has better 2011 stats than Luck even though Bleacher recognizes that Luck so far is the better QB. Keep in mind Stanford ran a lot of Spider-3-Y-Banana plays where the #1 receiver in the QB read progression in that package is the fullback... a very high completion percentage route (see the Gruden/Luck vid here).

2011 Stats as posted on the Bleacher Report:

Category... Robert Griffin III... Andrew Luck
Pass completions... 291... 288
Pass attempts... 402... 404
Completion percentage... 72.4... 71.3
Passing yards... 4,293... 3,517
Yards per attempt... 10.68... 8.71
Passing touchdowns... 37... 37
Interceptions... 6... 10
Quarterback rating... 189.5... 169.7
Rushes... 179... 46
Rushing yards... 699... 150
Yards per rush... 3.9... 3.3
Rushing touchdowns... 10... 2
 
Pretty much agree with all that article says. And if I were a betting man, I'd lay good money on RG3 being the rookie of the year. So, let me say why I think the Colts are going to take Luck, and if I were their GM I would take him as well.

First, this isn't like it was last September, where everyone knew Luck would go #1, and then there was everyone else. This is more like a 51/49 decision. Luck had an excellent last year, but RG3 had a slightly better one. Both guys looked head and shoulders above everyone else at the combine and especially pro days. So that's not the issue. So what am I thinking?

• Luck has been playing at the highest level, with the highest expectations, longer. Had he elected to go pro after his sophomore year, he still probably would have gone #1 over Cam Newton. He's been in the spotlight longer, his father was a former NFL QB and NCAA coach, and we've seen him play at that level longer. Griffin was good as a sophomore, but threw many screen passes and ran a lot. His senior year he was light's out, no question, I said it on here many times. But, I think we've seen more from Luck, plus I think he can handle the pressure of being #1 pick better. The BR article touches on this.

• Luck played in a near total pro-set, Griffin not. This isn't a huge deal as Baylor ran a dynamic passing offense. But Luck took way more snaps under center, and had more 3-step drop pass plays. RG3 can definitely adjust to this though. Very slight edge here to Luck.

• Luck was groomed by Jim Harbaugh in his freshman and sophomore seasons at Stanford. This is no slight against Art Briles, who values character very highly and had an obvious positive impact on RG3. Interestingly enough, Harbaugh was trying to recruit RG3 at he same time as Griffin. My point is, character is not an issue for either guy, nor is intelligence. But for prepping for the NFL, Luck gets the slight advantage here.

As an aside to that, if you look at RG3's pedigree, the guy may end up President one day. Seriously. He comes from a military family and appears to live a whistle clean lifestyle. He was class president in high school, graduated early and was in college at 17, graduated with a political science degree in three years while being on the dean's list and honor roll. He was working on his masters in communications, and eventual judicial doctorate. Oh, and he won a Heisman trophy and will be a star NFL quarterback in the nation's capital.

• Luck had a better winning percentage, though on a team with a better defense (Baylor's was very poor), against arguably equal competition.

• Don't buy the Spider screen theory. Griffin threw a good deal of quick screen passes as well. Both guys have strong arms and can throw down the field with accuracy and don't make many bad throws. Griffin may have a slightly stronger arm, and be slightly better throwing the ball deep outside the numbers, but both guys can do it. Luck may be slightly better at not forcing the ball, which I think will help a little more entering the league on the weaker team.

• Finally, the Colts logo is a horseshoe, which is a symbol of luck. Therefore it's most fitting... :)

Again, this isn't a easy pick. But if I were the Colts, I'd go with Luck, and I think they will.
 
That "makes good good sense", to quote the original AC/DC. No, really. I totally agree it is a 51/49 situation. The Colts will be looking at everything possible to reduce the risk of the pick. What you said pretty much helps reduce the risk of taking Luck. I'll add this - while I did not watch RG play much this year, I did watch one game. The thing I came away with about him from that one game is that he was not very accurate on many touch passes when he was not even under any pressure, and I thought that would be an area where he would have to really improve. Now, I've heard others say RG does fine with the touch pass. But if that's true in games other than the one I watched, then I'd say consistency might be a problem. I think Luck, who I've also watched, did better this year with his touch passes.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
After further review:

I renew my prediction from the winter.

