1St Pick In The Draft Should Be Cb

[Xfiles]

The argument could be made that trading that #1 pick could have been a smart move. However, the facts that the only other QB from that class that amounted to anything was Matt Hasselbeck and that only 8 QBs were drafted in that entire class vs. the 4-6 I expect to be drafted in the first 2 rounds alone in the coming draft provide considerable differences to the 2 situations. ;)

Any argument that is attempting to suggest we would have been better off trading Peyton's rights in the 98' draft to another team is rediculous, and I know you are smart enough to know that. It was a great point made by that poster.

[Jason_]

Any argument that is attempting to suggest we would have been better off trading Peyton's rights in the 98' draft to another team is rediculous, and I know you are smart enough to know that. It was a great point made by that poster.

I love when people put words in my mouth. I didn't say we'd be better off...I said the argument could be made that trading the pick could have been a smart move...especially if you're going to give me the benefit of hindsight because I don't care how good people thought he would be, no one could have predicted that Manning would become the GOAT.

And like I said in direct response to that poster, it was an unfair comparison (much like the Rodgers/Favre comparison some people love so much) for numerous reasons of which I only gave a couple but I can give more if you like:

1. in '98, only 8 QBs were drafted in the entire draft. In 2012 I fully expect 4-6 in the first 2 rounds alone...point being there are far more options this year than there were in '98

2. in '98, after the top 2 picks, the next QB drafted wasn't taken until the end of the second round..again proving there are far more options available in 2012 than were available in '98

3. the '98 Colts were not a decade long playoff team. they were in a 100% rebuilding mode. Some people claim the current Colts team is in full rebuilding mode, but most would disagree

4. the '98 Colts DIDN'T have the GOAT QB waiting in the wings expecting to return to full health in the '99 season (again, it's been said multiple times by most on both sides of the Luck argument, if Manning can't return at all then the argument changes completely)

[Xfiles]

I love when people put words in my mouth. I didn't say we'd be better off...I said the argument could be made that trading the pick could have been a smart move...especially if you're going to give me the benefit of hindsight because I don't care how good people thought he would be, no one could have predicted that Manning would become the GOAT.

And like I said in direct response to that poster, it was an unfair comparison (much like the Rodgers/Favre comparison some people love so much) for numerous reasons of which I only gave a couple but I can give more if you like:

1. in '98, only 8 QBs were drafted in the entire draft. In 2012 I fully expect 4-6 in the first 2 rounds alone...point being there are far more options this year than there were in '98

2. in '98, after the top 2 picks, the next QB drafted wasn't taken until the end of the second round..again proving there are far more options available in 2012 than were available in '98

3. the '98 Colts were not a decade long playoff team. they were in a 100% rebuilding mode. Some people claim the current Colts team is in full rebuilding mode, but most would disagree

4. the '98 Colts DIDN'T have the GOAT QB waiting in the wings expecting to return to full health in the '99 season (again, it's been said multiple times by most on both sides of the Luck argument, if Manning can't return at all then the argument changes completely)

You made the statement that the arguement could be made. Any argument can be made....very horrible ones too.

[Jason_]

You made the statement that the arguement could be made. Any argument can be made....very horrible ones too.

Yes, and I stand by that. Some teams prefer to get the franchise QB as the first piece of the puzzle and build the team around the QB. Other teams prefer to build a team and install a scheme and then find the QB that fits what they've built (see San fran this year as simply one example). No one way always works out over the other and neither is more right or wrong than the other.

[Xfiles]

Yes, and I stand by that. Some teams prefer to get the franchise QB as the first piece of the puzzle and build the team around the QB. Other teams prefer to build a team and install a scheme and then find the QB that fits what they've built (see San fran this year as simply one example). No one way always works out over the other and neither is more right or wrong than the other.

Last 10 superbowl winners:

Green Bay

New Orleans

Steelers

Giants

Colts

Steelers

Patriots

Patriots

Bucs

Patriots

Of those 10, only ONE had a Quarterback that was fit into an offensive scheme after that fact. The rest have Franchise top notch QB's already in place. So it looks as if my inclination that you START with the Quarterback in this NFL is the way to go my friend. The proof is in the championship pudding.

