No Luck... so... Now What?

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:35 pm

StorminMormon86 wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:NOTHING we have seen or heard recently would AT ALL indicate that Mike & Kyle will want to keep Beck instead of Grossman

The ONLY reason Grossman is here (IF he's here) is to help the QBs that are coming in

No matter what - Beck is NOT here next year - bank it

Have you listened to both Shanny's after games/practices? Mike has said Beck got shafted thanks to the lock out, studies harder than anyone he's ever seen, blah, blah, blah. And Kyle has stated that (when Beck was starting) he kept improving on the mistakes he was making the week before, and would continue to improve. Do you hear them making "excuses" like this for Grossman weekly? I just get the impression that Shanahan is covering himself (for at least another year) by coming up with these reasons as to why Beck isn't what they thought he would be. I still stand by my original statement that I would rather have him over Grossman next year.

Look for Beck to get some "evaluation" starts before the year ends. Us fans, can say what we want about Beck, but the key IS to listen not just to listen to what the Shannies are saying, but also what they are not saying. Stormin, you have been listening well.

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:41 pm

StorminMormon86 wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:NOTHING we have seen or heard recently would AT ALL indicate that Mike & Kyle will want to keep Beck instead of Grossman

The ONLY reason Grossman is here (IF he's here) is to help the QBs that are coming in

No matter what - Beck is NOT here next year - bank it

Have you listened to both Shanny's after games/practices? Mike has said Beck got shafted thanks to the lock out, studies harder than anyone he's ever seen, blah, blah, blah. And Kyle has stated that (when Beck was starting) he kept improving on the mistakes he was making the week before, and would continue to improve. Do you hear them making "excuses" like this for Grossman weekly? I just get the impression that Shanahan is covering himself (for at least another year) by coming up with these reasons as to why Beck isn't what they thought he would be. I still stand by my original statement that I would rather have him over Grossman next year.

Stormin, this might be a stupid question but, is Beck a Mormon? If so, then I have to ask again. Is there some infatuation with him? I get it but, starting someone that has no chance or maybe even banking on someone that could possibly have a chance with OTAs and such, after seeing what you did, you would rather have Beck? Come on man. Both suck. Both are real terrible even. One can actually win some games. Then there is the other that never has. I am not trying to be mean but, you have to look at it as it is what it is, do you want a chance to win?

I think what is happening here is that you think Beck can come back and be a decent back up or starter. That will get the Shans fired for sure. They need someone to start next year when they draft a young QB. If it is Beck and that someone is a failure then the Shans are out for sure. At least Wrecks as you say can at least win a few games. Something Beck has never done in what 9 games? Instead of going with your heart think about who can actually do a better job. Both SUCK!!!! One has experience. One has proven he cant win one game. One has proven he can throw a zillion interceptions. One has proven he can do the same, and is afraid to throw it down field; or my perception is can't do it because he has a noodle arm.

Neither QB could be here next year. Both suck. It is what it is.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:44 pm

Beck is NOT playing QB here next year - NO WAY

Mike & Bruce will find some QBs that can get the job done here - Beck is not on that list :lol:

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:29 am

SkinsJock wrote:Beck is NOT playing QB here next year - NO WAY

Mike & Bruce will find some QBs that can get the job done here - Beck is not on that list

Agreed. I bought in to the Beck hype. He looked okay during preseason. But, in the games, he seemed like a deer in headlights. And, based on the player response--he wasn't exactly the leader that gave them any confidence.

He's DUNSKI if we draft another QB. Maybe 3rd string, but that player usually doesn't even dress.

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:38 am

The Hogster wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:Beck is NOT playing QB here next year - NO WAY

Mike & Bruce will find some QBs that can get the job done here - Beck is not on that list

Agreed. I bought in to the Beck hype. He looked okay during preseason. But, in the games, he seemed like a deer in headlights. And, based on the player response--he wasn't exactly the leader that gave them any confidence.

He's DUNSKI if we draft another QB. Maybe 3rd string, but that player usually doesn't even dress.

He just doesn't have the schwartz, moxi

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:18 pm

A name to keep an eye on that this team has seen in person - Matt Moore who's playing pretty damn good football right now with besides Marshall, some no name WRs. Could be a vet to come in here while we groom a QB for the future.

Of course this is all pending what we do in the draft.

StorminMormon86 · Post by **StorminMormon86** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:56 am

Kilmer72 wrote:Stormin, this might be a stupid question but, is Beck a Mormon? If so, then I have to ask again. Is there some infatuation with him? I get it but, starting someone that has no chance or maybe even banking on someone that could possibly have a chance with OTAs and such, after seeing what you did, you would rather have Beck? Come on man. Both suck. Both are real terrible even. One can actually win some games. Then there is the other that never has. I am not trying to be mean but, you have to look at it as it is what it is, do you want a chance to win?

He's mormon, I'm not. There's no infatuation. I bought into the Beck hype, hence my username...I think it was Beck's nickname back in college. I cannot stand the play of Rex Grossman, other than yesterday's game he hasn't done anything this year to warrant his return on our team next year. You're probably right about Beck sucking, but I still think he was pulled too soon. I just want to see more of him before we write him off, that's all.

EDIT: Again, maybe I'm reading far too much into this, but it doesn't appear like Shanahan is giving Grossman the same excuses that he was giving Beck. Here's what he had to say when asked if he was pleased with Grossman's performance yesterday: “Well, we’re all judged by winning and losing. We moved the ball fairly well and scored a few points. You can’t turn the football over early. You give a touchdown. You have to try to limit those mistakes. Still had a chance there at the end.”