After "$uck for Luck" there is no doubt in my mind it becomes "Luck will $uck".

Not only did Simms question his arm strength, but today i read that most of his passes were safe high percentage routes participated at Stanford. So even tough i don´t follow college ball, all i´ve heard from true experts (ex-QB´s, Coaches vs. mainstreammedia hypers) tells me RGIII is the better athlete, better thrower = better QB. Whoever drafts Luck will be doomed. Meassure me forever on this bold prediction. It´s the only one i´ll do about this draft. ;)
 
Good to see you back again Foxxy. That is a humorous prediction (I mean that in a good way). Luck and all those high percentage passes (e.g. spider 3 Y banana where the fullback in the flats is the primary receiver in that package of plays) he threw at Stanford is what I was saying a few posts ago. However, he can throw all the passes. But I will say this, if your prediction that "Luck will $uck" becomes true, then that's what the Colts get for "Sucking for Luck" during the season just to get the #1 overall draft pick. Hehe.

I don't think he will suck on his own though. If he does, it will be because he will have the help of a bad team that is under a tremendous transition (new GM, HC, new scheme to Colt returning players). Even Elway sucked his first year. But that didn't last long. If Luck sucks his first year, I don't think it will remain that way, unless the Colts can't block or run routes.
 
I agree very much with Alpe. I was impressed with Luck’s performance against OSU, and you could compare him directly to another pretty decent QB, Wieden.

Two things are difference makers for me. First, as Alpe noted, Luck has been a known quantity longer. He had two sensational seasons at Stanford (and a third, as a freshman, which was very good, got a previously doormat team to a bowl, though it helped to have a Heisman finalist RB). So there’s no question that last year was in any way a fluke, just a really great performance he could never repeat. RG3 had just one really great year, which ought to raise at least a tiny bit of doubt over whether he could play that well consistently. IOW, RG3 at his best may be better than Luck at his best, but Luck at his typical may turn out to be better than RG3 at his typical. Just because RG3 has all the tools to be spectacular doesn’t necessarily mean he will always be spectacular.

Second, the one area on which scouts seem to agree Luck is superior is decision-making on the field. Which is obviously extremely important in the pros. What makes Manning head and shoulders above most of the rest? Not really his athletic talents so much as the way he knows how to run an offense. Luck seems to be in that mold.

I don’t see how fullback passes would pad Luck’s rating. Sure they are easier to complete, but they also lower the yards per attempt. If dink n’ dunk were a clearly superior way to move the ball, every team would do it. Sure it’s a higher percentage play than throwing downfield, but the highest percentage of any play is a running play up the middle or off tackle. The odds are very high you will “complete” a gain.

Griffin had a much higher YPA than Luck, which might be the result of more short safer passes for the latter. But there could be other factors. Stanford’s WRs were slow, meaning they didn’t gain a lot of yards after the catch. Their best and fastest WR was out for several games at the end of the season, including the crucial game against Oregon.

Griffin is faster than Luck, but Luck still has above average speed for a QB, and could be projected to run as well as, say, Aaron Rodgers. Anyway, running isn't all about speed. I don't think Steve McNair was that fast, but he was very effective with his legs. For that matter, I don't think Montana, Young or Elway, to name three of the most mobile QBs of all time, had blazing speed.

Foxy, there was an article last week about the worst first round picks in the past 7 years, and at the end the author strongly hinted he thought Luck would be the 2012 winner. He wasn’t saying he would suck, just that he wouldn’t perform well enough to justify being no. 1. The same author picked Alex Smith as the worst pick in 2005 (I don’t mean at the time, I mean retrospectively for his list), rationalizing that while the way he played last year might justify going in the first round, it definitely did not justify being no. 1. I don’t see how anyone in his right mind could view Luck as another Akili Smith or Leaf or Russell, but he could turn out to be another Alex Smith, in which case he would be a disappointment. A QB good enough to start in the NFL, but not good enough to be considered an elite.

