NFL Thread #5

[arrowfan]

Sweet Limping Christ. That was a long way to go to get to "Painter doesn't suck as bad as the Colt's management does".

Pretty damn good summary! But yea, the devil is in the details.

[Sivin]

That was a lot of content.

And yes, the Colts management is just terrible.

[Rockroi]

Okay, so muhc of this argument is caught between varying identifications of "How bad the Colts suck." I could have this argument all day. I LOVE discussing how much the Colts suck. At the same time, its just a matter of opinion ... until

See, this (Colts problems are endemic and multifaceted, coming from a variety of issues NOT JUST that Peyton Manning is hurt) I mostly agree with. I don't think they could have done that much to improve the QB position without massively rebuilding everything. They simply had too many holes this year and honestly it is almost always better for a team to go after OLine quality over a QB unless they absolutely need a QB or they think they've found the answer for a long time. For GB in 2005 it was that they found the answer and they didn't have significant holes. The Colts...have had a lot. The best possibility this season would have been Dalton. Now, I happen to think it was probably a mistake not to draft him,

WAIT A MINUTE! WTF!?! So, you agree with me that they should have done better than Painter?! So, you keep asking me "WHAT SHOULD THE COLT HAVE DONE!!!" And then ... you answer the question? Help me out: how is that NOT agreement with me that the Colts had a problem at their back-up QB slot? If you keep asking, "Rock, what were the Colts supposed to do?" And then in the very next breath answer "Draft Dalton." How is that not agreeing with me?

Okay, don't answer that because I kind of agree with you that a team SHOULD build out the O-line first BEFORE the sacrifice a QB to the dogs of war. I think that the Pats did the right thing in using their pick (thank you, Al) to draft Nate Solder (who the Colts were going to draft .... hmmmm... seems important). That I am fine with, so MAYBE that cancels out the fact that you think Painter is fine and then say "But they should have drafted Dalton" (and you DID say that).

but I'd say that of a lot of teams; I think he'll be a very good QB in a couple of years and is showing some very good signs of that as a rookie, and when you get a chance to draft a franchise QB it's a failure if you don't. That goes for everyone though - the Pats, the Colts, the Seahawks (holy fuck the Seahawks), everyone. But realistically drafting a good OLineman is a very big win there as well.

Again, I agree with this so I cannot just say you are full of crap.

Okay so, the only point of true, unabashed contention appears to be that I think Matt Cassel did better for the Pats in 2008 than Painter is doing now. How to settle this?

Bet: Curtis Painter WILL not have:

- As many 400 yard days as Matt Cassel did in 2008 (2);

- As many 3 TD games as Matt Cassel did in 2008 (5);

- As many 100.00 QB rated game as Cassel did in 2008 (7);

And I'll cut you some slack: Painter only has to hit TWO of those. Loser has to change their sig. What say you? If Curtis Painter MERELY TIES TWO of those metrics above, Ill change my sig to whatever you want for the duration of the Playoffs (SB included, cannot be changed back until after the parade; you have the same reciprocal bet if he DOES NOT do that).

(See, this is boarder-line insane. We are betting on the BACK-UPS to Brady and Manning! How fucked is that?! And I'm not sure we can even HAVE a bet because Painter missed a few games.).

Okay, so the bet is probably a non-starter but its there if you want it.

But bottom line: 2013: Curtis Painter is NOT traded to a team as that team's de facto starter and HE SURE AS HELL does not lead a team to a divisional title the next year (ie: there is no way he looks as good to owners as Caseel did NOR can he produce like Cassel did).

[Lord O' Bones]

Rock,

You also have to address the cake schedule that Cassel apparently had.

(I have no opinion on this having not looked it up, but I do read the thread and the assertion has been made.)

[Rockroi]

Rock,

You also have to address the cake schedule that Cassel apparently had.

Ah, shit he did have an easy schedule... then again he DID play BOTH participants in the Superbowl (went 1-1; he got crushed by the Steelers; crushed the Cards).

But actually I specifically remember in 2008 saying that the Pats MVP that year was their cake schedule.

Its a shitty bet really. For starters, there is no way Painter is going to put up those numbers (because he's not, as they say, "Any good"). But also because he does not have Welker and Moss to catch his passes (though he does have Wayne, Clark and Garcon).

Like I said, at the end of this season nobody is offering the Colts draft picks for Painter, and he isn't going to start next season nor lead a team to a division title in two (and for the record, I have patience, but that's just too much detail for me to take that bet as well). There's a reason for that.

[arrowfan]

2 must-see games tomorrow for me:

Dal@Phil - scrappy div game with plenty on the line, especially for the Eagles

NE@Pit - battle of the two AFC teams with the best record, Pit plays pretty well at home and should do some damage to the NE def. High scoring game with lots of lead changes, Should be some good stuff.

[awesome possum]

Dal@Phil - scrappy div game with plenty on the line, especially for the Eagles

I hope Philly pulls this out so they're a little more complacent next Monday night for the Bears.

For starters, there is no way Painter is going to put up those numbers (because he's not, as they say, "Any good").

Lemme see if I got this straight.

