Why Are Fans Scared Of The Idea Of The Colts Drafting Luck?

[dn4192]

I mean what is the downside of addressing a major need long term for this franchise with possibly the next great NFL QB? Now sure it's a risk, it was a risk when the Colts took Peyton, but if you go off all the information you have, your odds are pretty good that Luck will be what many think he will be and that is a high quality - great NFL QB. So again why are people so scared?

[jskinnz]

I mean what is the downside of addressing a major need long term for this franchise with possibly the next great NFL QB? Now sure it's a risk, it was a risk when the Colts took Peyton, but if you go off all the information you have, your odds are pretty good that Luck will be what many think he will be and that is a high quality - great NFL QB. So again why are people so scared?

Who the heck is scared?

There is a very legitimate argument to be made for trading away the pick in order to build the franchise right now. If Manning gets a clean bill of health and there is a team will to pay the Colts a king's ransom for the rights to draft luck, that is certainly a plan worth looking into.

If Manning's future is cloudy at draft time and they have "earned" the # 1 pick, then by all means take Luck.

[icf]

IMO -- I don't know that "scared" is the right word. However, for lots of fans the drafting of Luck is a tangible sign that Manning's time as a Colt is coming to an end. Nobody wants to see one of the greatest of all time who they've gotten to watch up close on "their" team move on.

My thing is -- Manning is likely not to come back next season as the same QB that he left as. He'll be 18 months older since we've last seen him on the field and also will coming off of multiple major surgeries. He may be 95% of his old self or he may be 75%. There is no guarantee that he'll be able to start 16 games a year any more either.

Now, the issue is...and it's not my call to make....but if you can replace one of the greatest QB's ever with perhaps a very similar version -- that is 15 years younger should you do it? You'll have the weigh the benefit of 'minimal' return on your initial pick for a few seasons vs the impact your team can feel TODAY by either drafting a stud player at another position with that #1 pick or trading it away for multiple players to fill some holes.

Manning has -- at best -- another 4 years left (cause I don't think he plans on playing past this new contract)....is now the time to draft the QB of the future. If Manning hadn't been injured and were playing then I would have said no. However, given his injury and uncertainty I think you have to at least consider it.....especially cause I don't want them to be in a position to get this type of draft pick again in the upcoming seasons.

Edited October 10, 2011 by icf

[ruksak]

Because Luck does us no good in the next 4 years. The issue that is breeding so much contempt from the "draft Luck" camp is what to do for the 12+ years post-Manning.

To pass on Luck would be a gamble that there will be an opportunity to acquire a similar pedigree of QB in the next few years. Pedestrian Qb's dominate the NFL landscape. Few are the true franchise caliber QB's, and they are almost always taken in the top 5. Rogers is one of very few exceptions, and it took him years to get up to speed.

TBH, this thing could go either way and great arguments are being made for both sides. Maybe we use our high-end first round pick on a future HoF WR, and this helps us win another SB? Maybe we take a WR with our first pick and never win another playoff game, and then when Manning retires we see years of pedestrian QB's come and go?

[Cornballer]

I don't think anyone is scared of drafting him. Some people just believe his value is high enough that the team could upgrade across the board with what they could get for the top pick, so that opportunity can't be overlooked.

I'm personally on the Luck side of the argument. I just don't see a few extra draft picks being anywhere near enough to transform this team into one that can win without transcendent QB play. This team NEEDS a generational type talent at QB to win, that's the way it has been built for the past decade, and I can't imagine that changing so easily. With Polian's recent first round history, I dunno...I just can't get too excited about the prospect of stockpiling 2011's versions of Gonzalez, Brown, and Hughes all at once rather than spreading them over 3 years. I CAN get excited about the feeling that we may have miraculously stumbled onto a once-in-a-lifetime chance to seamlessly transition from Manning to the best QB prospect SINCE Manning.

Put it this way: I think the case to trade down would be more compelling if I could name any 3 first round picks from the past 8 years I would trade Manning for.

[mightisright]

I don't think anyone is scared of drafting him. Some people just believe his value is high enough that the team could upgrade across the board with what they could get for the top pick, so that opportunity can't be overlooked.