The pro scouts who evaluate talent are fallible, of course. They sometimes miss something important, or exaggerate something that they do see. But they are not total idiots. If so many people are that high on Luck, I can’t believe he will be a complete flop. Most spectacular draft busts, like those three mentioned above, had character issues, which as far as I can see, Luck doesn’t have. They didn’t work to realize the potential they had. Assuming Luck does, I think he at worst will be a competent starting QB.

I agree with that report that Luck faces more pressure. But I think it’s not for the main reasons they gave. It’s because though Indy should consider itself rebuilding, there will be immediate pressure to win. Fans will reason that if Manning were still there, they would make the playoffs, so if they don’t under Luck, he has failed. This may not be rational, but try telling that to fans who watched Manning lead an often poor defensive team to one of the best regular season records year after year. I might be wrong, but I don’t think RG3 will be considered a failure if Washington doesn’t make the playoffs next year. As Cam Newton showed, you can have a marvelous rookie season and still not win many games. And the NFC East looks to me to be one of the toughest divisions in the NFL next year.

Btw, did you guys know that there is another Robert Griffin in the draft? Who also played for Baylor (OL)? His agent says it gets pretty crazy when he calls a team to see about setting up a workout for his client, Robert Griffin from Baylor! At Baylor he’s distinguished from the QB as Robert T. Griffin.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Good to see you back again Foxxy. That is a humorous prediction (I mean that in a good way). Luck and all those high percentage passes (e.g. spider 3 Y banana where the fullback in the flats is the primary receiver in that package of plays) he threw at Stanford is what I was saying a few posts ago. However, he can throw all the passes. But I will say this, if your prediction that "Luck will $uck" becomes true, then that's what the Colts get for "Sucking for Luck" during the season just to get the #1 overall draft pick. Hehe.

I don't think he will suck on his own though. If he does, it will be because he will have the help of a bad team that is under a tremendous transition (new GM, HC, new scheme to Colt returning players). Even Elway sucked his first year. But that didn't last long. If Luck sucks his first year, I don't think it will remain that way, unless the Colts can't block or run routes.
As i mentioned in december (?) he´ll bust b/c of immense pressure from day one, bad team around him, questionable arm strength, and now as you & others mentioned high pct. passes in college seem to have inflated his stats. Plus i forgot genetics: I remember his dad playing for the Oilers. He was thin/fragile and not very strong. Obviously his son has the QB-Genes from his father, but also his not so good athletic abilities. Andrew might be a good passer but not at all this good as the hype predicts. To be more precise: I expect him to perform like JaMarcus, Harrington, Mirer, Alex Smith, Young, Couch etc.! He´ll hang around long enough until his first contract expires (i mean the managers/coaches have to play him to justify the millions of wasted dollars thrown after him). After that he´ll be released and be a career back up at best. To further confirm what i mean with Bust/$uck: He´ll post at best average stats, lead his teams at best to mediocre 8 wins per season in the run of his first contract, he´ll not win any championships. I short, he´ll be your average NFL-QB. That´s surely a called bust considering he´ll be a hyped 1st/2nd-Pick. May he won´t be the 2nd coming of Leaf or Akili Smith, but even that is possible.

Alpe d'Huez said:
Guys, did you even watch him play? It's not like he sat back there and tossed screen passes all day to the wide open fullback. Someone's selling you beachfront property in Arizona.
No i didn´t watch him. I trust Simms and what i read of him by other critics. I don´t watch college ball since to much player shifts every year. I like it more consistent. :)

Merckx index said:
I don’t see how anyone in his right mind could view Luck as another Akili Smith or Leaf or Russell, but he could turn out to be another Alex Smith, in which case he would be a disappointment. A QB good enough to start in the NFL, but not good enough to be considered an elite.

The pro scouts who evaluate talent are fallible, of course. They sometimes miss something important, or exaggerate something that they do see. But they are not total idiots. If so many people are that high on Luck, I can’t believe he will be a complete flop. Most spectacular draft busts, like those three mentioned above, had character issues, which as far as I can see, Luck doesn’t have. They didn’t work to realize the potential they had. Assuming Luck does, I think he at worst will be a competent starting QB.