1) The Colts' defense has been horrible: 30th in the league horrible, which normally would just mean Manning has to come into the game with a few minutes left and cement the victory with yet another game-winning drive (or not, as has been prone to happen but thanks to Manning the team would likely still be in the game).

2) The Colts' offensive line has been bad and running game practically nonexistent.

3) They've played from behind in nearly every game so far this season. I think they led the Browns for a quarter, the Steelers for a quarter, and the Bucs and Chiefs for a half.

4) They've had to pass a lot.

5) Curtis Painter is not Peyton Manning

6) Curtis Painter has not played like Peyton Manning

Therefore the conclusion is Curtis Painter is a piece of shit? Because he hasn't been able to win with a bad Colts team and Matt Cassel did with a Pats team that went 18-1 the season before?

That's some shitty logic if I ever saw it and definitely not worthy of such concrete declaration.

[Rockroi]

Therefore the conclusion is Curtis Painter is a piece of shit? Because he hasn't been able to win with a bad Colts team and Matt Cassel did with a Pats team that went 18-1 the season before?

That's some shitty logic if I ever saw it and definitely not worthy of such concrete declaration.

Wow... that is shitty logic.

Thank God I didn't engage in it.

What I have said is that Curtis Painter is not a very good QB. I actually think he's bad. He had a good game. He's had some bad ones as well.

I never said that the reason the Colts are bad is because of Painter. In fact, I said he was just a factor to be considered; I'm glad we had this chat.

[Kalbear]

What I have said is that Curtis Painter is not a very good QB. I actually think he's bad. He had a good game. He's had some bad ones as well.

Okay - let's go with this. You think he's a bad QB. The evidence against him is one bad game, essentially. He didn't play great in relief of Collins, but he didn't play horribly and only had a half to catch up. So we've got one fairly bad game against the Saints.

Compared to 3 other games where he played adequately if not amazingly. And other stats like DVOA which indicate that he's not as bad as at least 12 other QBs out there who are starting.

I guess I don't get where the 'he sucks' part comes from or why he's thought of as bad. Now, it's clear that the management thought he was bad. Or at least didn't think much of him. They were clearly wrong- about a great many things.

I'll think about the bet, Rock. I think that it would be more reasonable to do something like bet that he would have a DVOA both close to Cassel's in 2008 and a DVOA higher than Cassel in 2011. But I'll think about it.

[Jaxom 1974]

Sweet Limping Christ. That was a long way to go to get to "Painter doesn't suck as hard as Colt's management does".

Well it was, wasn't it? But admit it, you love it as much as the rest of us when Kal and Rock throw down... :P

[Lord O' Bones]

Well it was, wasn't it? But admit it, you love it as much as the rest of us when Kal and Rock throw down... :P

Manhole is just settling in. And Rock was absent for a while. Manny may not even know yet!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Well it was, wasn't it? But admit it, you love it as much as the rest of us when Kal and Rock throw down... :P

Oh hell yes. I enjoy both of their posts. Love this thread in general.

[Rockroi]

Seriously, how much is it gonna suck for me when Painter has a 31 for 38 day 367 yard, 3 TD day against the Pats? That's a given at this point, right?

[Commodore]

out: planking

in: tebowing

[awesome possum]

Wow... that is shitty logic.

Thank God I didn't engage in it.

Okay. Sure.

What I have said is that Curtis Painter is not a very good QB. I actually think he's bad. He had a good game. He's had some bad ones as well.

And the sampling size is rather small. He's started all of four games so far in his career and you're ready to put a stamp on said career. He may end up being a bad QB. He's certainly in a bad situation, one that we've seen ruin backups before, but also one that we've seen backups thrive and become stars in. I honestly don't think he'll be either. I think he's just competent enough to be a backup for the next five to ten years. So far he hasn't lit up the highlight reels, but he also hasn't single-handedly lost any games either.

I also think he believed he lucked into an awesome, easy job. Backing up Peyton Manning? He's getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold a clipboard. Rockin'! That's the jibe I always got from the short glimpses on the sidelines.

I haven't seen a good QB in the hour or so of Colts football I've watched this season, but I also haven't seen this bad one either.

I never said that the reason the Colts are bad is because of Painter. In fact, I said he was just a factor to be considered; I'm glad we had this chat.

Of course it's a factor. He's replacing a first-ballot Hall of Fame quarterback who is renown for having become the uber-controlling mastermind of the Colts offense.

Painter is in a position right now where he will never get a fair shake. It just can't happen, because no quarterback in the history of the game could step into the Colts offense and perform in it the way Manning does. All the QBs that have ever played and none could walk in off the street and fill Manning's shoes. It's his offense, more than we can say about just about any other QB who has played.

So Painter is a factor, yes. But on the list of factors, which include below average to terrible defense, running game, offensive line, coaching, and management (because really, how far could Peyton have taken this team?) he's toward the bottom.

[Rockroi]

Painter is in a position right now where he will never get a fair shake. It just can't happen, because no quarterback in the history of the game could step into the Colts offense and perform in it the way Manning does. All the QBs that have ever played and none could walk in off the street and fill Manning's shoes. It's his offense, more than we can say about just about any other QB who has played.

