Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Luck wasn't too concerned that he had just broken Cam Newton's year-old record


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#11 usmcpanthers

usmcpanthers

    Professional Lurker

  • Joined: 13-September 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,055
  • Reputation: 548
  • LocationTampa, FL
HUDDLER

Posted 10 November 2012 - 02:30 PM

Cam's was more impressive...week one sets the record then breaks it in week two of his career.

#12 Greg Schiano

Greg Schiano

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 10-September 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 174
  • Reputation: 14
  • LocationTampa, Florida
HUDDLER

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:32 PM

You want to talk about impressive, that's Douglas Martin breaking records left and right.

#13 rico6

rico6

    Shit.

  • Joined: 03-August 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,760
  • Reputation: 224
HUDDLER

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:03 PM

1st rookie game followed with a lockout, compared to a mid-season or so game without a lockout?

Hmm

#14 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 21,317
  • Reputation: 17,521
  • LocationOn a Sales Call
HUDDLER

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

Oh oh! Don't look now! All you Luck haters!

http://msn.foxsports...Dolphins-110412

Luck threw for 433 yards and two touchdowns. He topped Newton's mark of 422 and tied another by becoming the NFLs' second rookie quarterback to produce four 300-yard games in a season. The other: Peyton Manning, the quarterback he replaced.


I hate Luck because he dissed Charlotte and my Panthers. I couldn't give to flying f*cks about what he's doing in Indiana.

#15 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,707
  • Reputation: 2,644
HUDDLER

Posted 10 December 2012 - 01:54 AM

Cam's record was 432, not 422

#16 footballisasport

footballisasport

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 06-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,506
  • Reputation: 780
HUDDLER

Posted 10 December 2012 - 08:08 PM

It seems Luck's stats are a bit inflated since he's peg as the next best QB of the NFL since Moses parted the Red Sea.

The media is so doing their best to keep the hype alive even thou they seem way more entertained by RG III.

#17 Varking

Varking

    Enigma

  • Joined: 24-April 10
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 606
  • Reputation: 56
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:03 AM

It seems Luck's stats are a bit inflated since he's peg as the next best QB of the NFL since Moses parted the Red Sea.

The media is so doing their best to keep the hype alive even thou they seem way more entertained by RG III.

The media can peg him as the next best QB but that in no way inflates a guys stats lmao. On top of that, they are more entertained by RGIII, aren't we all? But they don't need a ton of flash to want to watch him. How many first overall rookie QBs have their team in line for 10-11 wins? He is doing something special.

#18 footballisasport

footballisasport

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 06-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,506
  • Reputation: 780
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:12 AM

The media can peg him as the next best QB but that in no way inflates a guys stats lmao. On top of that, they are more entertained by RGIII, aren't we all? But they don't need a ton of flash to want to watch him. How many first overall rookie QBs have their team in line for 10-11 wins? He is doing something special.


Let's be real the Colts were not a bad team. IMO, they tanked their seasin to get Luck. A team is both offense and defense. U're going to tell me after going 2-14 this team miraculously bounce back to Peyton type of wins the next season with a new QB. Feed the hype will u.

#19 Varking

Varking

    Enigma

  • Joined: 24-April 10
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 606
  • Reputation: 56
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:08 PM

Let's be real the Colts were not a bad team. IMO, they tanked their seasin to get Luck. A team is both offense and defense. U're going to tell me after going 2-14 this team miraculously bounce back to Peyton type of wins the next season with a new QB. Feed the hype will u.

Teams don't tank like you would think. You obviously have never played a sport at a high level.

1) There is too much ego and pride involved with athletes to tank. You may get a quitter here or there, but you aren't going to get a third of a team to quit.

2) By quitting on their team last season they put themselves in a position to have lower stats, be cut, and because of lower stats, not get a new contract or get a contract lower than what they could get.

Use the common sense will u.

Oh wait, you just tried to tell me earlier that "media inflated his stats". As if they went onto the box scores and added yards and scores to boost him.

#20 footballisasport

footballisasport

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 06-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,506
  • Reputation: 780
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:12 PM

Teams don't tank like you would think. You obviously have never played a sport at a high level.

1) There is too much ego and pride involved with athletes to tank. You may get a quitter here or there, but you aren't going to get a third of a team to quit.

2) By quitting on their team last season they put themselves in a position to have lower stats, be cut, and because of lower stats, not get a new contract or get a contract lower than what they could get.

Use the common sense will u.
Oh wait, you just tried to tell me earlier that "media inflated his stats". As if they went onto the box scores and added yards and scores to boost him.


The question is, did the Colts simply focus on their starting QB and no one else so much so that if they were to go down the team's season is over? How is that in line with what ur claiming about team pride? R u saying it's the players who got cut fault the team tanked after making it to the play offs almost every season under Peyton? So they intentionally tanked the team?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users