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:09 pm

Mike MAY decide to give Beck a 'look' at QB & THAT will confirm that Beck's NOT playing here next season :wink:

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:00 pm

Personally I hope it is RGIII next year. He might be able to over come a weak oline.

StorminMormon86 · Post by **StorminMormon86** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:21 pm

SkinsJock wrote:Mike MAY decide to give Beck a 'look' at QB & THAT will confirm that Beck's NOT playing here next season

I'm honestly all for that, let's give the guy another "looksie" before we release him to keep him over Grossman. I just find it odd that no one else is alarmed at the fact that Grossman (a QB who played in the Superbowl) is "barely" better than a guy who's played nine games and hasn't won once.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:00 pm

I think a lot of us (including me) were VERY hopeful that Mike's feelings about Beck might be right .... NOT

then, we saw what he could do ... then, we were hoping that perhaps all he needed was a little time .... NOT

THIS all because - we all KNOW that Grossman's NOT a good QB - decent, maybe .. BUT a turnover machine .... FOR SURE

Beck showed Mike and most of us that he's not even as good as Grossman :roll:

we need 2 QBs - 1 FA to start and 1 from the draft - MAYBE, we'll keep Grossman

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:17 pm

Grossman should be the backup unless they plan to acquire T.J. Yates, or Leinart. I just don't see them brining in 2 guys who don't know the offense.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:05 pm

The Hogster wrote:Grossman should be the backup unless they plan to acquire T.J. Yates, or Leinart. I just don't see them brining in 2 guys who don't know the offense.

100% Agreed. Rex could lead this team for a handful of games due to injury. Yates or Leinart would be even better.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:27 pm

Lets just stop on Yates. He's played in 2 games.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:31 pm

frankcal20 wrote:Lets just stop on Yates. He's played in 2 games.

What would be wrong with having him as a backup? At least, that's what I'm saying he should be, I wouldn't bring him in to start. He's putting up good numbers without one of the best WR's in the game.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:39 pm

The only reason he's being effective is b/c they have a killer running game. I watched him play his whole college career. NFL backup and while he could come in and be effective, he folds under pressure. See all of his vs NC State film.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:52 pm

frankcal20 wrote:The only reason he's being effective is b/c they have a killer running game. I watched him play his whole college career. NFL backup and while he could come in and be effective, he folds under pressure. See all of his vs NC State film.

So...ok... I said he sounds like he could be an effective backup and you're confirming that. So if you agree that he could be an NFL backup, why should we stop discussing using him in that capacity?

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:32 pm

Well the most important issue is that he's going to be under contract. Was just drafted last year. So it's not realistic that he'll be here.

StorminMormon86 · Post by **StorminMormon86** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:41 pm

There really isn't an effective FA "backup" that we can acquire next year. Matt Flynn would be an ideal choice, but if we draft a young QB, we'll have two young, unproven QBs on our roster...both of whom are not familiar with our offenseive scheme. Grossman and Beck will probably battle out in preseason to see who gets the backup job.

EDIT: Just curious, is there anyone on here who would want to give up everything to get Luck? I sure as hell don't. But if Manning is healthy I do not see Indy letting him go, I see them putting Luck out there for the market (if they do in fact take him at #1).

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:43 pm

frankcal20 wrote:Well the most important issue is that he's going to be under contract. Was just drafted last year. So it's not realistic that he'll be here.

Now THAT would be a reason for me to stop talking about him. LMAO

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:48 pm

HA!!!

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:14 pm

Stormin - the Colts are going to draft Luck and they are going to hope that Peyton can still play

NOBODY is drafting a QB and then waiting to see if the HOF QB they have can play - NOBODY

Luck will be playing QB for the Colts as soon as Peyton is not able to do that

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:27 pm

SkinsJock wrote:Stormin - the Colts are going to draft Luck and they are going to hope that Peyton can still play

NOBODY is drafting a QB and then waiting to see if the HOF QB they have can play - NOBODY

Luck will be playing QB for the Colts as soon as Peyton is not able to do that

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:59 pm

maybe it wasn't really clear ...

Any team would love to have Luck

The Colts look like they will not only get Luck but also are hoping that Peyton can continue to play QB

my point was that no team would draft a talent like Andrew Luck and then trade him - they would love to have both QBs

StorminMormon86 · Post by **StorminMormon86** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:21 pm

SkinsJock wrote:my point was that no team would draft a talent like Andrew Luck and then trade him - they would love to have both QBs

There's no question the TEAM would love to have both of them, but both players do NOT want to ride the bench for a season or seasons. Luck is an unproven NFL QB at this point, if Manning is 100% ready to go the Colts will NOT turn their back on him and bench him for Luck. Luck is NOT going to benefit from this scenario since it's obvious Manning is not into grooming his replacement (Painter, Sorgi, etc.). As for the Colts taking Luck and starting him, if Manning believes he's 100% ready to go, he's not going to want to sit around and take a back seat to Luck. He's already being hailed as the greatest QB of all time, do you really think he's going to want to ride the bench behind Luck? These guys cannot and will not coexist on the same roster next year. Even if Manning isn't 100%, let's say he's at 70-80%. He'll be smart enough to see the writing on the wall if Luck is starting and playing up to his hype, the Colts will not switch him out and put Manning back in when he's 100%. Manning will definitely not stay on that team if they do not intend to start him for the next 3-5 years. It's really that simple.