And yet, somehow, Matt Cassel was able to do something remarkably similar with the Pats. After his ONE season as a Pats starter he signed a multimillion dollar deal as the starter for KC. How come backing up Tom Brady is a perfectly reasonable assignment. yet backing up Peyton Manning is " never (will) get a fair shake"? I think you are over-stating the difficulty of Painter's job vs. every other QB who has to step in for a HoF QB. Cassel stepped in for Brady and ran that offense fine (probably better than fine; you don't give big contracts to guys who are merely adequate ... unless your Al Davis).

And let's say I agree with you; let's say that there is just NO WAY ANY QB could fill in for Manning ... ugh .... that makes my argument. Because then IF YOU KNOW that no QB can fill in for Manning than why are you signing Kerry Collins? Again, that's a classic sign of a poorly run organization with no idea what its doing, panicking at the first sign of distress.

As far as the Colts offense; it may be the great mystery of our time that only one man - nay, superman -can figure out. That " no other QB in the history of the game "-

Put a pin in this- so, Manning is running such a specialized and complex offense that ... Joe Montana, Dan Marino, John Elway, Bart Starr, Tom Brady, Otto Grahm, Johnny Unitas .... none of these flesh-bags could "step into the Colts offense and perform in it the way Manning does. All the QBs that have ever played and none could walk in off the street and fill Manning's shoes..."? They would all just perform like slugs?

Hyperbole much?

My point is not, BTW, that Painter should be performing "...the way Manning" does. My only point is that he should be doing better than this. And that the inability for the Colts organization to plan better is what's killing this team. Painter is a SYMPTOM of a problem, he is not the problem (why do I have to keep repeating myself?). The Colts organization has been exposed as a total fraud.

Anyway, back to your point: let's say that NO QB in the league's 100 year history could POSSIBLY figure out the Manning-System (I don't know- its like the secret recipe for Coke; no one man can know it all). 1) As stated above, that's not the standard- the standard is not to perform like a HoF QB; the standard is to perform like a suitable back-up. And 2) having THAT type of system (one that is just so complicated that future civilizations 100,000 years from now will be unable to re-create it; much in the same way modern builders are baffled at the building of the Egyptian pyramids) has its drawbacks. If you KNOW its that complicated and that nobody else can do it ... WTF DO YOU DO WHEN YOUR QB GOES DOWN! And just to be clear: all QBs get injured. All QBs miss time. All of them. ITs not some mystical situation. Its regression towards the mean for Manning.

The Colts did not plan on what to do if Manning missed significant time. Again, I have always (always) maintained that the Colts problems are endemic; they are system-wide and that the loss of Manning shows how completely fraudulent their claim as a "model" franchise is. The current situation illustrates that the Colts have benefited from one player and that player covered up MANY problems.

And when he stepped off the stage all the problems were exposed, INCLUDING (but not limited to) a horrible back-up QB situation.

[Rockroi]

BTW, just to be clear, we are all clear that Painter is going to go off this week, right? 285, 75% completion% and 3 TDs. We can all practically set our watches by this. Because usually when I get into these humungous debates, I TEND to have impeccable timing.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Seriously, how much is it gonna suck for me when Painter has a 31 for 38 day 367 yard, 3 TD day against the Pats? That's a given at this point, right?

I eagerly await the inevitable lulz. :cool4:

[Quijote Light]

Hyperbole much?

This may be the single funniest thing I've ever read on the board.

[Sivin]

Some thoughts:

First off, I saw Andrew Luck for the first time during the game between Stanford and USC last night. I wasn't all that impressed for a while, but he came to life in the second half. His athleticism is tough to pin down, as I think that he's more mobile than Manning or Brady, but I don't think that he's quite as mobile as Jay Cutler.

On a related note to his mobility, I say Luck doing something that I've only ever seen one quarterback do. (And they mentioned it in passing) He can slide to his left when he feels the pocket collapsing. He doesn't (in these instances) scramble, or turn his body, or take his eyes from down field. He just slides to the left, which puts him in position to drive off of that right leg and throw his left out for accuracy. The only other quarterback I've seen do this; Peyton Manning.

So, yeah, A-Luck looks pretty good, but not "Suck For Luck" good. :(

On another note, I fucking hate my Colts: (I'm still a fan, I just hate them)

I was watching some videos on NFL Network, and Kurt Warner and Co. were talking about the Colts and why they suck. Eventually, someone said "Well, it's tough on the Colts defense. Because they're built to rush the passer."

To this I say: "FUCK THAT SHIT!"

Have you ever, ever, in the history of Football heard the term 'Built to play with a lead' in reference to a defense? That's absolutely (and I hesitate to use such a term, but I feel that the unfortunate derogatory nature is the best available to get my feelings across) retarded. How about a defense that's built to, you know, stop the other team from scoring? Like, you know, every other team in the league does? (Or at least tries to do)

Seriously, "Built to play with a lead?" That's absolutely the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

And no, Curtis Painter is not the worst thing in the history of quarterbacking. He's a competent backup on a terribly run team. That's how it is.