ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    I remember so clearly when pats fans were gnashing their teeth over Manning getting credit over Brady due to his stats while Brady had the rings.  My how pats fans have done a 180 on that argument in the last few years.  

     



    More nonsense. Manning got credit for his stats. It's just that tools like you wanted to discredit Brady's wins and rings as being applicable.

    You    are    a    phoney.




    Not nonsense at all.  Pats fans happily throw around Brady's stats today, but as his stats have improved he has no rings to show for them.  This isn't at all a criticism of Brady, its simply a reminder of the way things were around here and how they've changed and how that change has changed regarding your perceptions of others. 

    A phoney wouldn't stand by his statement.  I stand by this. 




    More nonsense. Of course they throw around his stats. Just like they threw around his SB wins. It's a total you phoney. Nobody ever denied Manning used to have the better stats. Nobody ever said stats didn't matter. It's just that disingenuous types like you cherry pick everything that boosts the agenda you push and discredit any pertinent factors that don't fit your agenda.

    Glad to see you are a convert to winning mattering (now that it suits your agenda). Because it always has mattered.



    coming from you, the bolded phrase above might be the most ironic statement of the year.

    And as I noted, I am not necessarily a "converted to winning" guy.  Winning always mattered, but I have always believed wholeheartedly in the "team" concept where team records are concerned.  an individual within a team gets deserves extra adulation for winning when it can be effectively demonstrated that the team around the individual isn't all that much, and I believe I have done that earlier in this thread. 



    Only to a depraved mind such as yours would find it ironic.

     

    You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING. Even a simpleton can figure out that a 29th rated QB who is leading the NFL in INTs isn't the prime reason for the Colts' winning record. So either you can't rise to even the level of a simpleton, or you're stumbling again over your agenda.



    I'd imagine that some others, if they happen to read the thread, might chuckle a bit at your statements.  No one parses stats like you.  You're the All-Pro. 

    Why don't you refute my comments rather than making assertions.  I am happy to have that discussion.  At least when you make a comment with stats, and I refute it, I provide some support for my position. 




    Your imagination is as inept as your football acumen.

    What is there to refute? You state the rest of the Colts aren't a very good team. Very well. But neither is Luck a very good QB. What, were his 17 TDs and 16 INTs what produced the 8-4 record?

    Half their wins were won with an average of 4 points. Whoopee. A couple or three of those could have easily gone the other way. You see a team or two every year that has a record which belies the sum of its parts due to some close wins. Nothing new.

     


    Again, forget the conjecture.  Make the point then back it up.  Who are these teams every year that come back from a 2 win season the previous year that belie the sum of their parts due to some close wins?  

    Were any of them 8-4?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    WHY IS THIS THREAD NOT DEAD YET...?

    It's STUPID BEYOND BELIEF...!


    HEY COOLADE!  BRINGS BACK GREAT MEMORIES.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    SOMEONE KILL THIS ASSININE JAKASSSS THREAD...!

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    I know Luck will get some very stiff ROTY competition RG3-who is fantastic-and I know some will cite numbers like QBR, TDs vs INTs, etc...but to me, if the Colts get 10-11 wins and Luck plays at the same level-including directly winning a couple like vs Detroit, I say the MVP has got to get serious consideration.

    To be honest, just the hope and excitement he brought with him is worth MVP consideration.

     




    MVP? Lay off the sauce. ROY maybe, and I'm leaning toward RG III for even that. But MVP? You've got to be kidding.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    I remember so clearly when pats fans were gnashing their teeth over Manning getting credit over Brady due to his stats while Brady had the rings.  My how pats fans have done a 180 on that argument in the last few years.  

     



    More nonsense. Manning got credit for his stats. It's just that tools like you wanted to discredit Brady's wins and rings as being applicable.

    You    are    a    phoney.




    Not nonsense at all.  Pats fans happily throw around Brady's stats today, but as his stats have improved he has no rings to show for them.  This isn't at all a criticism of Brady, its simply a reminder of the way things were around here and how they've changed and how that change has changed regarding your perceptions of others. 

    A phoney wouldn't stand by his statement.  I stand by this. 




    More nonsense. Of course they throw around his stats. Just like they threw around his SB wins. It's a total you phoney. Nobody ever denied Manning used to have the better stats. Nobody ever said stats didn't matter. It's just that disingenuous types like you cherry pick everything that boosts the agenda you push and discredit any pertinent factors that don't fit your agenda.

    Glad to see you are a convert to winning mattering (now that it suits your agenda). Because it always has mattered.



    coming from you, the bolded phrase above might be the most ironic statement of the year.

    And as I noted, I am not necessarily a "converted to winning" guy.  Winning always mattered, but I have always believed wholeheartedly in the "team" concept where team records are concerned.  an individual within a team gets deserves extra adulation for winning when it can be effectively demonstrated that the team around the individual isn't all that much, and I believe I have done that earlier in this thread. 



    Only to a depraved mind such as yours would find it ironic.

     

    You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING. Even a simpleton can figure out that a 29th rated QB who is leading the NFL in INTs isn't the prime reason for the Colts' winning record. So either you can't rise to even the level of a simpleton, or you're stumbling again over your agenda.



    I'd imagine that some others, if they happen to read the thread, might chuckle a bit at your statements.  No one parses stats like you.  You're the All-Pro. 

    Why don't you refute my comments rather than making assertions.  I am happy to have that discussion.  At least when you make a comment with stats, and I refute it, I provide some support for my position. 




    Your imagination is as inept as your football acumen.

    What is there to refute? You state the rest of the Colts aren't a very good team. Very well. But neither is Luck a very good QB. What, were his 17 TDs and 16 INTs what produced the 8-4 record?

    Half their wins were won with an average of 4 points. Whoopee. A couple or three of those could have easily gone the other way. You see a team or two every year that has a record which belies the sum of its parts due to some close wins. Nothing new.

     


    Again, forget the conjecture.  Make the point then back it up.  Who are these teams every year that come back from a 2 win season the previous year that belie the sum of their parts due to some close wins?  

    Were any of them 8-4?




    In recent years the 9ers went from 6-10 to 13-3, the Pack went from 6-10 to 11-5, Saints went from 8-8 to 13-3.

    Look doggydoo, the whole world knows the Colts didn't lift a finger to stop the losing last year so they could get the first pick. Nobody here cares about your childish tactic saying "prove it". IT WAS OBVIOUS. Tool.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    I remember so clearly when pats fans were gnashing their teeth over Manning getting credit over Brady due to his stats while Brady had the rings.  My how pats fans have done a 180 on that argument in the last few years.  

     



    More nonsense. Manning got credit for his stats. It's just that tools like you wanted to discredit Brady's wins and rings as being applicable.

    You    are    a    phoney.




    Not nonsense at all.  Pats fans happily throw around Brady's stats today, but as his stats have improved he has no rings to show for them.  This isn't at all a criticism of Brady, its simply a reminder of the way things were around here and how they've changed and how that change has changed regarding your perceptions of others. 

    A phoney wouldn't stand by his statement.  I stand by this. 




    More nonsense. Of course they throw around his stats. Just like they threw around his SB wins. It's a total you phoney. Nobody ever denied Manning used to have the better stats. Nobody ever said stats didn't matter. It's just that disingenuous types like you cherry pick everything that boosts the agenda you push and discredit any pertinent factors that don't fit your agenda.

    Glad to see you are a convert to winning mattering (now that it suits your agenda). Because it always has mattered.



    coming from you, the bolded phrase above might be the most ironic statement of the year.

    And as I noted, I am not necessarily a "converted to winning" guy.  Winning always mattered, but I have always believed wholeheartedly in the "team" concept where team records are concerned.  an individual within a team gets deserves extra adulation for winning when it can be effectively demonstrated that the team around the individual isn't all that much, and I believe I have done that earlier in this thread. 



    Only to a depraved mind such as yours would find it ironic.

     

    You haven't demonstrated ANYTHING. Even a simpleton can figure out that a 29th rated QB who is leading the NFL in INTs isn't the prime reason for the Colts' winning record. So either you can't rise to even the level of a simpleton, or you're stumbling again over your agenda.



    I'd imagine that some others, if they happen to read the thread, might chuckle a bit at your statements.  No one parses stats like you.  You're the All-Pro. 

    Why don't you refute my comments rather than making assertions.  I am happy to have that discussion.  At least when you make a comment with stats, and I refute it, I provide some support for my position. 




    Your imagination is as inept as your football acumen.

    What is there to refute? You state the rest of the Colts aren't a very good team. Very well. But neither is Luck a very good QB. What, were his 17 TDs and 16 INTs what produced the 8-4 record?

    Half their wins were won with an average of 4 points. Whoopee. A couple or three of those could have easily gone the other way. You see a team or two every year that has a record which belies the sum of its parts due to some close wins. Nothing new.

     


    Again, forget the conjecture.  Make the point then back it up.  Who are these teams every year that come back from a 2 win season the previous year that belie the sum of their parts due to some close wins?  

    Were any of them 8-4?




    In recent years the 9ers went from 6-10 to 13-3, the Pack went from 6-10 to 11-5, Saints went from 8-8 to 13-3.

    Look doggydoo, the whole world knows the Colts didn't lift a finger to stop the losing last year so they could get the first pick. Nobody here cares about your childish tactic saying "prove it". IT WAS OBVIOUS. Tool.




    Yip. I live in Indiana babe. "Suck for Luck" is no secret over here. I already couldn't stand the guy before the season was even half over last year because all they could talk about was how they were going to be able to draft Andrew Suck.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    I know Luck will get some very stiff ROTY competition RG3-who is fantastic-and I know some will cite numbers like QBR, TDs vs INTs, etc...but to me, if the Colts get 10-11 wins and Luck plays at the same level-including directly winning a couple like vs Detroit, I say the MVP has got to get serious consideration.

    To be honest, just the hope and excitement he brought with him is worth MVP consideration.

     




    MVP? Lay off the sauce. ROY maybe, and I'm leaning toward RG III for even that. But MVP? You've got to be kidding.




    Yeah, other than RG3 being the 3rd rated passer and Luck being the 29th; it's real close. LMAO

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    I know Luck will get some very stiff ROTY competition RG3-who is fantastic-and I know some will cite numbers like QBR, TDs vs INTs, etc...but to me, if the Colts get 10-11 wins and Luck plays at the same level-including directly winning a couple like vs Detroit, I say the MVP has got to get serious consideration.

    To be honest, just the hope and excitement he brought with him is worth MVP consideration.

     




    MVP? Lay off the sauce. ROY maybe, and I'm leaning toward RG III for even that. But MVP? You've got to be kidding.




    Yeah, other than RG3 being the 3rd rated passer and Luck being the 29th; it's real close. LMAO



    I'll tell you another one that's over-rated. His name is Manning and he plays in NY. He went into MNF as the 21st rated passer in the NFL, and did nothing to improve that after the first quarter. Other than a couple lucky drives in the PS, he's as inconsistent as anybody out there, and I get sick of hearing how great he is. If Kyle Williams hadn't made the biggest, stupidest bonehead play of all time getting anywhere near that ball that took a bad hop and brushed his leg for a muff, Eli would not have even been IN the SB last year.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    I know Luck will get some very stiff ROTY competition RG3-who is fantastic-and I know some will cite numbers like QBR, TDs vs INTs, etc...but to me, if the Colts get 10-11 wins and Luck plays at the same level-including directly winning a couple like vs Detroit, I say the MVP has got to get serious consideration.

    To be honest, just the hope and excitement he brought with him is worth MVP consideration.

     




    MVP? Lay off the sauce. ROY maybe, and I'm leaning toward RG III for even that. But MVP? You've got to be kidding.




    translation: he's a colt so....



    Meaning exactly what? RG III is better, and is having a better year. Put the bottle down and log off before you say something REALLY stupid.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?




    MVP? Lay off the sauce. ROY maybe, and I'm leaning toward RG III for even that. But MVP? You've got to be kidding.

    [/QUOTE]


    translation: he's a colt so....

    [/QUOTE]

    Meaning exactly what? RG III is better, and is having a better year. Put the bottle down and log off before you say something REALLY stupid.

    [/QUOTE]

    RG3 isn't better-and i love rg3-and the next 2-3 years will prove that

    as i said in my post above the nfl can find out how to defend rg3 because of what his game relies on where as Luck has the better actual necessities to succeed long term ie: there is no way to say "do this and stop him" because he is a pure qb and already plays like a seasoned pro when it comes to things like pocket poise, checking down, throwing to his 2nd or 3rd receiver and not needing his feet to beat you

    and again I am a fan of RG3 and he may turn outto be the best ever but Luck will be the best in the game in 3 years

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Meaning he won't be ROY or MVP this year. End of thread subject.


     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:




    MVP? Lay off the sauce. ROY maybe, and I'm leaning toward RG III for even that. But MVP? You've got to be kidding.




    translation: he's a colt so....



    Meaning exactly what? RG III is better, and is having a better year. Put the bottle down and log off before you say something REALLY stupid.

