NFL 2016 Week 3/4: The Darkness Peers Back

[sperry]

20 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

My point is that the Bengals have enjoyed an unprecedented* string of success that started exactly when Dalton arrived.  Until that 2011 draft, the Bengals were right there with the Browns, Raiders, Lions, Redskins, Bills and Jags as one of the most clueless franchises in the league. 

In contrast, the Colts have one of the best winning percentages this century.  It seems strange to assume that Luck would flourish if he were only playing for a slightly better organization.

* Going back to the early 90s anyway.

 

They had that record because they had a hall of fame quarterback playing with hall of fame skill position talent.  That talent was leaving right at the the time Luck arrived. There's a reason they went 1-15 the year before and were able to get Luck in the first place.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

They had that record because they had a hall of fame quarterback playing with hall of fame skill position talent.  That talent was leaving right at the the time Luck arrived. There's a reason they went 1-15 the year before and were able to get Luck in the first place.

Now you gone and done it... here come the 'suck for Luck' truthers.

[JonSnow4President]

26 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

My point is that the Bengals have enjoyed an unprecedented* string of success that started exactly when Dalton arrived.  Until that 2011 draft, the Bengals were right there with the Browns, Raiders, Lions, Redskins, Bills and Jags as one of the most clueless franchises in the league. 

In contrast, the Colts have one of the best winning percentages this century.  It seems strange to assume that Luck would flourish if he were only playing for a slightly better organization.

* Going back to the early 90s anyway.

I really didn't get into the NFL until 2012.  But 2011 was Gruden's first year as an OC, and had AJ Green drafted.  Jackson followed Gruden. Dalton is a decent QB who can do a hell of a lot with a quality team around him.  I'm not disputing that.  I just don't think he's a great QB, or the sole or even primary reason for that success.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I have to say, of all the things I miss about watching or consuming football knowledge talking with you yahoos is the top one.

So jump back in! It's not like your knowledge has gone anywhere. Or is this one of those "I can have just one drink" sort of scenarios? 

Anyways, we miss you too big guy.

[Bronn Stone]

I'd like to throw one out.

I don't think there is a chance in the world that if the Colts offered Luck for Dalton straight up, that Cincy would say no.
I don't think there is a chance in the world that if the Bengals offered Dalton for Luck straight up, that Indy would say yes.

But if you were either of those franchises and the offer was Luck for Dalton AND AJ Green, what would be your response.

I'd still say no as the Colts and yes as the Bengals.

[Jaime L]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I have to say, of all the things I miss about watching or consuming football knowledge talking with you yahoos is the top one.

Your perspective has been missed, man. 

And now when I say that Russell Wilson is playing so much worse this year primarily because he lost his virgin superpowers this offseason, there's no one to refute me. Virgin QBs are basically impossible to beat. NO-ONE IS DISPUTING THIS. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Jaime L said:

Your perspective has been missed, man. 

And now when I say that Russell Wilson is playing so much worse this year primarily because he lost his virgin superpowers this offseason, there's no one to refute me. Virgin QBs are basically impossible to beat. NO-ONE IS DISPUTING THIS. 

 http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tebow_large.jpg

 

/RAMEN

[Jaime L]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tebow_large.jpg

 

/RAMEN

Nailed it. YOUR MOVE, HYPOTHETICAL OPPOSITION. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

Are you going through an existential crisis there, Tywin?

Teddy's injury. It's not your fault.

Don't act like I don't have a point though. Look at the Dalton-Luck comparison upthread. It's a joke. If they switched teams I think the Bengals would improve dramatically and the Colts would be one of the worst teams in the NFL.

1 hour ago, Jaime L said:

I'll let you know after this week's game.

Factors that will be considered:

• Did he confuse spiking the ball with taking a knee?
• Did he confuse having 6 seconds left on the clock with 60 seconds? 
• Did he wear his early 90s Starter jacket at the post game press conference?
• Did I indeed "like that"? 

Please tell me that really happened.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So jump back in! It's not like your knowledge has gone anywhere. Or is this one of those "I can have just one drink" sort of scenarios? 

Anyways, we miss you too big guy.

It kind of has, actually. I barely know who the QBs are, I don't know who has done well. I know a bit about Seattle because it's basically impossible to avoid the knowledge living here, but all I know about Chicago is that Chicago utterly sucks and that Hoyer is in, and it's a pit of complete despair. I know Seattle's line is a travesty of football play, and I know that the Pats are somehow winning despite being on their 4th string QB and this apparently in no way reflects on Brady being good because reasons. 

I guess I can say this: the noughts were an age of unparalleled great QB play with two of the best QBs ever to play the game playing and a few other HoF caliber players at the position too. There has never been a time when the QB play was so good, and both QBs were so far above the previous best that it utterly changed what people thought of when they thought of good QB play. Right now both QBs are gone and the end result is a perception that things suck a bit. This combined with a  bit of a renaissance in good defensive play means that we have a lot of good QBs but no truly exemplary ones, and it's weird. 

Luck being good but not great and compared to Dalton is a totally reasonable thing, IMO. Dalton isn't as good objectively but he does succeed at least as much as Luck does given what he has. Luck also is significantly more injury-prone, and that matters. Neither are as good for their respective teams as a healthy Russell Wilson. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I have to say, of all the things I miss about watching or consuming football knowledge talking with you yahoos is the top one.

 

[JonSnow4President]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Neither are as good for their respective teams as a healthy Russell Wilson. 