I agree with that report that Luck faces more pressure. But I think it’s not for the main reasons they gave. It’s because though Indy should consider itself rebuilding, there will be immediate pressure to win. Fans will reason that if Manning were still there, they would make the playoffs, so if they don’t under Luck, he has failed. This may not be rational, but try telling that to fans who watched Manning lead an often poor defensive team to one of the best regular season records year after year. I might be wrong, but I don’t think RG3 will be considered a failure if Washington doesn’t make the playoffs next year. As Cam Newton showed, you can have a marvelous rookie season and still not win many games. And the NFC East looks to me to be one of the toughest divisions in the NFL next year.

Btw, did you guys know that there is another Robert Griffin in the draft? Who also played for Baylor (OL)? His agent says it gets pretty crazy when he calls a team to see about setting up a workout for his client, Robert Griffin from Baylor! At Baylor he’s distinguished from the QB as Robert T. Griffin.
Generally agree with all what you said. NFL scouts always missed on QB´s. As i mentioned long ago, they evaluate QB´s the wrong way. For what measuring wonderlic, vertical jump, ht. & wt., 40-Dash, and looking at big colleges only?? All you need is accuracy, a strong arm, and football intelligence. Those QB´s are everywhere (see Warner, Flutie, Moon, Brady). I think their problem is they over evaluate the big prospects and have no time to look at the other 1.000+ QB´s who leave colleges every year. In germany we say: "(Er) sieht den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht".(to miss the forest for the trees).
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Hey Foxxy, good to see your words of wisdom again! (This is not to suggest that what the other regulars here write is not also 'wisdom'). ;)

Also, thanks to all the other regulars for the fascinating input here. I make sure to check this topic every day, even if I don't have any pearls of my own to add. I saw part of that ESPN in depth profile of RG3 the other day and will admit to having been extremely impressed by the young man! I look forward to him taking the Skins back to old heights, as long as the Colts don't fark everything up by changing their minds at the last moment.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Hey Foxxy, good to see your words of wisdom again! (This is not to suggest that what the other regulars here write is not also 'wisdom'). ;)

Also, thanks to all the other regulars for the fascinating input here. I make sure to check this topic every day, even if I don't have any pearls of my own to add. I saw part of that ESPN in depth profile of RG3 the other day and will admit to having been extremely impressed by the young man! I look forward to him taking the Skins back to old heights, as long as the Colts don't fark everything up by changing their minds at the last moment.
Who knows? If i had a say for the Colts, they better draft RGIII. :D

Off Topic:
How you use the permanent "link" "Gingrich-Palin The Dream Ticket" in your posts? I´d like to do the same, having a link to the "GGTG 2012". Thanks in advance. :)
 
Amsterhammer said:
Hey Foxxy, good to see your words of wisdom again! (This is not to suggest that what the other regulars here write is not also 'wisdom'). ;)

Also, thanks to all the other regulars for the fascinating input here. I make sure to check this topic every day, even if I don't have any pearls of my own to add. I saw part of that ESPN in depth profile of RG3 the other day and will admit to having been extremely impressed by the young man! I look forward to him taking the Skins back to old heights, as long as the Colts don't fark everything up by changing their minds at the last moment.
pearls? heck, I just might be the swine.

Oh, I just noticed... Mr McMahon is back
 
Great to see McMahon back!

Merckx index said:
I don’t see how anyone in his right mind could view Luck as another Akili Smith or Leaf or Russell, but he could turn out to be another Alex Smith.
I would agree with this possibility. Though part of Alex Smith's problem is playing for so many different OC's, HC's and different systems. A different one every year actually. Though with a weak Colt's team, Luck could face similar. I also agree the pressure could get to him. Joe Montana was 2-14 his first season, Troy Aikman was 1-15. Can Luck survive a season like that? We'll see, because the Colts may be that bad (though I think 5-11 is more like it).

You mention Weeden. I actually think that guy would go much higher if he were younger, and I wouldn't hesitate to draft him anyway. Great senior year, probably best QB at the combine (Luck and RG3 didn't throw there), excellent pro day. If I were in the NFL I'd happily take a guy who is very likely to be capable to play, if only for 4-5 years, than someone who may not even play very well, even if it takes a decade. The NFL is filled with those guys.

