FalseStart

Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?

Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?  

152 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?

    • Absolutely!
      6
    • Maybe-For the Right Price...
      24
    • I Don't Think So...
      14
    • Hell No!
      108


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

Why can't you?  The Celtics just did it with Isaiah Thomas and the Chargers did it with Drew Brees.  Many GMs would take that gamble.  Heck the Vikings gave up two 1st rounders for injury prone Sam Bradford.  And guess what, he's hurt again, shocker!

 

We should definitely consider it.  We botched this guys career so far.  If we end up with a high pick this season and can land a good young QB and then get two to three 1st rounders for Luck, we definitely should.  Every team in our division is built around top picks and just dropped a QB in.  This is the only team in our division that had the QB from the start and tried to build around him and failed miserably.  While the other 3 teams just kept taking the best guy (and some terrible QBs in the process) and have built up some talent all over.

 

What happens in the NBA is completely irrelevant and Brees was not traded, he was a FA and chose to sign with NO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 11:22 PM, ColtsBlitz said:

What deal would suffice for a trade involving Luck? To me, there is no price tag on a franchise QB like him. Just my perspective on the matter. 

If he comes back >80% IF... then 2 first rounders and a second... if we can get more, wonderful.  That would give Indy 7 picks in the first two rounds in the next two drafts... fill a few holes. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I disagree with the bolded.  I don't think the people who start these threads think much at all.

Well, that's true!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Ballard came to Indy to trade their franchise quarterback. That would be going backwards.

Edited by Ramos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

Why can't you?  The Celtics just did it with Isaiah Thomas and the Chargers did it with Drew Brees.  Many GMs would take that gamble.  Heck the Vikings gave up two 1st rounders for injury prone Sam Bradford.  And guess what, he's hurt again, shocker!

 

We should definitely consider it.  We botched this guys career so far.  If we end up with a high pick this season and can land a good young QB and then get two to three 1st rounders for Luck, we definitely should.  Every team in our division is built around top picks and just dropped a QB in.  This is the only team in our division that had the QB from the start and tried to build around him and failed miserably.  While the other 3 teams just kept taking the best guy (and some terrible QBs in the process) and have built up some talent all over.

It'll be considered. There's war plans for all kinds of stuff people don't think about when that kind of money is involved. Doesn't mean it will happen. To several of your other points..

 

The AFCS just dropped QB's in? Like Mariota being the second pick or Watson being traded up for in the middle of the first round or even Bortles at three? Those are all cornerstone moves. That those teams have been in perpetual rebuild or not built enough mode for 15 years is it's own fascinating slice of sports history, but I think you mistake the Jags, Titans and Texans as Super Bowl contenders. They're not. The Colts with a healthy Luck and a reinforced Defense and some help on the O line are (which is what we're hoping is going on-I do think we see things trending towards that).

Luck is in fact a very unique talent. I don't think Rosen or Darnold are. In fact I'd bet the house this QB class is getting way too much hype. As I said elsewhere I don't think there's more than Rodgers who's a more talented guy at the position than Luck, so you'll have to forgive me if I simply don't think there's equal value out there.

 

To the point of "why can't you trade him when injured". Well you (the team) can/could, but again- what's equal value? Is equal value dumping the contract (that doesn't really work in the NFL) or is it a Pick (not having any idea if said player can actually play) or is it Aarron Rodgers and his dissimilar yet similar status.. Can't play. 

 

And to this idea that the franchise (GRIGSON!) "botched his career". Nothing personal, I know this is how we as sports fans state things, but that's a crap take in many ways. Injuries are not something that's determined by anything other than simply playing the game. Grigson did a excrement job of designing the team to win, but that's not why Luck got hurt. It's simply not apples to apples. Go look at the plays he got wrecked. Running around outside of the pocket (which aren't sack's that the o line gave up).

I hate this Colin Cowherd-esq logic. Can't stand it.

 

Oh and failed miserably. When was the last time another AFCS team made it to the deflategate.. err AFCCG? Thing's haven't been perfect, but it's not "fail miserably" territory. It's underachieving and mismanagement- which sucks too.. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this not locked yet? Can we get rid of these dumb threads please just a waste of our time and every response you read you will lose brain cells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping Luck in Indianapolis the Colts can contend in 2018 and beyond.

If they trade Luck away, well then we might not see the Colts become contenders for a very long time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even Jim Irsay is foolish enough to trade away Luck.