[Barkman76]

That OLB from Az sTATE IS SUPPOSEDLY AWESOME WE COULD GET AN OLB IN THE 1ST RD MAYBE THATS THE ANSWER.

[Jason_]

Last 10 superbowl winners:

Green Bay

New Orleans

Steelers

Giants

Colts

Steelers

Patriots

Patriots

Bucs

Patriots

Of those 10, only ONE had a Quarterback that was fit into an offensive scheme after that fact. The rest have Franchise top notch QB's already in place. So it looks as if my inclination that you START with the Quarterback in this NFL is the way to go my friend. The proof is in the championship pudding.

The patriots and the steelers did not build their team around their QB, the built their team and then brought in their QB. That you could even suggest the Patriots drafted Tom Brady and then built the team around him is beyond laughable. They already had a good to great team in the works and lucked into Brady in the 6th round. Same with Big Ben...PIttsburgh did not build the team around Ben...they built the team and then drafted Ben.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Jason

[Gonzo]

Last 10 superbowl winners:

Green Bay

New Orleans

Steelers

Giants

Colts

Steelers

Patriots

Patriots

Bucs

Patriots

Of those 10, only ONE had a Quarterback that was fit into an offensive scheme after that fact. The rest have Franchise top notch QB's already in place. So it looks as if my inclination that you START with the Quarterback in this NFL is the way to go my friend. The proof is in the championship pudding.

How many of those QBs went No. 1 overall? Brees, Brady, Johnson weren't even first rounders.

No player drafted is EVER a sure thing. I think that's why so many people like the idea of trading for multiple picks rather then putting all our eggs in one basket by drafting a long term starter at a position of strength. By the time Luck would take a snap Freeney, Mathis, Saturday, Bethea, Wayne, Clark etc. will likely be gone or fading. Even if Luck is great, he's not going to have the core of players that Manning has been able to win with.

If we were able to find a shutdown corner we could roll more coverage to protect Powers or Lacey or whoever and our defense gets a whole lot more flexible and maybe wins us some games in the near term and helps us reload for the long haul.

[hawkeyes]

IF the Colts got #1 pick some how - they should trade it for multiple picks ... we do NOT need Luck if Manning is coming back! STOP ALREADY!

[pizza guy]

Last 10 superbowl winners:

Green Bay

New Orleans

Steelers

Giants

Colts

Steelers

Patriots

Patriots

Bucs

Patriots

Of those 10, only ONE had a Quarterback that was fit into an offensive scheme after that fact. The rest have Franchise top notch QB's already in place. So it looks as if my inclination that you START with the Quarterback in this NFL is the way to go my friend. The proof is in the championship pudding.

I'd say the Colts stand out as the only glaring example of building around a QB. The Saints could be considered the same since Brees is clearly the best player on that team, but I'm not so sure they really built around him.

The Colts have even built the defense around Manning. And having only one Super Bowl win with possibly the greatest QB of all time should prove to everyone that as important as stellar QB play is, you must have a complete team. The Packers defense last year was as dynamic as the offense. The Pats won their Super Bowls on the strength of their defense and some clutch play by Brady and Vinatieri. The Bucs? Seriously? The Steelers have always been a defense first team. Put Big Ben on the Colts and he looks like Curtis Painter. When the Giants won, they were just on a hot streak. They were doing everything right, and their greatest strength was probably their running game. Eli is not good enough to carry a team like Peyton does.

I say all of that to say that the smartest thing to do if we get the #1 pick is to maximize its value by getting as many picks as we can out of it. The Falcons gave up 5 picks to trade into the #6 pick and take a WR. Of course, we all know about the Saints trading away everything for Ricky Williams. If the rest of the NFL is as high on Andrew Luck as the scouts, someone will come up with an unbelievable trade offer, and we'd be able to build for the future. Use a later pick that we acquire for a different QB, or wait til next year and shoot for Tyler Bray from Tennessee.

[bayone]

IF the Colts got #1 pick some how - they should trade it for multiple picks ... we do NOT need Luck if Manning is coming back! STOP ALREADY!

I happen to agree but do understand the other side of the issue

[bayone]

I'd say the Colts stand out as the only glaring example of building around a QB. The Saints could be considered the same since Brees is clearly the best player on that team, but I'm not so sure they really built around him.

The Colts have even built the defense around Manning. And having only one Super Bowl win with possibly the greatest QB of all time should prove to everyone that as important as stellar QB play is, you must have a complete team. The Packers defense last year was as dynamic as the offense. The Pats won their Super Bowls on the strength of their defense and some clutch play by Brady and Vinatieri. The Bucs? Seriously? The Steelers have always been a defense first team. Put Big Ben on the Colts and he looks like Curtis Painter. When the Giants won, they were just on a hot streak. They were doing everything right, and their greatest strength was probably their running game. Eli is not good enough to carry a team like Peyton does.

I say all of that to say that the smartest thing to do if we get the #1 pick is to maximize its value by getting as many picks as we can out of it. The Falcons gave up 5 picks to trade into the #6 pick and take a WR. Of course, we all know about the Saints trading away everything for Ricky Williams. If the rest of the NFL is as high on Andrew Luck as the scouts, someone will come up with an unbelievable trade offer, and we'd be able to build for the future. Use a later pick that we acquire for a different QB, or wait til next year and shoot for Tyler Bray from Tennessee.

Love edge but wish we traded the # 4 pick & got all the Ricky williams draft picks given away for the rights to pick him and just paid Faulk as we could of immediately upgraded the team to a great level on both sides of the ball

But past is past, I also agree trade down and build up the trenches and D

Edited October 12, 2011 by bayone

[Xfiles]

The patriots and the steelers did not build their team around their QB, the built their team and then brought in their QB. That you could even suggest the Patriots drafted Tom Brady and then built the team around him is beyond laughable. They already had a good to great team in the works and lucked into Brady in the 6th round. Same with Big Ben...PIttsburgh did not build the team around Ben...they built the team and then drafted Ben.

Ok then, well then view it this way...those teams all PLUGGED IN a top of the line talent quarterback, or built around one, and still to the point, only one of those teams won with a pedestrian QB. So my point is still quite valid, that if the Colts believe Luck is one of those guys(and we already know that is how Irsay views luck) then they wont pass him up if they can get him, because its obvious that 90 percent of the time, a type A QB is needed to win it all.

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

This debate is old.

[Xfiles]

This debate is old.

I just said exactly that same thing in another thread. I am going to leave it alone before it becomes any more silly.

[Jason_]

Last 10 superbowl winners:

Green Bay - Rodgers, late first round pick

New Orleans - Brees, acquired via FA, second round pick

Steelers - Roethlisberger, mid first round pick

Giants - Manning, #1 pick

Colts - Manning, #1 pick

Steelers - Roethlisberger, mid first round pick

Patriots - Brady, 6th round

Patriots - Brady, 6th round

Bucs - Johnson, doesn't matter because no one's calling him elite lol

Patriots - Brady, 6th round

Ok then, well then view it this way...those teams all PLUGGED IN a top of the line talent quarterback, or built around one, and still to the point, only one of those teams won with a pedestrian QB. So my point is still quite valid, that if the Colts believe Luck is one of those guys(and we already know that is how Irsay views luck) then they wont pass him up if they can get him, because its obvious that 90 percent of the time, a type A QB is needed to win it all.

You've proved the point I've been trying to make all along..you don't have to draft a QB #1 overall to get a top of the line talent QB...only the 2 Manning's were #1 overall picks

[Xfiles]

You've proved the point I've been trying to make all along..you don't have to draft a QB #1 overall to get a top of the line talent QB...only the 2 Manning's were #1 overall picks

Of course they all werent drafted number one overall........*facepalm*

That wasnt the debate. The debate was taking luck with the first pick because he projects to be that type A QB, or trading down to get more picks. It was never about the overall number one.

[Jason_]

Of course they all werent drafted number one overall........*facepalm*

That wasnt the debate. The debate was taking luck with the first pick because he projects to be that type A QB, or trading down to get more picks. It was never about the overall number one.

It has ALWAYS been about the #1 overall. I have no problem taking a QB...I have no problem taking Luck...I have no problem taking any of the top 4 QBs but I do have a problem with using the #1 overall pick to do it. I would say the same thing about any player at any position...I do not want to use the #1 pick on anyone. I want to trade it for the crapload of picks we'd get in return and add to as many different areas of the team as possible. I never said we should not draft a QB. Several of the pro-Luck'ers are saying that if we trade down then we can't get our QB of the future but that simply isn't true and I and others have pointed it out a number of times. We can still trade down and take Landry Jones, Barkley, Nick Foles, Ryan Tannehill etc etc. Considering we have time to groom the new QB we can take a more calculated risk on an equally intelligent and physically talented QB like the others I mentioned, and coach them in areas like footwork, reading the defense better than they already do and perfecting their throwing motion. These are the types of things you work on when you A) are intending to groom a QB and B) have 2-4 years to do it.

the only reason I've been questioning whether or not he is over-hyped is specifically to determine if he's worth the #1 overall pick for a team like the Colts who don't need him to start right away. It has always been about the value of the #1 pick.

[Xfiles]

It has ALWAYS been about the #1 overall. I have no problem taking a QB...I have no problem taking Luck...I have no problem taking any of the top 4 QBs but I do have a problem with using the #1 overall pick to do it. I would say the same thing about any player at any position...I do not want to use the #1 pick on anyone. I want to trade it for the crapload of picks we'd get in return and add to as many different areas of the team as possible. I never said we should not draft a QB. Several of the pro-Luck'ers are saying that if we trade down then we can't get our QB of the future but that simply isn't true and I and others have pointed it out a number of times. We can still trade down and take Landry Jones, Barkley, Nick Foles, Ryan Tannehill etc etc. Considering we have time to groom the new QB we can take a more calculated risk on an equally intelligent and physically talented QB like the others I mentioned, and coach them in areas like footwork, reading the defense better than they already do and perfecting their throwing motion. These are the types of things you work on when you A) are intending to groom a QB and B) have 2-4 years to do it.

the only reason I've been questioning whether or not he is over-hyped is specifically to determine if he's worth the #1 overall pick for a team like the Colts who don't need him to start right away. It has always been about the value of the #1 pick.

K

We disagree. Have a nice day.

[tfunky14]

The patriots and the steelers did not build their team around their QB, the built their team and then brought in their QB. That you could even suggest the Patriots drafted Tom Brady and then built the team around him is beyond laughable. They already had a good to great team in the works and lucked into Brady in the 6th round. Same with Big Ben...PIttsburgh did not build the team around Ben...they built the team and then drafted Ben.

New England and Pittsburg won Super Bowls with their defense not their QB play. Big Ben has the worst QB rating for a winning SB QB..

[Fr33UpFr33ney]

Wow, 100 replies. I hope polian reads this

[John Dee]

Indy will pick very high this year, the easy part of the schedule is over.... and we are 0 fer.....

Trade said pick for multiple picks and rebuild this teams sagging talent level. And DB would be a nice start.

[John Dee]

It has ALWAYS been about the #1 overall. I have no problem taking a QB...I have no problem taking Luck...I have no problem taking any of the top 4 QBs but I do have a problem with using the #1 overall pick to do it. I would say the same thing about any player at any position...I do not want to use the #1 pick on anyone. I want to trade it for the crapload of picks we'd get in return and add to as many different areas of the team as possible. I never said we should not draft a QB. Several of the pro-Luck'ers are saying that if we trade down then we can't get our QB of the future but that simply isn't true and I and others have pointed it out a number of times. We can still trade down and take Landry Jones, Barkley, Nick Foles, Ryan Tannehill etc etc. Considering we have time to groom the new QB we can take a more calculated risk on an equally intelligent and physically talented QB like the others I mentioned, and coach them in areas like footwork, reading the defense better than they already do and perfecting their throwing motion. These are the types of things you work on when you A) are intending to groom a QB and B) have 2-4 years to do it.

the only reason I've been questioning whether or not he is over-hyped is specifically to determine if he's worth the #1 overall pick for a team like the Colts who don't need him to start right away. It has always been about the value of the #1 pick.