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I expect him to perform like JaMarcus, Harrington, Mirer, Alex Smith, Young, Couch etc.!
I don't see it. Or the only reason it's possible is because of a poor Colts team during a difficult time. That is the hardest thing to overcome, beyond his control. That could definitely damper his progress. But from what I have seen from him, I don't see him being a flat-out bust.

No i didn´t watch him. I trust Simms and what i read of him by other critics.
I don't have the time, but I can supply links to plenty of people who praise Luck, many with equal pedigree to Simms. Jon Gruden for one.

And I'll say it again, if anyone really thinks Luck was just dropping back and lobbing screens to a wide open fullback to pad his stats they weren't watching him play. He completed many passes across the entire field, including bombs. He doesn't have Brett Favre's arm, but he's not a wimp either. And he rarely threw bad passes. A couple of his picks were on tipped balls.

NFL scouts always missed on QB´s...(missed) QB´s are everywhere (see Warner, Flutie, Moon, Brady). I think their problem is they over evaluate the big prospects and have no time to look at the other 1.000+ QB´s who leave colleges every year.
The same year the Patriots took Tom Brady, the 49ers sage front office, with Bill Walsh sitting in the booth and Steve Mariucci on the sidelines, looked to a small college and took Giovanni Carmazzi, who ultimately never played a down, and is now a goat farmer in northern California...

Scouts and coaches are human. Some make better decisions than others. They fall into the problem of getting emotional about certain players. This year though I think that player is not Andrew Luck, it's Ryan Tannehill.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
Oh, I just noticed... Mr McMahon is back
Alpe d'Huez said:
Great to see McMahon back!
Thanks to "on3m...". He kindly released me early from this disgusting avartar bet. :D

BTW, it would be great if he was really back in CHI, even tough he´d still end up on IR almost every year. Anyway, Martz then would still be a "Bear" and Jimmy Mäc had no time to make senseless concussion lawsuits. Now, CHI waits another 25 years for the next superbowl. I mean they are not the Giants who every now and then happen to be "Champs-By-Chance". ;)


Alpe d'Huez said:
I would agree with this possibility. Though part of Alex Smith's problem is playing for so many different OC's, HC's and different systems. A different one every year actually. Though with a weak Colt's team, Luck could face similar. I also agree the pressure could get to him. Joe Montana was 2-14 his first season, Troy Aikman was 1-15. Can Luck survive a season like that? We'll see, because the Colts may be that bad (though I think 5-11 is more like it).

...Or the only reason it's possible is because of a poor Colts team during a difficult time. That is the hardest thing to overcome, beyond his control. That could definitely damper his progress. But from what I have seen from him, I don't see him being a flat-out bust.
Agree 100%. That will be the main problem for Luck. A bad team makes a QB always look bad and visa-versa (see Manning´s Siz w/the Giants :D).
OTOH, a strong armed QB on the long run has better chances with bad teams than a weak armed QB. Just imagine Brady had gone to DET instead of NE. We would have never heared of him past 2001.
The 5-11 guess is a good number, since regression to the mean works in favour of IND.

Alpe d'Huez said:
You mention Weeden. I actually think that guy would go much higher if he were younger, and I wouldn't hesitate to draft him anyway. Great senior year, probably best QB at the combine (Luck and RG3 didn't throw there), excellent pro day. If I were in the NFL I'd happily take a guy who is very likely to be capable to play, if only for 4-5 years, than someone who may not even play very well, even if it takes a decade. The NFL is filled with those guys.
As usual nothing to find about ball speed of QB´s at the combine 2012. I just remember Toby Korrodi was the strongest some years back. And as some ex teamates said, he won some games from behind. His problem? Small college, never drafted. I am 100% sure we missed one hell of a great would be NFL-Star.
Anyway, what i want to say is, if the NFL would release some real hard numbers that count (ball speed, accuracy) instead of nonsense (40-Dash, wonderlic, college stats etc.), i could make much better predictions than just to trust Simms and i´d have more clues about the coming (QB) draft than just Luck & RGIII. So i can´t say anything about Weeden for example.