There's NOTHING any one team can give us that would amount to the value of having a healthy Luck on our team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 5:40 PM, FalseStart said:

Should we consider trading Andrew Luck at this point?

Can we trade you from this forum for even making this post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FalseStart said:

Houston can clone him for all i care... if he or his clone is going to be injured year after year we don't have to worry about it. I will say JJ Watt is no longer The JJ Watt that we use to play against. Injuries and time have ruined many a great player

So, no answer I take it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Fish said:

It'll be considered. There's war plans for all kinds of stuff people don't think about when that kind of money is involved. Doesn't mean it will happen. To several of your other points..

 

The AFCS just dropped QB's in? Like Mariota being the second pick or Watson being traded up for in the middle of the first round or even Bortles at three? Those are all cornerstone moves. That those teams have been in perpetual rebuild or not built enough mode for 15 years is it's own fascinating slice of sports history, but I think you mistake the Jags, Titans and Texans as Super Bowl contenders. They're not. The Colts with a healthy Luck and a reinforced Defense and some help on the O line are (which is what we're hoping is going on-I do think we see things trending towards that).

Luck is in fact a very unique talent. I don't think Rosen or Darnold are. In fact I'd bet the house this QB class is getting way too much hype. As I said elsewhere I don't think there's more than Rodgers who's a more talented guy at the position than Luck, so you'll have to forgive me if I simply don't think there's equal value out there.

 

To the point of "why can't you trade him when injured". Well you (the team) can/could, but again- what's equal value? Is equal value dumping the contract (that doesn't really work in the NFL) or is it a Pick (not having any idea if said player can actually play) or is it Aarron Rodgers and his dissimilar yet similar status.. Can't play. 

 

And to this idea that the franchise (GRIGSON!) "botched his career". Nothing personal, I know this is how we as sports fans state things, but that's a crap take in many ways. Injuries are not something that's determined by anything other than simply playing the game. Grigson did a excrement job of designing the team to win, but that's not why Luck got hurt. It's simply not apples to apples. Go look at the plays he got wrecked. Running around outside of the pocket (which aren't sack's that the o line gave up).

I hate this Colin Cowherd-esq logic. Can't stand it.

 

Oh and failed miserably. When was the last time another AFCS team made it to the deflategate.. err AFCCG? Thing's haven't been perfect, but it's not "fail miserably" territory. It's underachieving and mismanagement- which sucks too.. 

 

My point about the AFCS is most teams had personnel built up, then they selected the QB they have now.  They built a foundation, then added a QB.  We got the QB the first year we stinked and had no foundation for him.

 

To your equal value point, you don't think you would get market value for Luck today?  In this NFL?  When teams are willing to franchise guys like Kirk Cousins and give up two 1st rounders for Sam Bradford?

 

To your Grigson point, I vehemently disagree.  Stop focusing on the hit right at the injury.  Most NFL injuries are cumulative.  Luck took many, many hits that were attributed to the O line.  He also took hits that were attributed to him holding the ball too long and hits attributed to the type of offense we were running.  But to say if we had a better O line he wouldn't have taken substantially less hits would be egregious.

 

And finally, the failed miserably was us landing a franchise QB the first year we were bad and not adequately building a team around him.  How many wasted 1st through 3rd round picks have we had?  You can't miss that much on early picks and get better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, J@son said:

 

What happens in the NBA is completely irrelevant and Brees was not traded, he was a FA and chose to sign with NO

If only Saban would have landed him in Miami.  Would be crazy different right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 5:15 PM, Jared Cisneros said:

Honestly, probably not, but anyone is tradeable for the right price, and as a GM, that's how Ballard should look at it. Just by seeing how people are flat out saying no shows they couldn't succeed as a GM in the NFL. Always entertain offers, the number 1 rule. For three 1sts and a top defensive player (Leonard Williams as a hypothetical example), I'd do it in a heartbeat. Luck is 28, and he'll be 29 before we are in shape to do anything meaningful. If you can get the value, do it.

Great post as much as fans don't wanna see it's a business decision and everything has a price . Does make me wonder what the value for  a franchise QB would be . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, B~Town said:

Great post as much as fans don't wanna see it's a business decision and everything has a price . Does make me wonder what the value for  a franchise QB would be . 

 

It has nothing to do with what fans do or don't want to see. It has everything to do with the fact they're not going to eat all that dead cap space by trading luck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

It has nothing to do with what fans do or don't want to see. It has everything to do with the fact they're not going to eat all that dead cap space by trading luck. 

Wondering ;  Could the acquiring team agree to eat all or part of the dead cap as part of the trade?  If they have the space I don't see why not.  It's not like they have to resign Luck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Wondering ;  Could the acquiring team agree to eat all or part of the dead cap as part of the trade?  If they have the space I don't see why not.  It's not like they have to resign Luck. 

Not really. Im not 100% on this, but as far as I know, they can only take over the cap for future payments, not ones that are already paid out. Most of Lucks cap hit would be from spreading out the cap from his signing bonus over the length of his contract. Wed take the entirety of the cap hit the second he left, because he already has the money in hand. 

Thats why the Texans are still taking a 9M cap hit on Osweiler this year. That is the amount left from his signing bonus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a lot of people are overreacting.  I hate not seeing Luck on the field either as he is the face of the franchise.  He missed 7 or 8 games in 2015 due to the lacerated kidney and shoulder issues.  He missed 1 game last year due to a concussion.  He opted to have surgery in January, he's making his way back with rehab and practice.  He'll be back and there is no doubt in my mind, he'll be better than ever.  I know a torn labrum is a serious injury but I am confident he can bounce back.  If he plays this year or if he doesn't, he should still be the starting quarterback next year.  It's absolutely crazy to want to trade a franchise quarterback.  Franchise quaterbacks don't come along to often. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

Not really. Im not 100% on this, but as far as I know, they can only take over the cap for future payments, not ones that are already paid out. Most of Lucks cap hit would be from spreading out the cap from his signing bonus over the length of his contract. Wed take the entirety of the cap hit the second he left, because he already has the money in hand. 

Thats why the Texans are still taking a 9M cap hit on Osweiler this year. That is the amount left from his signing bonus. 

Interesting.  The fact that they are taking over his contract without ever paying the signing bonus is a good deal.  You would think you could still make it part of the trade if both teams agree.  The new team agrees to absorb part of the signing bonus in an effort to encourage and help make it easier for the team trading the player to complete the deal.  It would help the team trading the player to save some cap space.  It is like having another bargaining chip.  The acquiring team would actually be giving you back part of the signing bonus you paid but in the form of cap space.  I am trying to understand why it would be prohibited if both teams agree.   Very interesting.  Thanks for your reply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tikyle said:

 

My point about the AFCS is most teams had personnel built up, then they selected the QB they have now.  They built a foundation, then added a QB.  We got the QB the first year we stinked and had no foundation for him.

 

To your equal value point, you don't think you would get market value for Luck today?  In this NFL?  When teams are willing to franchise guys like Kirk Cousins and give up two 1st rounders for Sam Bradford?

 

To your Grigson point, I vehemently disagree.  Stop focusing on the hit right at the injury.  Most NFL injuries are cumulative.  Luck took many, many hits that were attributed to the O line.  He also took hits that were attributed to him holding the ball too long and hits attributed to the type of offense we were running.  But to say if we had a better O line he wouldn't have taken substantially less hits would be egregious.

 

And finally, the failed miserably was us landing a franchise QB the first year we were bad and not adequately building a team around him.  How many wasted 1st through 3rd round picks have we had?  You can't miss that much on early picks and get better.

The Texans had a defense and they've been trying to have one going back to Peyton owning them. The Jags and Titans, meh. They're not built to win anything beyond the division- even now. So I'm not buying what you're putting down there.

 

To the point about the "hit". There's no way to prove your point about cumulative effects as it pertains to injuries that happen on specific plays, so if I ignore the hit's then I'm creating my own reality and I try not to do that- and If I do, I'll try and say "hey I'm spitballing here". There really is no other way to look at this. If LT doesn't drill Theisman, he's leg doesn't break. Bad take.

 

To the point about equal value. You can't get equal value on an elite QB who's hurt under this contract. There's only a billion reasons why. He's either still going to be good, which means we'll want him or he won't be and no team is going to get fleeced on a guy who can't go right now. Easy to figure out. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Interesting.  The fact that they are taking over his contract without ever paying the signing bonus is a good deal.  You would think you could still make it part of the trade if both teams agree.  The new team agrees to absorb part of the signing bonus in an effort to encourage and help make it easier for the team trading the player to complete the deal.  It would help the team trading the player to save some cap space.  It is like having another bargaining chip.  The acquiring team would actually be giving you back part of the signing bonus you paid but in the form of cap space.  I am trying to understand why it would be prohibited if both teams agree.   Very interesting.  Thanks for your reply.