    RG3 isn't better-and i love rg3-and the next 2-3 years will prove that

    as i said in my post above the nfl can find out how to defend rg3 because of what his game relies on where as Luck has the better actual necessities to succeed long term ie: there is no way to say "do this and stop him" because he is a pure qb and already plays like a seasoned pro when it comes to things like pocket poise, checking down, throwing to his 2nd or 3rd receiver and not needing his feet to beat you

    and again I am a fan of RG3 and he may turn outto be the best ever but Luck will be the best in the game in 3 years







I don't get it



Really? LOL....Laughing so hard right now I'm actually in tears.....

 
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    NFC candidates will ALWAYS include Rodgers (it's a Green Bay thing)

    the bull u pats fans come up with! no it's not a "Green Bay" thing that Rogers will be there ALWAYS it's because he is one of if not the best QB in the NFL-that's why

    zero class as usual

    [/QUOTE]

    I actually agree with you here. I said when Favre was still in GB that Aaron Rodgers would end up being better than Favre. Before he won the SB I said it, and I said it again the night he won it. My brother (a Bears fan) said I was getting ahead of myself. Howso? He's more efficient, more accurate, a better pocket qb, throws half the INT's, did it all under Favre's shadow with ridiculous expectations, and wears as many rings.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    I know Luck will get some very stiff ROTY competition RG3-who is fantastic-and I know some will cite numbers like QBR, TDs vs INTs, etc...but to me, if the Colts get 10-11 wins and Luck plays at the same level-including directly winning a couple like vs Detroit, I say the MVP has got to get serious consideration.

    To be honest, just the hope and excitement he brought with him is worth MVP consideration.

     




    MVP? Lay off the sauce. ROY maybe, and I'm leaning toward RG III for even that. But MVP? You've got to be kidding.




    Yeah, other than RG3 being the 3rd rated passer and Luck being the 29th; it's real close. LMAO



    I'll tell you another one that's over-rated. His name is Manning and he plays in NY. He went into MNF as the 21st rated passer in the NFL, and did nothing to improve that after the first quarter. Other than a couple lucky drives in the PS, he's as inconsistent as anybody out there, and I get sick of hearing how great he is. If Kyle Williams hadn't made the biggest, stupidest bonehead play of all time getting anywhere near that ball that took a bad hop and brushed his leg for a muff, Eli would not have even been IN the SB last year.




    Eli made himself off of a couple pitiful Pats' D collapses. Like it or not he's got those rings and the SBMVPs on his resume. All the talk in the world won't change that. Hall of Famer?; very doubtful. But he will get his share of props based just on those two drives.

    Moral of the story; if you let Eli be dangerous, he just might be.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    I know Luck will get some very stiff ROTY competition RG3-who is fantastic-and I know some will cite numbers like QBR, TDs vs INTs, etc...but to me, if the Colts get 10-11 wins and Luck plays at the same level-including directly winning a couple like vs Detroit, I say the MVP has got to get serious consideration.

    To be honest, just the hope and excitement he brought with him is worth MVP consideration.

     




    MVP? Lay off the sauce. ROY maybe, and I'm leaning toward RG III for even that. But MVP? You've got to be kidding.




    Yeah, other than RG3 being the 3rd rated passer and Luck being the 29th; it's real close. LMAO



    I'll tell you another one that's over-rated. His name is Manning and he plays in NY. He went into MNF as the 21st rated passer in the NFL, and did nothing to improve that after the first quarter. Other than a couple lucky drives in the PS, he's as inconsistent as anybody out there, and I get sick of hearing how great he is. If Kyle Williams hadn't made the biggest, stupidest bonehead play of all time getting anywhere near that ball that took a bad hop and brushed his leg for a muff, Eli would not have even been IN the SB last year.




    Eli made himself off of a couple pitiful Pats' D collapses. Like it or not he's got those rings and the SBMVPs on his resume. All the talk in the world won't change that. Hall of Famer?; very doubtful. But he will get his share of props based just on those two drives.

    Moral of the story; if you let Eli be dangerous, he just might be.



    Bingo. Asante Samuel saw to that when he literally let 19-0 go through his hands. What you just posted there is as good a description of Eli Manning as I've ever read. Spot on.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: ANDREW LUCK: ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AND MVP?

    In response to JintsFan's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    THIS IS A LAME HYPOTHETICAL THREAD...  THE SEASON HAS 4 GAMES LEFT...!

    Figures a ditz like jintz started it.




    if u could read u will notice i said exactly that in the original post and subsequent one as well

    if you could read....




    LOL

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share