THIS.........

[John Dee]

I love when people put words in my mouth. I didn't say we'd be better off...I said the argument could be made that trading the pick could have been a smart move...especially if you're going to give me the benefit of hindsight because I don't care how good people thought he would be, no one could have predicted that Manning would become the GOAT.

And like I said in direct response to that poster, it was an unfair comparison (much like the Rodgers/Favre comparison some people love so much) for numerous reasons of which I only gave a couple but I can give more if you like:

1. in '98, only 8 QBs were drafted in the entire draft. In 2012 I fully expect 4-6 in the first 2 rounds alone...point being there are far more options this year than there were in '98

2. in '98, after the top 2 picks, the next QB drafted wasn't taken until the end of the second round..again proving there are far more options available in 2012 than were available in '98

3. the '98 Colts were not a decade long playoff team. they were in a 100% rebuilding mode. Some people claim the current Colts team is in full rebuilding mode, but most would disagree

4. the '98 Colts DIDN'T have the GOAT QB waiting in the wings expecting to return to full health in the '99 season (again, it's been said multiple times by most on both sides of the Luck argument, if Manning can't return at all then the argument changes completely)

This is debatable. The core of this team is old.... Manning, Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Clark, Bethea, Brackett, Saturday...

And our drafts have been less than stellar lately. That is why I think it is a no brainer that if the Colts get a top 3 pick they simply must trade it for "more" picks. The talent level on this team is at a critical level. We have missed on way too many high picks recently.

[theking213]

Wow, 100 replies. I hope polian reads this

This years draft and next years draft are going to be the most important decisions of Polians and Irsays Colts management careers. I hope they make the right choices.

[Jason_]

This is debatable. The core of this team is old.... Manning, Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, Clark, Bethea, Brackett, Saturday...

And our drafts have been less than stellar lately. That is why I think it is a no brainer that if the Colts get a top 3 pick they simply must trade it for "more" picks. The talent level on this team is at a critical level. We have missed on way too many high picks recently.

Bethea's not old..he's only 27 I definitely agree with the rest though. I don't expect Brackett back after this year and the rest are getting up there but with the exception of Saturday we should still have them around another 3-4 years barring injury. We have some other good young players, Ijalana, Castonzo, Collie, Nevis, Angerer, Antonio Johnson, Conner, Wheeler, possibly Edds and Lefeged and a few others I'm sure I'm just overlooking because it's 2:30 am lol. Not all of these guys are going to be great starters but the ones who won't would still be great for depth. This is how I would personally approach the draft....we add a quality player to several areas so we upgrade a few starters and add some more quality depth.

Our recent drafts haven't been stellar in finding a star playmaker which is unfortunate, but we have added some solid players. If we play our cards right this year then we add another group of young guys who have a ton of potential and they still have a few years to play alongside the current core veterans on the team. By the time our current core retires then we should have a very solid new core out of what we have now and what we add between now and then. So that's why i say that I don't think we're in 100% rebuilding mode. We're in more of a transition mode...but if we don't play our cards right the next 2 years (like theking213 referred to) then we WILL be in 100% rebuilding mode. So that's what I meant when i said the current team isn't in full-on rebuilding mode yet.

[John Dee]

This years draft and next years draft are going to be the most important decisions of Polians and Irsays Colts management careers. I hope they make the right choices.

1998 was Polian's make or break draft. He's a HOF GM, I just hope he stops letting his kid do the work. Chris has proven to be "poor" at the draft.

[John Dee]

I agree J...

If Indy could parlay a top overall pick into maybe..... ??? 2 #1's 2 #2's, and 2 #3's then you have to do it.

And if Luck is all that ..... They could get more. If the Colts get to draft first, and the Colts WANT to win NOW ... they will trade it.

