The CardBoard
Luck to Fleemer - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Luck to Fleemer (/thread-8268.html)


Luck to Fleemer - BostonCard - 11-16-2014

That combo looks alive and well.  And Fleener looks like he read the clipping in rotoworld.

BC

Re: Luck to Fleemer (who is this Fleemer????) - 82lsju - 11-16-2014

:)

Re: Luck to Fleener - BostonCard - 11-16-2014

However you spell his name, he just hauled in a 45 yard reception, followed by another nice first down catch (if it survives the challenge, which it should).

BC

Re: Luck to Fleener - stupac2 - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 08:37 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:However you spell his name, he just hauled in a 45 yard reception, followed by another nice first down catch (if it survives the challenge, which it should).

This has been the first game of theirs that I've seen where he hasn't had a dumb drop or two, hopefully he can keep this up in all other non-Patriots games going forward. No one will confuse him for Gronk or Graham, but this has been a great game for him.

Re: Luck to Fleemer - BostonCard - 11-16-2014

Bad sign when your leading rusher is Andrew Luck, with 15 yards.  Luck had a decent game, but the patriots have a running game, and the colts do not.

BC

Re: Luck to Fleemer - scorecard - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 09:58 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Luck had a decent game, but the patriots have a running game, and the colts do not.

The Colts don't really need a running game, what they need is a defense.  Against good teams, Luck has to outscore teams to win.  Roethlisberger throws for 500+ yards.  Patriots run for 200+ yards.  Luck has to score everytime, and has to score TDs, because his D is giving up points by the bushel.

This must be painful deja-vu for Luck.  When we had him, we never had the defense that could stop Oregon.  It cost him the Voldemort, and possibly a shot at a national championship.  And now, he goes to a Colts team that has the exact same problem (with the additional problem of a porous o-line that is getting him killed).
 
And now we have the defense, yet we haven't found another Luck (or anywhere even remotely close).

Argh.

Re: Luck to Fleemer - FarmBoy - 11-17-2014

Maybe I'm overreacting to one bad game, but I hope Luck does not re-sign with the Colts after his rookie contract. Seriously, the org has done little to help him out. His OLine, running game, and defense are all terrible. Outside of some standout receivers/TEs, kickers, and Vontae Davis, there's little of worth on that team. If Grigson can't figure out how to build a winner around Luck while he's under a rookie contract, how is he going to get it done once Luck is paid market rate?

Re: Luck to Fleemer - Farm93 - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 06:27 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Maybe I'm overreacting to one bad game, but I hope Luck does not re-sign with the Colts after his rookie contract. Seriously, the org has done little to help him out. His OLine, running game, and defense are all terrible. Outside of some standout receivers/TEs, kickers, and Vontae Davis, there's little of worth on that team. If Grigson can't figure out how to build a winner around Luck while he's under a rookie contract, how is he going to get it done once Luck is paid market rate?
They have tried to help, at least on O.  Taking 2 TEs in his draft was for Luck.  The awful trade for Richardson was a trade to get a decent RB when Bradford got hurt last year. 

Re: Luck to Fleemer - FarmBoy - 11-17-2014

Quote:They have tried to help, at least on O.  Taking 2 TEs in his draft was for Luck.  The awful trade for Richardson was a trade to get a decent RB when Bradford got hurt last year. 

I agree that they've tried, but their decisions have not yielded positive results. Most people thought the Richardson trade a bad one from Day 1. Their OLine adjustments have changes Luck's status as punching bag target #1. And the defense is last in red zone defense in the league. I don't doubt Grigson's efforts, it's his decision making I find deficient.

Does anyone know what Luck would give up in signing with a team other than the Colts? Is it a matter of financial security that he would have to wait until his current contract is up, so therefore would risk being injured in his contract year? Or can the Colts sign him for more money than other teams can by virtue of incumbency?

Re: Luck to Fleemer - Bruce Wang - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 07:55 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I agree that they've tried, but their decisions have not yielded positive results. Most people thought the Richardson trade a bad one from Day 1. Their OLine adjustments have changes Luck's status as punching bag target #1. And the defense is last in red zone defense in the league. I don't doubt Grigson's efforts, it's his decision making I find deficient.

Does anyone know what Luck would give up in signing with a team other than the Colts? Is it a matter of financial security that he would have to wait until his current contract is up, so therefore would risk being injured in his contract year? Or can the Colts sign him for more money than other teams can by virtue of incumbency?