The only way they could "absorb" money that is already paid would be to pay the Colts back the money. Once you start paying teams for players rights it opens up a whole other can of worms. Teams start arguing semantics (paying back bonuses vs just paying for the trouble of losing the player), and we end up with a "pay to transfer" system similar to Soccer, but with a salary cap. Kind of the worst of both worlds at that point haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to get rid of the Coaches way before we think of getting rid of Luck.  he is very good player.  but he is being wasted by this Org.  so if I was Luck I might think about if Pagano stays nother year he would be better off somewhere that will keep him healthy and give him a chance of a SB.  cause he wont get one with Pagano

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

The only way they could "absorb" money that is already paid would be to pay the Colts back the money. Once you start paying teams for players rights it opens up a whole other can of worms. Teams start arguing semantics (paying back bonuses vs just paying for the trouble of losing the player), and we end up with a "pay to transfer" system similar to Soccer, but with a salary cap. Kind of the worst of both worlds at that point haha

To me absorbing a dead cap hit on your own cap and the Colts not having to lose it is like giving the Colts money without any cash being exchanged.   The acquiring team loses the cash availability for players and the Colts are keeping the cash availability for players.   All controlled within the parameters of each teams cap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

To me absorbing a dead cap hit on your own cap and the Colts not having to lose it is like giving the Colts money without any cash being exchanged.   The acquiring team loses the cash availability for players and the Colts are keeping the cash availability for players.   All controlled within the parameters of each teams cap. 

Yah but at the end of the day the Colts are out that money unless the other team pays them. Not even talking cap, 20M down the drain because you traded a player, even for Irsay that sucks. 

 

And if they do start allowing it, then there would probably be a legal battle over what kind of cap teams can legally take over, with a team (or an agent) claiming that teams should be able to "pay" cap fees for another team regardless of whether or not it belongs to the player being traded. Its a stupid legal back and forth that im sure the NFL wants nothing to do with.

 

Also I cant see the NFLPA allowing it to happen. That potentially takes away guaranteed money on every big name contract, as right now players like Luck, Stafford or Rodgers have peace of mind that they are going to be on a roster for the next 3 yrs. Take away the guaranteed cap hits with a 1 time payment (rather than 3-5), and it makes them easier to cut as soon as the next season. Never gonna happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Swan Ronson said:

Definitely.

 

Trade him and spend ten years looking for a replacement.

 

Solid strategy.

 

Or build an elite defense and get an above average QB that manages the game well...like Pittsburgh x2 SB wins, Seattle x2 1-1 SB, Ravens x2 Super Bowl wins.  Not sure the stats, but how often did-does an elite QB play elite in the SB-Playoffs? (TB in the second half of 2016 SB...) Peyton was average in his four Super Bowls.  Aaron Rodgers, IMO the best QB that has played the position over the last ~5-6 years...1 SB and may never see that game again.  It's a debatable topic...seems to be proper. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, J@son said:

 

It has nothing to do with what fans do or don't want to see. It has everything to do with the fact they're not going to eat all that dead cap space by trading luck. 

There is always a possible scenario but yes the dead cap makes these type of trade near impossible caption obvious . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Wondering ;  Could the acquiring team agree to eat all or part of the dead cap as part of the trade?  If they have the space I don't see why not.  It's not like they have to resign Luck. 

 

17 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Interesting.  The fact that they are taking over his contract without ever paying the signing bonus is a good deal.  You would think you could still make it part of the trade if both teams agree.  The new team agrees to absorb part of the signing bonus in an effort to encourage and help make it easier for the team trading the player to complete the deal.  It would help the team trading the player to save some cap space.  It is like having another bargaining chip.  The acquiring team would actually be giving you back part of the signing bonus you paid but in the form of cap space.  I am trying to understand why it would be prohibited if both teams agree.   Very interesting.  Thanks for your reply.

 

17 hours ago, richard pallo said:

To me absorbing a dead cap hit on your own cap and the Colts not having to lose it is like giving the Colts money without any cash being exchanged.   The acquiring team loses the cash availability for players and the Colts are keeping the cash availability for players.   All controlled within the parameters of each teams cap. 