BTW, College Stats are absolute useless. Here are two extreme examples:
a.) 57.7%, 7.3 Y/A, 74/64 TD/Int (42-6 W-L-Team-Record in his career = .875 W-Pct.).
b.) 64.0%, 8.4 Y/A, 66/36 TD/Int (35-4 W-L-Team-Record in his career = .897 W-Pct.).
Guess who this two Div. I QB´s are. Hint: They are from somehow the same era, so that the numbers can be compared.

Plus: What a bad sign. Both Luck & RGIII didn´t go to the combine?? Well, that only makes sense if you have something to hide. May both know they´d have risked millions if flaws were detected. From now on i am also no more sure about RGIII (but still think he´s wayyy better than Luck).

I think even JaMarcus Russell didn´t hide from the combine.

Alpe d'Huez said:
I don't have the time, but I can supply links to plenty of people who praise Luck, many with equal pedigree to Simms. Jon Gruden for one.
Well, Gruden seems to be a great detailed coach. I´ve read a great article about him in december. But i have a problem with him: He was the only coach in 2007 (i think) who did not use the ShG-Formation an entire season. Not a single time! Yet all other coaches outside of Norv got the news back then, that this formation gives you the best chance for effective offensive plays (Beli-Cheat used that formation the most often that year. No surprise here.).
A great example of a coach who "misses the forest for the trees".

Alpe d'Huez said:
And I'll say it again, if anyone really thinks Luck was just dropping back and lobbing screens to a wide open fullback to pad his stats they weren't watching him play. He completed many passes across the entire field, including bombs. He doesn't have Brett Favre's arm, but he's not a wimp either. And he rarely threw bad passes. A couple of his picks were on tipped balls.



The same year the Patriots took Tom Brady, the 49ers sage front office, with Bill Walsh sitting in the booth and Steve Mariucci on the sidelines, looked to a small college and took Giovanni Carmazzi, who ultimately never played a down, and is now a goat farmer in northern California...

Scouts and coaches are human. Some make better decisions than others. They fall into the problem of getting emotional about certain players. This year though I think that player is not Andrew Luck, it's Ryan Tannehill.
I saw some hi-lites of Luck on youtube. That´s all i got. Nothing seen that impressed me... Good normal throws that every QB can do if he has time to throw. Anyway, just my opinion.

Agree with the rest. They have the same problems in soccer over here. And year in year out they produce busts with their sheer stubbornness.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Plus: What a bad sign. Both Luck & RGIII didn´t go to the combine?? Well, that only makes sense if you have something to hide. May both know they´d have risked millions if flaws were detected. From now on i am also no more sure about RGIII (but still think he´s wayyy better than Luck).
What? Their stock is so high they don't need to try to improve it. So, I don't think it is a bad sign they did not go to the combine. A few posts ago I mentioned some analyst on the Bleacher Report saying he thought RG would do better than Luck in their rookie season. I posted that because it was interesting commentary. But I'm not so sure, mainly because RG has a few things to learn that Luck has already done, like:
1) Luck has already been exposed to the pro-style offense, whereas RG has not. RG will have some learning to do here.
2) RG's touch passes are not very consistent. Luck is better in that category.
If RG can become as good or better in those areas as Luck is, then with his greater athleticism he could become the better QB in the long run. A lot depends on the system they will be in too, so only time will tell.

BTW... an honorable man would have stuck out the avatar bet regardless...

Just kidding. I'm just messing with ya. :D
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
on3m@n@rmy said:
What? Their stock is so high they don't need to try to improve it.
Yes. At least Luck could have only lost by showing up. But RGIII? He might have moved up to No. 1 like Russell did, or Jeff George (one 80-Yards-in-the-air-Throw impressed everybody, making him No. 1 back then). BTW, George was a hell of a QB. Media slaughtered him. He was victim of bad teams around him. He posted similar career stats as for example Moon who played in the same era...

on3m@n@rmy said:
BTW... an honorable man would have stuck out the avatar bet regardless...

Just kidding. I'm just messing with ya. :D
.... You see i am lousy :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts