bull ****... they may not have the best players, but they play hard as **** for their coach. He brought the Raven way there, and they are doing a good job of building around that... helps to have Andrew Luck fall in your lap.
depends on the school... most are overrated and overpriced. And then there's Harvard... a school with a fund larger than most countries' GNP's... they could put everyone thru school and still have money left over... yet it just sits there...building interest at .1%...
Give me the 10-12 teams so I can tear that argument down. The only 10-12 worse teams with worse rosters then the Colts exist in the CFL and College. Theres AT MOST 3 in the NFL. Id give you the Titans and maybe the Jags. Maybe. Thats about all I can think of with worse rosters 1-53. Like I said, their second best asset after Luck is their coach. They dont have squat else. It does help to have Luck. It would help even more if they put an actual team around him. Ill put it another way....If Andrew Luck were QB of the Dolphins, we'd have beaten New England. Thats not a criticism of Ryan Tannehill, thats a compliment to Andrew Luck and a tribute to how much he does with that team. While true, theyre still picking 1st overall. My point wasnt to show that the Bucs are bad...My point was that one team has a QB and a worse roster then the team with the 1st pick, a better roster and no QB (as of yet).
I don't think so... it's one thing in this league to be able to play in it... another thing to be able to be coached in it. Players these days.. when they get to the NFL, think they know what they need to do to get better. They don't want to be told anymore... they've made it to the NFL.. time to collect a check.
The colts roster is no where near the bottom 3rd in the league. The offense was loaded with young talent on cheap contracts. Luck, Hilton, Moncrief, Allen, Fleener, Castonzo, Mewhort. Yes there are some bad middle level contracts but what roster didn't inherit that?
I think the Anthro teacher is still there... Yeah it's still the same not sure on the other teachers. Nice campus, shame it doesn't have an open gym and I hate that god damn hill. Yeah financial aid covers pretty much everything, I'm trying to avoid buying text books.
If you're taking off the best player on the roster like we are for the Colts, I would say Jags, Titans, Bucs, Texans, Redskins, Jets and Steelers all have a ton of warts. ****, Arizona was a losing team after Palmer went down for the year. You can make,arguments for each one I suppose, just saying it's not definitive.
I think you could use the argument "if you take this quarterback off the roster then their team will be amongst the worst" for a lot of teams. It's because the quarterback position is kind of important.
Allen and Fleener arent good. Moncrief has shown flashes but hes not there yet. Thats one of the biggest misconceptions about the Colts roster...people think theyre loaded with weapons and theyre arent. Fleener was targeted 86x according to PFF, 51 catches and a 10.53% drop rate, worst among TE that played 50% of the snaps. Dwayne Allen was even worse, but didnt play 50% of snaps...targeted 47x, 29 catches and a 14.71% drop rate. How is that good? https://www.profootballfocus.com/da...&wk=1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17 Costanzo is good and Mewhort has potential but I wouldnt call him a building block just yet. He was good for a rookie but still league average overall.
true, but the Colts without Manning were bad enough to draft Luck. They havent really replenished the roster around him yet.
Yeah that is another outlet. I typically just go to the library check out the book and get what I need from that.
Bucs, Texans, Redskins, Steelers, and even the Jets have much more overall talent away from the QB position. I wont argue the Jags an Titans cause theyre as bad as the Colts. the fact is if the Colts played in a division that you didnt just name as 4 of your worst 7 teams theyd be a wild card team at best. The Jags will knock them off in a year or two if they get some more talent around Bortles. I might have taken them for the challenge and to give Luck a supporting cast but at the rate that franchise moves in real life they have a better chance with Todd as GM or theyll watch Andrew Luck go the route of Dan the Man...amazing QB with no rings. They still have time but of you put Luck on any one of about 3-4 almost playoff teams like the Cards or the Dolphins and that team would instantly be a very real SB contender and the Colts would be right back picking top 3.
Yeah but take away the best player from all of those teams - like you are from the Colts - and there are huge dropoffs. Raiders without Mack? Imagine the Bucs D without McCoy in the middle or the Texans with JJ. I could go on.
It's made people lazy and they simply rely on those numbers. I'm not saying it's made everyone lazy but many in general. Philip Wheeler is a +7.2 run defender in only 384 snaps according to PFF...
I get that. I'm simply arguing that if you took luck off the colts they'd be every bit as bad and you've yet to refute that.
It's boosted heavily by the rankings of Davis and Mike Adams. If those two were replaced with league average players they'd be bottom 1/3rd easily. That said I think their d is more talented then their offense aside from luck.
They'd be a bad team, thought I said that. i f not, my bad. Im not willing to say 2 wins bad, which is what you're implying. And Im certainly not willing to say it's one of the worst rosters for GML purposes when you count in cap flexibility (which is significant IMO)