I disagree with that.  I think Luck is about equal (in other words, I don't think there's a significant difference in Seattle's fortune over the last few years if Luck is there, and I don't think Indy is any more successful with Wilson there).  Both kick Dalton's ass though.

[Jaime L]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Don't act like I don't have a point though. Look at the Dalton-Luck comparison upthread. It's a joke. If they switched teams I think the Bengals would improve dramatically and the Colts would be one of the worst teams in the NFL.

 

Yep and so that's your answer. Though I think the Colts might already be one of the worst teams in the NFL (not as though that precludes them from winning the AFC South mind you).

Please tell me that really happened.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Luck being good but not great and compared to Dalton is a totally reasonable thing, IMO. Dalton isn't as good objectively but he does succeed at least as much as Luck does given what he has. Luck also is significantly more injury-prone, and that matters. Neither are as good for their respective teams as a healthy Russell Wilson. 

Again, you have to factor in several things. Dalton has always played with a great D while Luck never has. Dalton has a cheat code, Luck as Hilton who may not even be that good if he had an average QB. Dalton was throwing really risky passes last night to Green, but Green kept bailing him out. There's a decent chance he would have had a few Ints if he had been throwing to Hilton instead. I think Luck would be doing a lot better than Dalton in almost every way if he didn't have to carry that awful Colts roster, which is one of the worst in the league.

[Kalbear]

Just now, JonSnow4President said:

I disagree with that.  I think Luck is about equal (in other words, I don't think there's a significant difference in Seattle's fortune over the last few years if Luck is there, and I don't think Indy is any more successful with Wilson there).  Both kick Dalton's ass though.

If Wilson and Luck switched teams the Colts would likely be fine, and Luck would be in a wheelchair. The Seattle offensive line has been so bad for so long and has relied absurdly on Wilson's improvisational skills and scrambling ability. Luck is fast, but he's not as good as a runner on a regular basis and is definitely not as good at improvisation. 

While the Colts line hasn't been particularly good it has been at least serviceable at times. Whereas Wilson and Lynch basically disguised any issues the Seattle line had for a long, long time.

I think that if you gave both of them Cinci's line then it's possible that Luck is better than Wilson in that scenario. But for their specific teams, Wilson is more important to the success of the Seahawks as built compared to Luck. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, you have to factor in several things. Dalton has always played with a great D while Luck never has. Dalton has a cheat code, Luck as Hilton who may not even be that good if he had an average QB. Dalton was throwing really risky passes last night to Green, but Green kept bailing him out. There's a decent chance he would have had a few Ints if he had been throwing to Hilton instead. I think Luck would be doing a lot better than Dalton in almost every way if he didn't have to carry that awful Colts roster, which is one of the worst in the league.

I wouldn't call the Cinci D "great". They have been decent to good, but they've never been great. Certainly nothing like Denver was last year, for instance. 

Hilton is pretty good as a cheat code - but more importantly Luck just relies on him regardless. If that's AJ Green I'm sure Luck would be more successful, but Luck would be throwing it up there anyway. That's just what he does. Luck is also pretty bad when dealing with pressure and is prone to making a lot of stupid mistakes. That used to be true about Dalton but has improved more recently. 

I'm sure Luck would have more wins if he had the Cinci roster, but I don't think he'd be doing that much better. And again, he'd be out more with injury and would cost more. These things matter too.

[JonSnow4President]

Just now, Kalbear said:

If Wilson and Luck switched teams the Colts would likely be fine, and Luck would be in a wheelchair. The Seattle offensive line has been so bad for so long and has relied absurdly on Wilson's improvisational skills and scrambling ability. Luck is fast, but he's not as good as a runner on a regular basis and is definitely not as good at improvisation. 

While the Colts line hasn't been particularly good it has been at least serviceable at times. Whereas Wilson and Lynch basically disguised any issues the Seattle line had for a long, long time.

I think that if you gave both of them Cinci's line then it's possible that Luck is better than Wilson in that scenario. But for their specific teams, Wilson is more important to the success of the Seahawks as built compared to Luck. 

I don't think it makes that much of a difference, but this is from someone that doesn't watch all that many Seattle games.  The two are phenomenal young QBs.  If my team's QB (Prescott) can become as good as Wilson is right now (if healthy), and never as good as what Wilson becomes as his career progresses, I will be ecstatic.  I just don't think he is significantly better or worse than Luck.  Seattle's offense would certainly look different (as would Indy's), but I don't think it fares significantly better or worse.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It kind of has, actually. I barely know who the QBs are, I don't know who has done well. I know a bit about Seattle because it's basically impossible to avoid the knowledge living here, but all I know about Chicago is that Chicago utterly sucks and that Hoyer is in, and it's a pit of complete despair. I know Seattle's line is a travesty of football play, and I know that the Pats are somehow winning despite being on their 4th string QB and this apparently in no way reflects on Brady being good because reasons. 

 Eh, we're 3 weeks into the season, and these comparison conversations typically rely on the performances of seasons past at this point. Not sure your ignorance of this season would factor much into this particular conversation. Both Dalton and Luck have been fairly mediocre up to this point of the season.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

16 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

Nailed it. YOUR MOVE, HYPOTHETICAL OPPOSITION. 

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/tommy.jpg

 

NO ONE DENIES THIS!

[JonSnow4President]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

 

I'm sure Luck would have more wins if he had the Cinci roster, but I don't think he'd be doing that much better. And again, he'd be out more with injury and would cost more. These things matter too.

He's had what?  One major fluke kidney injury?  The Bengals O-line also completely destroys any line Luck has had in his career.  They're not the current (healthy) Cowboys, but few teams come close.