Boy Andrew Luck sure is overrated

[Seahwkgal]

I just don't understand why so many here really give a crap about what the media writes or says. Everything is scripted for ratings anyways. Heck, if I were like most on this board and the media paranoia, I would have went on a tangent from what 'fatass nobody' Jamie Dukes said about our LOB but then I know he has been scripted to say stuff to get ratings, etc. so I don't really give a shit.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Regarding Indy's weapons, I'd take our group of RB/TE/WRs over theirs any day. If Hilton is better than Baldwin, for me it's close. And though I love Bradshaw, he is blown away by Lynch. Seattle's depth at RB and WR is far better as well......

No Effn way our stable of undrafted WR is better than a trio of Wayne, Nicks and TY.
Wayne and Nicks have proven to be #1 options and TY has routinely burned defenses because he possesses top WR speed and ball skills. Experience and Leadership are as important as talent when you have a young QB.
I love Baldwin but he is NOT a #1 option on any other team and while he is a good possession WR who makes the occasional clutch play he has NOT shown the speed to take the top off defenses. That is why we gambled on Harvin and still drafted Richardson.
Advantage: Colts big time.

Tight Ends may be closer but our #1 TE has played injured for two years and is now watching games. Our starting TE Willson has 7 catches and probably half as many drops. Goober Helfelt an undrafted TE was on our practice squad not long ago. Do we even have a third option at TE?
Colts TE Dwayne Allen has 6 TDs (that's almost as many TD as Willson's total catches this season). Coby Fleener was Lucks go to TE in college and the chemistry is evident. He is 6'6" 250 lbs picked in the 2nd round TO FACILITATE Luck ' s game. Even Colts third TE Doyle has better stats than Luke Willson.
Advantage: Colts.

Running backs: Seattle's Lynch 482 yds/4.3 avg. Rob Turbin 81 yds/3.9 avg. VS Colts Bradshaw 371 yds/4.9 avg. Trent Richardson 358 yds/3.5 avg.
Advantage: Push. Lynch gets much hype for his physicality but Bradshaw has made as many plays for the Colts. Without Wilson's legs our ground game would have stalled many drives even with Lynch running hard.

**To identify who does more with less you must first know who has less.

 

[frosted21]

Small man syndrome

 

[kearly]

The whole supporting cast argument, which is crap, is about Lynch. Otherwise, the supporting cast nod goes to Indy. The offensive line in Indy gets a lot of criticism, but like Wilson, a lot of that is on Luck for holding the ball a long time.

The fact that Luck has really been forcing the ball to Hilton lately... to me says a lot less about Hilton and a lot more about how mediocre their WR depth is (though I do like Moncrief). Wayne looks oooooold this year and Nicks is a has-been. You would have to really love Hilton to take that group over Baldwin, Kearse, Richardson, and Norwood. By my count that's four young, good WRs versus two for them. Granted, in 2012 and 2013, I'm taking the Colts receivers.

Hilton is dangerous, and fits their vertical offense well, but he's a bit too gimmicky for me. Reminds me of Brandin Cooks. He'll have huge games against certain matchups and disappear in other games. Until very recently he hasn't been a week in, week out threat, and I think that has changed only because the other WRs in that group are lacking or just cutting their teeth.

Allen is a do anything TE. Fleener has been a disappointment for me (he was a stud at Stanford), but he's hardly terrible.

I'd take our TE group over theirs when Miller is healthy, but it's pretty close. I know he's taken some shit lately, but I see a lot of talent in Willson. He's not a guy I'd want as a #1 TE, but he's the perfect H-back / TE hybrid in terms of ability. I think he'd be a star on teams that feed the ball to TEs more and care little about TE blocking.

RBs, no contest. Lynch alone makes it so. I would take Bradshaw over Turbin for sure, but probably not Michael. And after that, their RBs are a joke.

OL, not sure. I haven't watched much of their OL, but I do think Seattle's OL has generally outplayed their reputation (when healthy) for most of the Wilson era.

OC... yeah, probably an edge for Indy there.

 

[HansGruber]

Regarding Indy's weapons, I'd take our group of RB/TE/WRs over theirs any day. If Hilton is better than Baldwin, for me it's close. And though I love Bradshaw, he is blown away by Lynch. Seattle's depth at RB and WR is far better as well......

No Effn way our stable of undrafted WR is better than a trio of Wayne, Nicks and TY.
Wayne and Nicks have proven to be #1 options and TY has routinely burned defenses because he possesses top WR speed and ball skills. Experience and Leadership are as important as talent when you have a young QB.
I love Baldwin but he is NOT a #1 option on any other team and while he is a good possession WR who makes the occasional clutch play he has NOT shown the speed to take the top off defenses. That is why we gambled on Harvin and still drafted Richardson.
Advantage: Colts big time.