I'm personally on the Luck side of the argument. I just don't see a few extra draft picks being anywhere near enough to transform this team into one that can win without transcendent QB play. This team NEEDS a generational type talent at QB to win, that's the way it has been built for the past decade, and I can't imagine that changing so easily. With Polian's recent first round history, I dunno...I just can't get too excited about the prospect of stockpiling 2011's versions of Gonzalez, Brown, and Hughes all at once rather than spreading them over 3 years. I CAN get excited about the feeling that we may have miraculously stumbled onto a once-in-a-lifetime chance to seamlessly transition from Manning to the best QB prospect SINCE Manning.

Put it this way: I think the case to trade down would be more compelling if I could name any 3 first round picks from the past 8 years I would trade Manning for.

But I think that what those of us not in the Luck camp take issue with is the ASSUMPTION that we can "seamlessly transition from Manning to the best QB prospect since Manning." That is not a given Plus, having a GOAT qb does us NO GOOD if the rest of the team sucks. We gotta address those issues - esp defense to be a decent team. Then when Manning retires we take our lumps like the best of them til we get another good qb. Very few teams transition from great qb to great qb successfully. The Farve/Rodgers is the exception. Plus he wasn't a first round pick.

[seeblu]

IMO, the Colts should trade down. The Colts have glaring needs on offense and defense. A collection of high draft picks, but not #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 would be great. The highest picks get way too much money and trading down brings players in that are less expensive and more of them.

[CR91]

IMO, the Colts should trade down. The Colts have glaring needs on offense and defense. A collection of high draft picks, but not #1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 would be great. The highest picks get way too much money and trading down brings players in that are less expensive and more of them.

but your not seeing the bigger picture. who takes over after peyton?

[nitecrawler]

If you think Manning is a great QB now, wait until Andrew Luck is standing on the side-line.

Although it will be obvious that Luck will remain on the sideline until Manning retires in 2-3 years. There’s nothing that causes a great player to sharpen his skills more than a little” friendly” competition. Which means there will unlikely be any more 4-int/2-pick-6 games in Manning’s future.

[Smitto]

No one is scared of anything mate, the colts do not need luck at all, not even close to needing him... what the colts need now is a good defense.

[Cornballer]

But I think that what those of us not in the Luck camp take issue with is the ASSUMPTION that we can "seamlessly transition from Manning to the best QB prospect since Manning." That is not a given Plus, having a GOAT qb does us NO GOOD if the rest of the team sucks. We gotta address those issues - esp defense to be a decent team. Then when Manning retires we take our lumps like the best of them til we get another good qb. Very few teams transition from great qb to great qb successfully. The Farve/Rodgers is the exception. Plus he wasn't a first round pick.

Yeah, being able to make a Farve/Rogers transition is rare. And yeah, they needed a lot of luck (ugh, seriously didn't mean that as a pun) to hit big with a later pick. But the Colts are in a rare position. I don't think there's any doubt that this is a rare position. This is a rare position because teams with future hall of fame QBs don't often have the number 1 pick. And not every year has such a strong consensus top pick. Certainly not every draft contains the most exciting QB prospect in a decade. So yeah, the position the Colts are in may be entirely unprecedented. A strange sequence of events has given them in a true once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

I guess I just don't see how the rarity of this opportunity is a particularly compelling reason to pass on it.

[ruksak]

No one is scared of anything mate, the colts do not need luck at all, not even close to needing him... what the colts need now is a good defense.

I think whats causing the concern is, do we really want to fortify the next few years at the expense of the next 15 years? Personally, I don't think either side is wrong.

I believe we could form a good defense without trading away a freak of a franchise QB pick. So far, everyone is arguing that it is an 'either/or' decision. I believe we could do both, that is, build a defense and acquire the future QB for our franchise.

[dn4192]

It is going to take 2-3 maybe 4 drafts for this organization to make the moves it needs to get back to an elite franchise and you start that with drafting a once in a decade player. You will have an eaiser time drafting other good/great position players in the following drafts to build around Luck. When we drafted Peyton it still took a few drafts and a couple of seasons for the Colts to get to the elite staus and it's time to move that way again. I think people are "afraid" because it means this franchise is no longer an elite franchise and we need to rebuild and that means some losing and pain. A coaching change isn't going to get the job done, it's time for this franchise to begin to build for the next decade and stop thinking in 1 draft this team as it presently is can be an elite frachise again.

[Coltsman1788]

but your not seeing the bigger picture. who takes over after peyton?

Agreed. I respect that some people want to improve this team NOW while we still have Peyton because they want to improve the team enough to help him win another Super Bowl. However, those that are advocating that we pass on Luck are showing a preference for a 4 year window that will close as soon as Peyton leaves rather than potentially extending our window for another 12 years or more.

It's been 14 years since Manning that a prospect of this caliber has come along. If we are in the fortuitous position to be struck by lightning twice then I say grab a key.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Coltsman1788

[Coltsman1788]

No one is scared of anything mate, the colts do not need luck at all, not even close to needing him... what the colts need now is a good defense.

We could go all defense in this draft and it wouldn't matter so long as we are still playing that soft Tampa 2 Scheme and Coyer is our defensive coordinator. It would just be more talented guys being asked to play 15-20 yards off the ball. But this thread isn't about that so I digress. rotfl

[Balzer40]

I think whats causing the concern is, do we really want to fortify the next few years at the expense of the next 15 years? Personally, I don't think either side is wrong.

I believe we could form a good defense without trading away a freak of a franchise QB pick. So far, everyone is arguing that it is an 'either/or' decision. I believe we could do both, that is, build a defense and acquire the future QB for our franchise.

I agree. I think we could take Luck and still have the rest of the draft to address other posistions. To me, it is a no brainer. You don't pass up on the best QB prospect in the last 14 yrs. just to aquire a couple more picks when you already have at least 6 more picks to begin with. Not only that but there are other ways to improve the team, like free agency and I know people will say "but we don't do free agency" blah blah blah. It's time to start thinking about getting rid of some of the current players and bring in some new ones. Colts fans have a huge problem with change when it comes to current players that are fan favorites. We could let Mathis, Brackett, and Reggie go and use that money to solidify other areas of need. Of course people will probably throw a fit because I even suggested that, but sometimes you just have to get over it and move in a different direction.

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

For me i'm kind of 50-50 on this. I like Luck. And I think that if we have the chance to grab him it would be a smart move. But I also think a smart move would be to trade for more picks. I just dont know. But lately. I'm leaning more torwards taking luck. We want more picks, sure, that would be awesome. Be we have a lot of good players right now that all we need are a few more players to make it a more complete team. Why draft a bunch of 1st and 2nd round D players like a lot want, just to let them go once theyre in their prime because we can't pay them?... At least we will have luck after Peyton. Rather than No peyton, and no D players.

EDIT:

Was thinkin about it.... The Colts "do what we do".. Our D is crap. Make our offense elite against any D. Invest in the offense because our tampa 2 does 't work. If we can score. We wont need a good D. What we have is fine plus or minus a few better players... I'm on the Luck bandwagon.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Indianapolis-Colts-Fan

[Cornballer]

I think whats causing the concern is, do we really want to fortify the next few years at the expense of the next 15 years? Personally, I don't think either side is wrong.

I believe we could form a good defense without trading away a freak of a franchise QB pick. So far, everyone is arguing that it is an 'either/or' decision. I believe we could do both, that is, build a defense and acquire the future QB for our franchise.

This, definitely.

It's sad to think about, but they're likely to draft higher than we're accustomed to in at least a couple of upcoming years. We'll either suffer the last years of a potentially gimpy, aging Manning, or it'll be Luck's growing pains, or what have you. I don't believe, though, that they will be likely to be in a top overall pick sort of position with even a twilight Manning or a young Luck.

The fact is, QB is the most important position on the field and the position for which truly elite talent is at the greatest premium. I don't see how you can pass on filling that need for the future in exchange for a bit better draft than they'll probably have in the coming years. And it's not as though the top pick would be the only one this year. Our second rounder will be close in position to where we usually draft in the first round. We're almost certain to have a better draft than usual whether we take Luck or not.

[Coltsagent]

It does not matter, no way we get the 1st pick anyway, my guess is we pick between 5 and 10 and Luck will be gone by then.

[Smitto]

I think whats causing the concern is, do we really want to fortify the next few years at the expense of the next 15 years? Personally, I don't think either side is wrong.

I believe we could form a good defense without trading away a freak of a franchise QB pick. So far, everyone is arguing that it is an 'either/or' decision. I believe we could do both, that is, build a defense and acquire the future QB for our franchise.