 

This pretty much sums it up -

 

"The team from which a player is traded is no longer on the hook for unpaid salaries or future bonuses, but is still responsible for accounting for any bonuses that have already been paid. That may just be remaining, prorated signing bonus money, but it can also include things like a roster bonus that was paid at the beginning of the current league year. Again, this all depends heavily on when the player is traded.

 

However, the big accounting difference in a trade is that, when a player is traded, the team is still getting something back in return for the player. Typically, this is one or more other players, so those players' salaries would then be counted against the acquiring team's salary cap. The incoming players' prorated bonuses, however, continue to stay with their previous team."

 

IOW, i don't think you can' 'trade' dead cap along with the player.  The players has his money, and the team is accountable for it.  Most teams pro-rate the cap hit over the life of the contract rather than have it hit all at once (because the actual money was paid). There's no avoiding paying the piper, and in fact (Superman could verify this) the remaining dead cap hit accelerates in full to the next season.  So that's at least 9.4 million cap hit for the Colts even with the player on another team.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta see how much brissett improves this season before considering a trade. I’ll be honest, if it’s for a boatload of top picks I wouldn’t mind. Luck is a good quarterback not a great one. He would be great behind a capable offensive line and a more effective run game. We have a lot of positions we need help at though. We need another receiver next year,definitely a starting tightend, a pass rushing OLB, at least one MLB(not giving up on Walker jr), another cornerback, another running back, and we need 4 offensive linemen most importantly. Way to many holes to just rely on a QB who has been physically abused his entire career due to a lack of protection. I’d prefer to keep Luck, but he needs some big nasties in there to protect him. Outside of Ryan Kelly we have no good OL, Castonzo is over rated or should move to RT, he’s no longer a reliable LT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

 

This pretty much sums it up -

 

"The team from which a player is traded is no longer on the hook for unpaid salaries or future bonuses, but is still responsible for accounting for any bonuses that have already been paid. That may just be remaining, prorated signing bonus money, but it can also include things like a roster bonus that was paid at the beginning of the current league year. Again, this all depends heavily on when the player is traded.

 

However, the big accounting difference in a trade is that, when a player is traded, the team is still getting something back in return for the player. Typically, this is one or more other players, so those players' salaries would then be counted against the acquiring team's salary cap. The incoming players' prorated bonuses, however, continue to stay with their previous team."

 

IOW, i don't think you can' 'trade' dead cap along with the player.  The players has his money, and the team is accountable for it.  Most teams pro-rate the cap hit over the life of the contract rather than have it hit all at once (because the actual money was paid). There's no avoiding paying the piper, and in fact (Superman could verify this) the remaining dead cap hit accelerates in full to the next season.  So that's at least 9.4 million cap hit for the Colts even with the player on another team.

I understand the explanation but if both teams agree to making dead cap part of the terms than I don't see why it should be prohibited.  I don't see why the union would be against it and it might be a negotiating item in a new agreement.  The player got his signing bonus all upfront.  The accounting for the bonus is just an accounting ploy to help the team signing him absorb the bonus instead of accounting for it all at once which they might not be able to do if they had a small amount of cap space when they needed to sign him.  That's why it's spread over 3-5 years.  The cash is gone for the bonus but the accounting treatment of it pretty much handcuffs that player to the team for those years.  Now that is what the team and player wanted originally but what if things change?  I would expect the union would want players to have some flexibility here.  What if Luck does want to be traded but the Colts are handcuffed to the player because of the cap hit.  I would think the union would side with the player to find a way to make it work.  The Colts could have the same dilemma if they wanted to move him.  They are stuck with the cap penalty too.  But if the acquiring team is willing to absorb all or part of the penalty to help a make a deal then a trade becomes more possible.  The handcuffs are there with the dead cap hit but if a key is available to unlock the cuffs than maybe that would not be a bad thing for both the player and the team.  I don't think it would be used a lot because each teams cap availability would have to make it work but at least the door would be open for discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, needanoline63 said:

Gotta see how much brissett improves this season before considering a trade. I’ll be honest, if it’s for a boatload of top picks I wouldn’t mind. Luck is a good quarterback not a great one. He would be great behind a capable offensive line and a more effective run game. We have a lot of positions we need help at though. We need another receiver next year,definitely a starting tightend, a pass rushing OLB, at least one MLB(not giving up on Walker jr), another cornerback, another running back, and we need 4 offensive linemen most importantly. Way to many holes to just rely on a QB who has been physically abused his entire career due to a lack of protection. I’d prefer to keep Luck, but he needs some big nasties in there to protect him. Outside of Ryan Kelly we have no good OL, Castonzo is over rated or should move to RT, he’s no longer a reliable LT

Well Said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 3:10 AM, Blue Shoe Savior 12 said:

People who want us to trade Luck seriously know nothing about football.

