Vikings Message Board.Com

TeddyBaller wrote:
Didnt Cam Newton have 35 tds his rookie year... Strange hes not listed

I'm thinking many of his were rushing.

PurpleMustReign wrote:
I'm thinking many of his were rushing.

He had 21 passing and 14 rushing. As well as 17 interceptions.

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.

Wilson is a bit hyped up too, but at least he's got a ring.

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.

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.

So if you had your choice of Luck or any of those other quarterbacks, wouldn't you take Luck? I sure would.

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.

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.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Wayne right now? No. I don't know if he's even an upgrade on Greg Jennings.

I also think if you can probably put Luck on Seattle's roster and they'd still have won the Super Bowl last year. That defense is/was ridiculous.

dead_poet wrote:Wayne right now? No. I don't know if he's even an upgrade on Greg Jennings.

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.
The only reason you wouldn't actually take him is his age.

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.

Since when is Jennings our "#1 receiver"? I'd say down the stretch that was Charles Johnson.

The only reason you wouldn't actually take him is his age.

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: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.

Well shucks. All that, and he beat every single wide receiver on our team statistically.
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.

dead_poet wrote: Since when is Jennings our "#1 receiver"? I'd say down the stretch that was Charles Johnson.

Jennings has led the team in receptions and TDs the past two years. Perhaps that makes him the default "No. 1" receiver?

Ardenn wrote:Well shucks. All that, and he beat every single wide receiver on our team statistically.

Yeah, Andrew Luck threw almost 100 more passes than Bridgewater, Cassel and Ponder so...

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.

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?