TeddyBaller wrote:
Didnt Cam Newton have 35 tds his rookie year... Strange hes not listed
I'm thinking many of his were rushing.
Moderator: Moderators
TeddyBaller wrote:
Didnt Cam Newton have 35 tds his rookie year... Strange hes not listed
He had 21 passing and 14 rushing. As well as 17 interceptions.PurpleMustReign wrote:
I'm thinking many of his were rushing.
He's also got a top 1 defense. top 5 running back...Wilson is a bit hyped up too, but at least he's got a ring.
So if you had your choice of Luck or any of those other quarterbacks, wouldn't you take Luck? I sure would.Ardenn wrote:I don't have huge issues with the article that was posted of QB rankings, except that it irks me that Andrew Luck is always given a free pass into "unquestionably elite" status (and Kaep is NOT better than Teddy). Andrew Luck is a good quarterback, has good odds of being a really great quarterback, looks really good on the "eye test," and has thrown his way (by volume) into the playoffs repeatedly. Then he's thrown himself right out of the playoffs. His accuracy isn't great, mostly from trying to force things. Statistically, apart from sheer volume, he isn't doing very much to separate himself from the likes of Tannehill, Ryan, Rivers, Stafford. I think the kid plays a lot like Brett Favre and could reach the same heights if all goes well, but I think the hype is way overblown. Wilson is a bit hyped up too, but at least he's got a ring.
If I could have one QB for now I would take AR but for the long term, I think that hands down it would be Luck.Purple Reign wrote: So if you had your choice of Luck or any of those other quarterbacks, wouldn't you take Luck? I sure would.
I may take Ryan or Rivers.Purple Reign wrote: So if you had your choice of Luck or any of those other quarterbacks, wouldn't you take Luck? I sure would.
It'd surprise me if Luck doesn't have a Super Bowl ring by the time his career is finished. No question that team needs more talent in other places but he's going to help them get a lot of wins.Ardenn wrote:I don't have huge issues with the article that was posted of QB rankings, except that it irks me that Andrew Luck is always given a free pass into "unquestionably elite" status (and Kaep is NOT better than Teddy). Andrew Luck is a good quarterback, has good odds of being a really great quarterback, looks really good on the "eye test," and has thrown his way (by volume) into the playoffs repeatedly. Then he's thrown himself right out of the playoffs. His accuracy isn't great, mostly from trying to force things. Statistically, apart from sheer volume, he isn't doing very much to separate himself from the likes of Tannehill, Ryan, Rivers, Stafford. I think the kid plays a lot like Brett Favre and could reach the same heights if all goes well, but I think the hype is way overblown. Wilson is a bit hyped up too, but at least he's got a ring.
FWIW, I think Luck is better than Wilson right now. A ring just excuses a lot.Demi wrote: He's also got a top 1 defense. top 5 running back...
What does Luck have? Like Peyton before him, he's surrounded with pretty average talent that he makes look a lot better than it is. And an average, to slightly above average defense. And he's still got them at double digit wins every season.
Wayne right now? No. I don't know if he's even an upgrade on Greg Jennings.Ardenn wrote: FWIW, I think Luck is better than Wilson right now. A ring just excuses a lot.
As far as average talent is concerned, would you not, in an instant, no regrets, trade any two of our WRs for Wayne and Hilton?
He beat Jennings in production as his teams #2 WR. You can point to QB talent, or scheme, or overall offensive production, or % run/pass, or whatever you want to point at, but he still produced more as the #2 than Jennings did as #1.dead_poet wrote:Wayne right now? No. I don't know if he's even an upgrade on Greg Jennings.
Since when is Jennings our "#1 receiver"? I'd say down the stretch that was Charles Johnson.Ardenn wrote:He beat Jennings in production as his teams #2 WR. You can point to QB talent, or scheme, or overall offensive production, or % run/pass, or whatever you want to point at, but he still produced more as the #2 than Jennings did as #1.
That's one reason. He's breaking down. He's battling groin and triceps injuries (the latter will require offseason surgery) in addition to coming off of ACL surgery last year. Since week 6 he's produced more than 35 yards receiving exactly three times. He has two touchdowns all season. He's been bypassed on the depth chart. He can't separate consistently any longer. I'd rather have Jennings.The only reason you wouldn't actually take him is his age.
Well shucks. All that, and he beat every single wide receiver on our team statistically.dead_poet wrote:That's one reason. He's breaking down. He's battling groin and triceps injuries (the latter will require offseason surgery) in addition to coming off of ACL surgery last year. Since week 6 he's produced more than 35 yards receiving exactly three times. He has two touchdowns all season. He's been bypassed on the depth chart. He can't separate consistently any longer. I'd rather have Jennings.
dead_poet wrote: Since when is Jennings our "#1 receiver"? I'd say down the stretch that was Charles Johnson.
Yeah, Andrew Luck threw almost 100 more passes than Bridgewater, Cassel and Ponder so...Ardenn wrote:Well shucks. All that, and he beat every single wide receiver on our team statistically.
I don't know who's saying he's throwing touchdowns to himself. Hilton is clearly a good receiver. He'd probably be our "#1." But Andrew Luck is easily one of the top-10 QBs, if not the top-5. Why is that a problem?Since we're getting away from the whole point of what I said, I would trade our entire WR roster for TY Hilton. People always want to make it sound like Luck is out in a muddy field tossing touchdowns up to himself.