I don't think the problem is Grigson.  The problem is Irsay.  He's writing the checks and calling the shots.  Most of the other owners have business interests outside of their teams so have better things to do with their time than meddle with their teams.  You don't see Bob Kraft tweeting out trade rumors.  Irsay inherited the Colts and not much else.  There are nine year old kids that a better understanding of the game.  He has nothing to do but do drugs and play fantasy football with real players ie totally focused on glamour positions and not the trenches.  The Colts o-line outside of Costanzo sucks and so does their d-line.

I hope Luck gets out of there as fast as he can.  The problem is the franchise tag.  We can expect Luck under center for the My Little Ponies for at least 3 more seasons.

Re: Luck to Fleemer - Cardinal96 - 11-17-2014

I will root for whatever NFL team Luck plays on.  And that will be the Colts.  They will never let him walk.  They will re-sign him for what is likely to be the biggest contract in NFL history.  We just have to hope that the Colts GM is able to improve the defensive front seven, safeties and offensive line through draft and free agency.  The Trent Richardson trade was a killer.  An undrafted free agent RB would provide the same value that TRich does, and you aren't losing a first round draft pick.

Re: Luck to Fleemer - FarmBoy - 11-17-2014

Quote:An undrafted free agent RB would provide the same value that TRich does, and you aren't losing a first round draft pick.

As an aside, I wondered how the Colts will fix the RB situation going forward, and my buddy I watched with last night mentioned Marshawn Lynch as a potential candidate, given this is likely his last year in Seattle. That would make for an interesting backfield and I'm sure Kal fans' heads would explode. I do wonder how many more good years ML has left in him though. He's 28 and his running style is not conducive to a long career.

I will always root for Luck to win as well, which forces me to root for the Colts, but right now I'm not feeling too good about that. How luck was Aaron Rodgers to fall so far in the draft?

Re: Luck to Fleemer - stupac2 - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 07:55 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Most people thought the Richardson trade a bad one from Day 1.

Whaaa? From what I saw you're exactly backwards, everyone thought that the Browns were idiots for doing that trade.

Anyway, I don't think you can necessarily blame the Colts GM here. For one, he inherited a dumpster fire of a roster, and many of the bright spots from that (like Saturday and Freeny) have left. How many Manning-era pieces are left besides Wayne (and Vinatieri, I guess)? They need to get some OL help (and find a decent RB, but given that the Pats have turned a carousel of UDFAs into stars I'm guessing that's not necessarily on the GM), but otherwise that offense is pretty stacked. I mean, how many other teams have weapons like Allen, Fleener, Wayne, Hilton, and Nicks? That's a solid set of receivers, and Bradshaw isn't a bad back either.

I'm not certain what their issue is on defense, but it might just be coaching. Either way they're in a pretty good spot considering they went 2-14 a few years ago.

Re: Luck to Fleemer - washingtonismoney - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 09:47 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=11129.msg105417#msg105417 date=1416236133]Most people thought the Richardson trade a bad one from Day 1.

Whaaa? From what I saw you're exactly backwards, everyone thought that the Browns were idiots for doing that trade.
[/quote]

I don't know what most people thought at the time, but I knew it was a blunder from the moment they did it.

If anything the trade has been worse than I projected -- not only did they give up the pick, but they keep on playing Richardson and throwing good money after bad.

Re: Luck to Fleemer - FarmBoy - 11-17-2014

Quote:Whaaa? From what I saw you're exactly backwards, everyone thought that the Browns were idiots for doing that trade.

Perhaps a bit revisionist of me to say "most", but there were a lot of people who thought it was a bad sign that a team would give him a supposed franchise player like that. He had a lot of TDs, but his ypc were terrible and all of the Browns fans were excited to see him go. When a fanbase is excited to see their recent 1st rounder traded, you know he was bad.

I couldn't believe when they kept trying to run the ball in the 2nd half. When they were 1st and goal on the 2, I asked my friend if he wanted to bet me that the Colts would try to run it up the middle 3 times before trying to pass it (of course, they only tried it twice, but still, it was a farce). And later in the half when they tried that cutesy hand off where TR is fake blocking and Luck is supposed to sneak the ball into his hands from behind. This may have been Pep's worst game called.

Re: Luck to Fleemer - CrazedZooChimp - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 10:00 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:
Quote:Whaaa? From what I saw you're exactly backwards, everyone thought that the Browns were idiots for doing that trade.

Perhaps a bit revisionist of me to say "most", but there were a lot of people who thought it was a bad sign that a team would give him a supposed franchise player like that. He had a lot of TDs, but his ypc were terrible and all of the Browns fans were excited to see him go. When a fanbase is excited to see their recent 1st rounder traded, you know he was bad.

I also remember most people thinking it was a bad move for the Colts, largely based on the argument that running back is almost never worth a first round pick (which teams almost never spend on RBs), especially not an average running back.