Imo the colts have plenty of time to get a QB, peyton will be back next season.. another QB is gonna be in the spotlight as always, the colts should just trade down which i think would be a good idea, they would have two first round picks in the next season, while having two 2nd round picks.

[number28]

Because Manning will play 5-6 more years. He loves the game too much and will be the next Favre when it comes to retirement.

Andrew Luck will be a useless bench warmer. That is why I don't want him.

Give me a Defensive player in the draft. Thank you!

[CR91]

Because Manning will play 5-6 more years. He loves the game too much and will be the next Favre when it comes to retirement.

Andrew Luck will be a useless bench warmer. That is why I don't want him.

Give me a Defensive player in the draft. Thank you!

peyton will not pull a favre. onces his contract is up hes done which is 4 years. it takes about 3 years to learn this offense which is plenty of time for luck to take over and a defensive player wouldnt help because we would still be playing the same lame defensive scheme we're playing right now.

[Jason_]

but your not seeing the bigger picture. who takes over after peyton?

Whichever QB we draft with one of the multitude of additional picks we acquire in trading down either this year or the following year.

I think whats causing the concern is, do we really want to fortify the next few years at the expense of the next 15 years? Personally, I don't think either side is wrong.

I believe we could form a good defense without trading away a freak of a franchise QB pick. So far, everyone is arguing that it is an 'either/or' decision. I believe we could do both, that is, build a defense and acquire the future QB for our franchise.

The point I would make, which I made in another thread as well, is that we can still acquire a future franchise QB and still trade down. i've watched many Stanford games as well as Arizona, USC, Oklahoma etc and I just don't personally see why Luck is considered lightyears ahead of Barkley, Jones or Foles. Especially when you consider that the case could be made that Luck's success is at least in some part due to the massive OL he has in front of him which is arguably one of the best in college football, a running game that averages 200+ yards per game and 3 TE's who no one can cover regardless of who you put on them. We can offer him none of those things here so imo Luck is as much of a gamble specifically for the Colts as Jones, Barkley or Foles would be.

It is going to take 2-3 maybe 4 drafts for this organization to make the moves it needs to get back to an elite franchise and you start that with drafting a once in a decade player. You will have an eaiser time drafting other good/great position players in the following drafts to build around Luck. When we drafted Peyton it still took a few drafts and a couple of seasons for the Colts to get to the elite staus and it's time to move that way again. I think people are "afraid" because it means this franchise is no longer an elite franchise and we need to rebuild and that means some losing and pain. A coaching change isn't going to get the job done, it's time for this franchise to begin to build for the next decade and stop thinking in 1 draft this team as it presently is can be an elite frachise again.

The point remains that if we trade down, we acquire numerous additional picks this year as well as the following year so the 2-4 drafts you're suggesting that it would take to rebuild the franchise could be greatly reduced by adding those additional picks. If it is so easy to draft players to build the team around Manning, then why hasn't it been done? Because we're constantly picking at the end of the first round. Making one trade down this year means we get an extra first round pick next year and we can continue to keep that trend going for as long as we want. We use those extra picks to build the better team now and we can still draft a very talented QB who can be groomed to replace Peyton.

Here's the one thing most people on the "draft Luck" wagon aren't considering and pretty much refuse to consider....what happens if Luck busts? Is it likely? Probably not but to say it's impossible is almost criminally naive. For every Manning and Aikman there's a Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Alex Smith etc etc etc. If we trade down and acquire additional picks then we do a better job of safe-guarding ourselves against a potential bust.

[CR91]

Whichever QB we draft with one of the multitude of additional picks we acquire in trading down either this year or the following year.

who will not have the same impact luck would have.

[dn4192]

It does not matter, no way we get the 1st pick anyway, my guess is we pick between 5 and 10 and Luck will be gone by then.

Before this weekend I would have maybe agreed, but right now I think it's going to come down to us and Miami for the first pick.

[Jason_]

who will not have the same impact luck would have.

Just like I can't say they would have the same impact, there's no way to say for sure that they wouldn't or couldn't. There's a reason Landry Jones and Matt Barkley are still rated in the top 5 players overall...they're incredibly good QB's. And as I've said before..I've watched many of their games and many of Luck's games as well and I personally don't see what is so great about Luck that he's considered lightyears ahead of everyone else. Yes he's good..I'm not trying to take away from him per se...but to consider him as the only possible option is very closed-minded at best.