If not they may as well just trade Manning. Because they are telling him and the fans they DON'T want to win NOW.

[John Dee]

Last 10 superbowl winners:

Green Bay

New Orleans

Steelers

Giants

Colts

Steelers

Patriots

Patriots

Bucs

Patriots

Of those 10, only ONE had a Quarterback that was fit into an offensive scheme after that fact. The rest have Franchise top notch QB's already in place. So it looks as if my inclination that you START with the Quarterback in this NFL is the way to go my friend. The proof is in the championship pudding.

Rodgers was low 1st round pick, Ben R was a late teen pick, and Brady was a once in a lifetime luck out. These teams knew QB would be a need soon but I guarantee you they did not know they were getting what they got.

The draft is a crap shoot.

And of the teams mentioned above.... Outside of GB and NO STELLAR D, and a very solid RUNNING GAME won those teams rings. And that includes the Colts SB season..... our D was lights out in the playoffs.

[Xfiles]

Rodgers was low 1st round pick, Ben R was a late teen pick, and Brady was a once in a lifetime luck out. These teams knew QB would be a need soon but I guarantee you they did not know they were getting what they got.

The draft is a crap shoot.

And of the teams mentioned above.... Outside of GB and NO STELLAR D, and a very solid RUNNING GAME won those teams rings. And that includes the Colts SB season..... our D was lights out in the playoffs.

Right, but as I have already stated they are all still type A QB's except for one. Gotta have another one after Manning is gone. Might not get this good of a chance again.

[Jason_]

I agree J... If Indy could parlay a top overall pick into maybe..... ??? 2 #1's 2 #2's, and 2 #3's then you have to do it. And if Luck is all that ..... They could get more. If the Colts get to draft first, and the Colts WANT to win NOW ... they will trade it. If not they may as well just trade Manning. Because they are telling him and the fans they DON'T want to win NOW.

Agreed so +1 for that AND for the Aldous Huxley quote in your sig...that's awesome.

Right, but as I have already stated they are all still type A QB's except for one. Gotta have another one after Manning is gone. Might not get this good of a chance again.

And as I have already stated, Luck is absolutely not the ONLY "type A" QB in the coming draft. Some people may think he's the best and that's their opinion but to say or think he's the only QB in the coming draft that will be successful or is capable of being a quality franchise QB is laughable. And all of the prospects, INCLUDING Luck at this point can only be considered "capable".

Edited October 13, 2011 by Jason

[Xfiles]

Agreed so +1 for that AND for the Aldous Huxley quote in your sig...that's awesome.

And as I have already stated, Luck is absolutely not the ONLY "type A" QB in the coming draft. Some people may think he's the best and that's their opinion but to say or think he's the only QB in the coming draft that will be successful or is capable of being a quality franchise QB is laughable. And all of the prospects, INCLUDING Luck at this point can only be considered "capable".

K we like Luck.

[Bleedin Blue]

1998 was Polian's make or break draft. He's a HOF GM, I just hope he stops letting his kid do the work. Chris has proven to be "poor" at the draft.

What picks has Chris made that lead you to this conclusion? I was under the impression that this most recent draft was handled primarily by Chris and I found it to be the best in the last 5 years.

[super8todd]

Okay. Let's just say for the sake of argument we get a chance for taking Luck. If #1 pick, its a no-brainer. Let's say we could've received 3 first round future picks for him... look at our results in the past 3 years picking first round.. all busts: Gonzalez, Brown, Hughes.... So you're saying you'd rather take a risk on getting 3 more busts than getting Peyton Manning 2.0? Take a look back to 1998. Imagine we didn't take Peyton Manning. Let's say we received 3 1st round picks for him... with the fact we lose talent to free agency every year, why would this be a good plan. Besides, when we are having a winning season our 1st round pick ends up being almost at a 2nd round pick, so if we have 2nd round pick1, then we are still doing what we normally do every year... but get the added Bonus of getting Luck (Peyton Manning 2.0)... i just don't understand why some are so anti-Luck?