Tight Ends may be closer but our #1 TE has played injured for two years and is now watching games. Our starting TE Willson has 7 catches and probably half as many drops. Goober Helfelt an undrafted TE was on our practice squad not long ago. Do we even have a third option at TE?
Colts TE Dwayne Allen has 6 TDs (that's almost as many TD as Willson's total catches this season). Coby Fleener was Lucks go to TE in college and the chemistry is evident. He is 6'6" 250 lbs picked in the 2nd round TO FACILITATE Luck ' s game. Even Colts third TE Doyle has better stats than Luke Willson.
Advantage: Colts.

Running backs: Seattle's Lynch 482 yds/4.3 avg. Rob Turbin 81 yds/3.9 avg. VS Colts Bradshaw 371 yds/4.9 avg. Trent Richardson 358 yds/3.5 avg.
Advantage: Push. Lynch gets much hype for his physicality but Bradshaw has made as many plays for the Colts. Without Wilson's legs our ground game would have stalled many drives even with Lynch running hard.

**To identify who does more with less you must first know who has less.

Fantastic post, and I'm completely in agreement. Although you failed to mention Moncrief in Indy's WR corps, and he looked outstanding against the Steelers. Tall, fast and physical - you could easily argue he looks better as a rookie than any of ours (and his stats back that up as well).

It's just laughable when people say Indy has no defense. I just know right there that I'm talking to someone who has literally watched ZERO Indy games this season. Their defense has been playing lights-out football, and is currently better than Seattle. Sure, they got pounded by Pittsburgh but the defense was bailing out Luck, who made some really really terrible errors in that game, and is the only reason Indy had a shot. Further, that game was such an outlier, it'd be foolish to judge their entire season on one bad game.

The running game argument really cracks me up the most. That's how you know you're talking to someone who's just reading stats and not watching the games at all. Indy doesn't run a traditional between-the-tackles run game. They employ a lot of 2-RB sets with lots of passing and YAC out of the backfield. Consider this:

Ahmad Bradshaw:
Rushing = 371 yards and 2 TDs
Receiving = 264 yards and 6 TDs
Total production: 635 yards and 8 TDs

Trent Richardson:
Rushing = 358 yards and 2 TDs
Receiving = 173 yards and 0 TDs.
Total production: 531 yards and 2 TDs

For a team RB all-purpose total of 1166 yards and 10 TDs.

By contrast:

Marshawn Lynch:
Rushing = 482 yards and 3 TDs
Receiving = 147 yards and 3 TDs
Total production: 629 yards and 6 TDs

Robert Turbin:
Rushing = 81 yards and 0 TDs
Receiving = 95 yards and 1 TD
Total production: 176 yards and 1 TD

For a team RB all-purpose total of 805 yards and 7 TDs

That's not even close, but you know what they say.... Keeeeep on... belieeevin'!!

 

[HansGruber]

RBs, no contest. Lynch alone makes it so. I would take Bradshaw over Turbin for sure, but probably not Michael. And after that, their RBs are a joke.

Oh c'mon, Kip. You can't be serious. If you really believe that, then man... that's just... I don't even know what to say. I thought you watched football and knew what you were watching. How do you possibly say that Robert Turbin and Christine Michael are better than Trent Richardson right now? I'm no Richardson fan, and think the trade was a horrible one, but Indy has done a fantastic job using him as a dual threat out of the backfield, and he's been far more productive than our backups. Yes, I understand that has to do with scheme, but that's my point. If we're talking about production, real actual production in football games, Richardson has to be a heavy favorite and it's not even close.

OL, not sure. I haven't watched much of their OL, but I do think Seattle's OL has generally outplayed their reputation (when healthy) for most of the Wilson era.

Jim Gilbert has done an absolutely fantastic job turning around that Indy OL in just two years. When he was hired, they were giving up more sacks and had fewer rushing yards than almost any other in the NFL. Just abysmal. Gilbert came in and got a bunch of no-name rookies and has sustained just as many injuries over his tenure as we have in Seattle, but has managed to turn that unit completely around - to the point that they were #6 in the NFL for sacks allowed last season and pretty darn good at rushing.

To be honest, if we could trade Cable for Gilbert, that would be tempting to me (if I were Schneider). He's got to be one of the best "unknown" coaches in the NFL right now.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Yeah, but one was a trade from Atlanta and the other the 24th pick I think in the draft. Hardly Sucking for a player.

Which makes it even more unfair :?

 

[Russ Willstrong]

The whole supporting cast argument, which is crap, is about Lynch. Otherwise, the supporting cast nod goes to Indy. The offensive line in Indy gets a lot of criticism, but like Wilson, a lot of that is on Luck for holding the ball a long time.