[MAC]

If you think Manning is a great QB now, wait until Andrew Luck is standing on the side-line.

Although it will be obvious that Luck will remain on the sideline until Manning retires in 2-3 years. There’s nothing that causes a great player to sharpen his skills more than a little” friendly” competition. Which means there will unlikely be any more 4-int/2-pick-6 games in Manning’s future.

So you're suggesting that Manning has been slacking off and needs a kick in the rear end to properly motivate him? You're talking about one of the most intense and committed competitors any of us have ever seen. The man purportedly invests an absurd percentage of his "free time" in game preparation, and famously takes every snap available - both during games and in practice. His over-the-top investment in the game is a key reason for his success. If he worked any harder he wouldn't get enough sleep to function at all.

Please tell me you're kidding.

[dn4192]

Imo the colts have plenty of time to get a QB, peyton will be back next season.. another QB is gonna be in the spotlight as always, the colts should just trade down which i think would be a good idea, they would have two first round picks in the next season, while having two 2nd round picks.

Sure there will be other QB's none will have the pedigree that Luck brings. Players on the Level of Luck are very very very rare. You don't pass on that type of player for "just another QB" down the road...

[mightisright]

I think whats causing the concern is, do we really want to fortify the next few years at the expense of the next 15 years? Personally, I don't think either side is wrong.

I believe we could form a good defense without trading away a freak of a franchise QB pick. So far, everyone is arguing that it is an 'either/or' decision. I believe we could do both, that is, build a defense and acquire the future QB for our franchise.

What I don't understand is why people think that leveraging Luck to get some great picks at defense only fortifies us for the next few years. Great defensive players play 10-15 years, same as great QBs. I don't understand why people think we're passing on the QB of the future. If Manning is here and good for the next 4 years we won't be able to afford to keep a player like Luck around that long. It's not like green bay. We can't make him sit for three years when he'lll be a free agent after 2 years, won't he?

[Coltswarriors]

I don't think anyone is scared. If Luck is there when the Colts will draft, the Colts have to take him. He'll sit 2-4 years behind Manning, then take over the starting roll.

Remember, Rodgers set behind Favre for 3 years before taking the starting roll. - Luck doesn't have to start right away to be effective.

[CR91]

Just like I can't say they would have the same impact, there's no way to say for sure that they wouldn't or couldn't. There's a reason Landry Jones and Matt Barkley are still rated in the top 5 players overall...they're incredibly good QB's. And as I've said before..I've watched many of their games and many of Luck's games as well and I personally don't see what is so great about Luck that he's considered lightyears ahead of everyone else. Yes he's good..I'm not trying to take away from him per se...but to consider him as the only possible option is very closed-minded at best.

the guy comes out of a pro-style offense, hes smart, athletic, a prototypical size for a qb, can make any throw and hes funmentality sound. and lets not forget hes considered the next peyton manning

[icf]

It does not matter, no way we get the 1st pick anyway, my guess is we pick between 5 and 10 and Luck will be gone by then.

In this years draft the team with the #5 pick (Az) went 5-11 while the # 10 (Jax) went 8-8

In the April 2010 draft the team with the #5 pick (KC) went 4-12 while the #10 (Jax) went 7-9

In the April 2009 draft the team with the #5 pick (Clev slot but NYJ picked) went 4-12 while the #10 (SF) went 7-9

In the April 2008 draft the team with the #5 pick (KC) went 4-12 while the #10 (New Orl) went 7-9

So...if recent history is any indication, it would take about 7 wins to pick 10th -- that won't be happening and 4 wins would likely get you around the #5 pick. That 'may' happen, but I think at this point 4 wins is about the top level of what the team will do this year.

I would saw their likely draft position will be between 1 - 5.

[Balzer40]

The point I would make, which I made in another thread as well, is that we can still acquire a future franchise QB and still trade down. i've watched many Stanford games as well as Arizona, USC, Oklahoma etc and I just don't personally see why Luck is considered lightyears ahead of Barkley, Jones or Foles. Especially when you consider that the case could be made that Luck's success is at least in some part due to the massive OL he has in front of him which is arguably one of the best in college football, a running game that averages 200+ yards per game and 3 TE's who no one can cover regardless of who you put on them. We can offer him none of those things here so imo Luck is as much of a gamble specifically for the Colts as Jones, Barkley or Foles would be.