I will also say this. If we do trade Luck... a prospect like this only comes every 10 years. We would deserve to be a cellar dwelling team for the next 15 years. I will even burn all of my colts gear if we pass on getting that chance for Luck, because I'll already know the future of our team.

• MultiQuote
  
• 
  

[John Dee]

What picks has Chris made that lead you to this conclusion? I was under the impression that this most recent draft was handled primarily by Chris and I found it to be the best in the last 5 years.

Nobody knows for sure.... but I can pinpoint Chris P starting to have influence in the Ugoh draft. The Colts made the pick and Bill said Chris made the pick, Chris P has been doing the draft lately. I am convinced.

Bill Rocked the draft up until the Tony U trade. And that was when Bill passed the torch on air on ESPN saying his son did the dead.

Maybe I'm wrong but Bill knows talent... and lately Indy is drafting none..........

[Steagles]

Another Thing I'd like to see us do with a top 4 pick is to trade down a few spots to take Dre Kirkpatrick, while also getting a 2nd second rounder. In the second, take Nate Potter (T, Boise State) and Mark Barron (S, Alabama), that is, if they fall that low.

[Jason_]

Nobody knows for sure.... but I can pinpoint Chris P starting to have influence in the Ugoh draft. The Colts made the pick and Bill said Chris made the pick, Chris P has been doing the draft lately. I am convinced.

Bill Rocked the draft up until the Tony U trade. And that was when Bill passed the torch on air on ESPN saying his son did the dead.

Maybe I'm wrong but Bill knows talent... and lately Indy is drafting none..........

I highly disagree with the statement in red. Angerer, Moala, Nevis, Castonzo, Ijalana (in what little we got to see of him), Collie, Garcon (definitely talented but the drops are killers), Conner, Wheeler, and Carter are all very talented players.

[super8todd]

Taking a CB in 1st round would be a bust for us Colts. The reality is, we don't have the kind of money to resign a #1 cornerback when their contract is up for review. We always let them go via free-agency, look at our history. The only money we spend is on the Meat and potatoes positions that are worth the money... ie. QB. The rest, we train and fill with later rounds and try to squeeze the juice out of turnips. And when you have Luck for the next 15 years, that is the best decision because we can invest the money to keep him.

[Ramblinwreck7]

Taking a CB in 1st round would be a bust for us Colts. The reality is, we don't have the kind of money to resign a #1 cornerback when their contract is up for review. We always let them go via free-agency, look at our history. The only money we spend is on the Meat and potatoes positions that are worth the money... ie. QB. The rest, we train and fill with later rounds and try to squeeze the juice out of turnips. And when you have Luck for the next 15 years, that is the best decision because we can invest the money to keep him.

I don't understand why people say that the colts shouldn't and don't take CB's early or in the 1st round. The last time we had really solid play from our secondary and the CB's, we drafted Marlin Jackson and Kelvin Hayden in the 1st and 2nd rounds. Soooo... I really don't get why some of yall say that. We also resigned Kelvin Hayden so that proves that we can afford resigning our CB's.

[super8todd]

I don't understand why people say that the colts shouldn't and don't take CB's early or in the 1st round. The last time we had really solid play from our secondary and the CB's, we drafted Marlin Jackson and Kelvin Hayden in the 1st and 2nd rounds. Soooo... I really don't get why some of yall say that. We also resigned Kelvin Hayden so that proves that we can afford resigning our CB's.

We did not resign Hayden, he plays for the Falcons now. This is my point. We took Marlin Jackson with a #1 pick at the end of the round, more like a #2. To pay a Corner for top 15 money is stupid for the Colts. Polian drafts strategically so that we offset the veterans when they leave in free agency because he knows he has no interest in resigning for big money. Instead, we are a franchise that invests heavily in key areas... ie QB, because we only keep the positions that matter. So tell me now why putting our eggs in a sure thing with Luck as #1 is stupid, when if we get multiple picks in the first round and can't resign them, and we lose all of that in 3 years when free-agency comes. We try to develop role-players and build them around our amazing offense; and to continue that philosophy we will be selecting Luck as #1 pick.