The fact that Luck has really been forcing the ball to Hilton lately... to me says a lot less about Hilton and a lot more about how mediocre their WR depth is (though I do like Moncrief). Wayne looks oooooold this year and Nicks is a has-been. You would have to really love Hilton to take that group over Baldwin, Kearse, Richardson, and Norwood. By my count that's four young, good WRs versus two for them. Granted, in 2012 and 2013, I'm taking the Colts receivers.

Hilton is dangerous, and fits their vertical offense well, but he's a bit too gimmicky for me. Reminds me of Brandin Cooks. He'll have huge games against certain matchups and disappear in other games. Until very recently he hasn't been a week in, week out threat, and I think that has changed only because the other WRs in that group are lacking or just cutting their teeth.

Allen is a do anything TE. Fleener has been a disappointment for me (he was a stud at Stanford), but he's hardly terrible.

I'd take our TE group over theirs when Miller is healthy, but it's pretty close. I know he's taken some shit lately, but I see a lot of talent in Willson. He's not a guy I'd want as a #1 TE, but he's the perfect H-back / TE hybrid in terms of ability. I think he'd be a star on teams that feed the ball to TEs more and care little about TE blocking.

RBs, no contest. Lynch alone makes it so. I would take Bradshaw over Turbin for sure, but probably not Michael. And after that, their RBs are a joke.

OL, not sure. I haven't watched much of their OL, but I do think Seattle's OL has generally outplayed their reputation (when healthy) for most of the Wilson era.

OC... yeah, probably an edge for Indy there.

Kip, honestly I was trying to avoid a retort to this post. However I truly respect you perspective on football so I have to ask what you meant when you say the Colts have "mediocre WR depth" or that you would take our receiver depth over theirs. It seems flawed reasoning whether you are talking depth of talent or merely bodies? Our receiver corps has been criticized by many experts as pedestrian or incapable of creating separation. Norwood was inactive for all but 2 games and Richardson had limited playtime and caught a mere 7 passes this season. Norwood caught 2. Colts receivers have been at the top of the league in production and have been a far more consistent unit the past few years. The Colts may have two former top receivers on the downside of their careers but they have valuable experience and receivers who have been known to create separation on their own.

Colts: TY, Reggie Wayne, Hakeem Nicks, Griff Whalen, Montcrief.
Hawks: Baldwin, Kearse, Richardson, Norwood.

Am I missing something or is this a trick question?

 

[Sarlacc83]

Wayne and Nicks (to a lesser extent; see the following) are living off reputation. Wayne has been noticeably absent after his injury and Nicks has been as much a non factor as he was last year for the Giants.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Wayne and Nicks (to a lesser extent; see the following) are living off reputation. Wayne has been noticeably absent after his injury and Nicks has been as much a non factor as he was last year for the Giants.

I understand those two are lesser versions of their former selves but have they deteriorated to the point that they could be replaced with our guys like Kearse, Lockette or Richardson? IMO the numbers don't support this notion.

 

[DavidSeven]

Even if Wayne and Nicks are "reputation" players and you grant that Hilton/Baldwin is a push (which would be seen as a huge stretch in national circles), I still don't think anyone would say Kearse, two unknown rookies and two castoffs pushes Seattle over the top at WR. Donte Moncrief has looked more than legit in limited opps and is coming off a 7 catch/113 yard performance. Even if you're sold on Richardson's potential... as of now, you could only say that Moncrief/Richardson is a push until we've seen more. Wayne is a better player than Kearse, so that automatically puts their group ahead. Everyone else on both teams is just depth.

At tight end, I think Indy is a lot better. I think Zach could put up better numbers almost anywhere else, but I'm still waiting to be sold on Willson and Helfet. Willson has the speed, but his ball skills seem pretty lacking to be honest. It sort of helps explain why he couldn't break out in college in spite of his 4.4 speed. Helfet seems to have occasional big play potential, but it'll take me a while before I believe he's more than "just a guy."

Seattle wins RB, but it's not as absurd a competition as people would have you think.

Seattle's OL isn't as bad as people really think nor are their receivers, really. Some of what makes them seem poor is Russell and just the way he plays the game. It's not an easy assignment for our linemen or receivers. At the end of the day, I don't think either QB is being "saved" or "hidden" by any of their surrounding talent on O. They both have enough (or, at times, not enough) to look good or bad depending on their own play.

 

[chris98251]

The running game for Seattle is a bad read, when Harvin was here we force fed him to the point it all but ignored any other part of the offense, sad really, took everyone else off their game. I think if we look at around 4 games pst Harvin we will get a better read on the Running game for Seattle even with the Turbin, Lynch, Michaels combo.