Let me ask you something. Do any of those other QB's have complete control over the offense? Has the offensive coor. for those other QB's turned the playcalling over to those QB's and given them the ability to make changes at the line because they have the ability to read and react to the defense? I can answer those questions and the answer to both is No! Thats the overwhelming difference between Luck and the other's. I don't remember ever hearing of another college QB that has been given that type of control because they can't handle that type of responsibility yet.

[icf]

Because Manning will play 5-6 more years. He loves the game too much and will be the next Favre when it comes to retirement.

Andrew Luck will be a useless bench warmer. That is why I don't want him.

Give me a Defensive player in the draft. Thank you!

Manning said that this new contract (for 5 seasons) would ensure that he would retire a Colt. Thus, if we are to believe him, he'll have 4 years left when next year rolls around. I don't see him playing another 5 - 6 years starting next season. We don't even know that he'll be 100% when next year rolls around.

[Jason_]

Here's something I'm really curious about but I don't expect there are many people who would answer truthfully....what if Stanford winds up playing in a bowl game against a team like LSU, Clemson or Alabama...a team with a very stout NFL style defense that has been dominating every team they play against. What happens if Luck goes up against one of these teams in that final bowl game and he simply crumbles? Sure it's just one game...but it's one of the few games he plays against a team with that caliber of defense. The Pac 12 isn't exactly filled with teams who have a dominating defense...in fact, perhaps ironically, Stanford has the best defense of the division.

I will freely admit that if he plays a team like that, they take away his running game and get consistent pressure on him and he stands tall and still leads Stanford to victory (or even just keeps them in the game) then I would be much, MUCH more open to the thought of taking Luck because that would go a long way in proving that he is THAT good.

[jskinnz]

who will not have the same impact luck would have.

Did the Magic 8 Ball tell you this?

[dn4192]

Because Manning will play 5-6 more years. He loves the game too much and will be the next Favre when it comes to retirement.

Andrew Luck will be a useless bench warmer. That is why I don't want him.

Give me a Defensive player in the draft. Thank you!

Another 5-6 more years is a HUGE reach at best. Peyton may and I mean "may" have 2-3 more productive seasons in him at best. He will be 36 years old next season with a very SERIOUS injury/issue surrounding him with a still very shakey offensive line. The Manning era is coming to a close, it's time to come to grips with that or become the Colts of the 80's and 90's.

[mightisright]

This, definitely.

It's sad to think about, but they're likely to draft higher than we're accustomed to in at least a couple of upcoming years. We'll either suffer the last years of a potentially gimpy, aging Manning, or it'll be Luck's growing pains, or what have you. I don't believe, though, that they will be likely to be in a top overall pick sort of position with even a twilight Manning or a young Luck.

The fact is, QB is the most important position on the field and the position for which truly elite talent is at the greatest premium. I don't see how you can pass on filling that need for the future in exchange for a bit better draft than they'll probably have in the coming years. And it's not as though the top pick would be the only one this year. Our second rounder will be close in position to where we usually draft in the first round. We're almost certain to have a better draft than usual whether we take Luck or not.

I don't think we'll ever have a twilight Manning. He has too much respect for the game. When he's not able to play at a top level he'll bow out. He's already said as much. He's too much of a perfectionist to pull a farve.

[CR91]

Did the Magic 8 Ball tell you this?

no jskinnz im just psychic. ive already listed the reasons why

[dn4192]

Here's something I'm really curious about but I don't expect there are many people who would answer truthfully....what if Stanford winds up playing in a bowl game against a team like LSU, Clemson or Alabama...a team with a very stout NFL style defense that has been dominating every team they play against. What happens if Luck goes up against one of these teams in that final bowl game and he simply crumbles? Sure it's just one game...but it's one of the few games he plays against a team with that caliber of defense. The Pac 12 isn't exactly filled with teams who have a dominating defense...in fact, perhaps ironically, Stanford has the best defense of the division.

I will freely admit that if he plays a team like that, they take away his running game and get consistent pressure on him and he stands tall and still leads Stanford to victory (or even just keeps them in the game) then I would be much, MUCH more open to the thought of taking Luck because that would go a long way in proving that he is THAT good.

Well if memory serves me Mr. Manning had some very questionable games against the likes of UF and such during his run at UT didn't he?