 

People who are not considering the best possible roster for our team know nothing about the business of winning championships.  20 Million for a player that is has missed more time than I believe any other starting QB over the last few years...Irsay's got the next round, have another... Cheers.  Go Colts.

 

Copying from a previous post...interesting.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000864489/article/colts-should-trade-andrew-luck-brett-hundley-can-rally-packers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FalseStart said:

 

People who are not considering the best possible roster for our team know nothing about the business of winning championships.  20 Million for a player that is has missed more time than I believe any other starting QB over the last few years...Irsay's got the next round, have another... Cheers.  Go Colts.

So when he's healthy next season and we win the Division I hope you make a Thread noting it. You cant just trade a Franchise QB that is still in his prime and has great potential who has already proven he can win a ton of games. Quit being silly about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FalseStart said:

 

People who are not considering the best possible roster for our team know nothing about the business of winning championships.  20 Million for a player that is has missed more time than I believe any other starting QB over the last few years...Irsay's got the next round, have another... Cheers.  Go Colts.

 

Copying from a previous post...interesting.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000864489/article/colts-should-trade-andrew-luck-brett-hundley-can-rally-packers

Tell us how trading Luck will help the Colts win a super bowl.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

So when he's healthy next season and we win the Division I hope you make a Thread noting it. You cant just trade a Franchise QB that is still in his prime and has great potential who has already proven he can win a ton of games. Quit being silly about this.

 

"

That's not to suggest he is a bust or a colossal underachiever, but Luck definitely hasn't played to the narrative that's been attached to his name. He is a sub-60-percent passer with a penchant for turnovers. Say what you want about me being harsh, but the numbers don't lie.

In his NFL career, Luck sports a 59.2 percent completion rate, a 132:68 touchdown-to-interception ratio and an 87.3 passer rating. Those numbers aren't awful, but they're on par with a group of QBs that might surprise you, given all the hype Luck has received ...

Andy Dalton: 62.9 percent completion rate, 149:87 TD-to-INT ratio, 89.0 passer rating, 58-38-2 record.

Alex Smith: 62.3 percent completion rate; 172:91 TD-to-INT ratio, 87.1 passer rating, 84-58-1 record.

Sam Bradford: 62.5 percent completion rate; 101:57 TD-to-INT ratio, 85.1 passer, 34-45-1 record.

Now, I'm not saying those guys are comparable as pure football specimens, but their collective production puts them in the same class. Thus, you could make a reasonable argument that Luck is merely a top-15 quarterback at this point."\

 

Sure Will... Go Colts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Tell us how trading Luck will help the Colts win a super bowl.

 

Bucky explains it pretty well on the link.  6 First or Second rounders...fill a lot of holes.

 

That's not to suggest he is a bust or a colossal underachiever, but Luck definitely hasn't played to the narrative that's been attached to his name. He is a sub-60-percent passer with a penchant for turnovers. Say what you want about me being harsh, but the numbers don't lie.

In his NFL career, Luck sports a 59.2 percent completion rate, a 132:68 touchdown-to-interception ratio and an 87.3 passer rating. Those numbers aren't awful, but they're on par with a group of QBs that might surprise you, given all the hype Luck has received ...

Andy Dalton: 62.9 percent completion rate, 149:87 TD-to-INT ratio, 89.0 passer rating, 58-38-2 record.

Alex Smith: 62.3 percent completion rate; 172:91 TD-to-INT ratio, 87.1 passer rating, 84-58-1 record.

Sam Bradford: 62.5 percent completion rate; 101:57 TD-to-INT ratio, 85.1 passer, 34-45-1 record.

Now, I'm not saying those guys are comparable as pure football specimens, but their collective production puts them in the same class. Thus, you could make a reasonable argument that Luck is merely a top-15 quarterback at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.