husker61
-
Posts
1,544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by husker61
-
-
I do want to respond to your Polian sentiments however.
And I'd also say that if Manning had played this year I am 100% confident that we would have won 10-13 games and be talking about the playoffs right now, instead of Polians supposed failures. There'd be a lot less grumpy people out there. I'll also add that perhaps the Colts biggest problem in recent years has been an unusually high percentage of injuries. If anyone can prove that that is the fault of the GMs philosophy, than these arguments would have more credance - but that's impossible to do. To make a long story short (a little late I'll admit), it's highly unusual for a GM to last 14 years, and Polian is getting old, and he's an ornery SOB who rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I have NO problem with the team changing directions. However to trivialize what he has done for this franchise makes no sense to me what-so-ever. Do you think that Irsay was lying when he spoke of this topic today, called him a hall-of-famer, assured him a place in the ring of honor, and mentioned hugs and tears? He was named NFL exexecutive of the year SIX times for crying out loud. 20/20 hindsite is a wonderful thing, but I question the necessity after one of the most successful periods by any team in the history of the league. As much as I'm looking foward to the future, he will be missed.
very wall said, and i completely agree with your other responses also!
-
maybe irsay didn't want polians son and pop didn't want to fire him.
-
he is the best gm the colts have ever had and one of the best in the history of the nfl.
-
polian is one of if not the best gm in the nfl. i didn't like him pushing his son in the gm position. could this have been a reason for him being fired (maybe a if he goes i go scenario)? it just seems very strange that you fire a great gm that has done nothing but win where ever he has been.
i have been a colts fan for a long time and i have seen what happens when the owner thinks he knows more than the football people. i would taay with a proven winner. hopefully irsay will hire another polian.
-
go to the nfl network.
-
husker
manning cant show you he's recoverd from neck surgery until he takes a hit..
That wont be until August
from all i have heard, the bone fusion isn't the main concern. the nerve regeneration is the part of greatest concern. therefore i don't think taking hits will be that much of a issue. if he has feeling back, i don't think there will be a problem with him playing.
-
this years leading individual tackling statistics show a big increase in the number of assists from the past years. has the criteria changed? i think this is a very subjective stat and don't give it a lot of weight. the individual ratios of solo tackles to assists is so much different this year. the team ratios are about the same as other years. could some teams be padding some players stats? it's a very interesting question and am wondering what other peoples thoughts were.
-
Pat's my vote. He's the ideal MLB. He's a great tackler and he's a big, strong guy.
In my opinion, Gary Brackett fits the weakside linebacker position better than most people in the NFL. He's a small quick great tackler who is very good in coverage. That's the ideal WLB.
bracket is one inch shorter and the same weight as angerer! how can one be big and the other small? neither is big by any nfl standards.
-
I can read I disagree with your point which is what I keep trying to say. So you jumped all over me for assuming that you were saying the Colts should trade the pick if Manning is Healthy yet you just showed me a quote where you just said that...I am missing how I assumed wrong. Like I've said now for a third time I never assumed you didn't want Luck if Manning wasn't healthy just because I don't think anyone is thinking that. Everyone seems to be onboard with take Luck if Manning isn't healthy.
I think you take Luck even with a healthy Peyton Manning, it sets you up for the next 15 years and I don't think we are going to be in poistion to get another QB of Luck's talent in the Manning era. So rather than having to trade the future to get another QB down the road I say we do it now while we have the pick to do it. It doesn't hurt either that the QB there is supposed to be the next great thing and I am sorry I don't see "he could be a bust" as a good arguement for not taking him because you can say that about any draft pick. I also don't think it's a good argument to say we can Trade Luck and then trade the picks we got for that to get a QB next year who isn't supposed to be as good as the QB on the board this year. Beyond that there are several flaws with that plan what if Luck gets hurt or has a bad senior year? Add that to everything else I made about that case before.
Is their value to trading the pick? Sure there is but like I said with Peyton Manning before hand just because you get more picks doesn't mean those picks are going to equal the value of the player you traded away to get them. If Luck is as good as advertised we are going to kick ourselves for his whole career for not taking him. Like someone else said when they say the guy is suppsoed to be as good as Manning that's not someone you pass on. This dude has been the hands down first pick for two years now and has been fine combed to death and experts aren't even questioning that he's going to be the top pick. Very rarely are guys that the media is THAT sure of busts. Again is there a chance he could be a bust? yes but it's seems to be less of a chance than any other player in the draft based on what the people who eat, breath, live this stuff are saying.
Add to that what our owner has been saying and our GM has been saying I think the handwritting is on the wall. Manning sound liked he wouldn't be thrilled with the pick today in his interview but he would do what the team wants to do and pointed out himself he's under contract to the Colts and it's not his call. Luck said in an interview earlier this year he could learn from a Vet QB. Putting all the peaces together it sounds like the Colts are going to take Luck regardless of Manning's health.
those are all fair points and i don't have a problem with you having your opinion. the problem i had was when you said " you following into the finding any excuse to not take Luck trap". i could say the same to you, that you are following into the finding any excuse to take luck trap. i don't think that would be fair for me to say. you can debate things without throwing everyone that doesn't agree with your opinion into the same boat. people could say someone is finding any excuse to like or dislike addai, angerer, polian, etc, is that a good way to debate a topic?
"you following into the finding any excuse to not take Luck trap" just isn't true because i did say i could see a scenario that the colts would draft luck. you just dismissed it.
-
he won in 09? for what?
being 14-2 and going to the super bowl may have something to do with it.
-
if he can play, the value is to trade the pick.
I just told you no that wasn't my assumption and told you why because I don't think anyone is going to question if we should take Luck if Manning can't come back that isn't the debate so I didn't factor it in, the debate is should we take Luck if Manning DOES come back, that's where I was speaking from I've now told you that twice so time to let it go and focus on the part you are ignoring which was the first post you made about how we can use the picks we would get from trading Luck this year to go up and get Barkley next year we want too. That's a flawed theory as I have laid out for you above, it's a very uncontroled situation for the Colts, if they want a QB it makes more sense to take Luck this year when they have the pick.
can't you read?
what is so hard about understanding "if he can play, the value is to trade the pick". you don't take luck!
-
What's the "discount rate" for waiting a year on the pick?
one round. a 1st next year would be valued like a 2nd this year.
-
To back up Manning....in case Peyton's health problems continue///
He's better than Danny O, agreed?
if i am trading the top pick, manning has shown that he is healthy.
-
i have said before, if manning can't play you draft luck (you are completely wrong on your assumption). but if he can play, the value is to trade the pick.
Sounds like you are more intrested in playing who assumed what than you are in dealing with the point of thinking we can just get Barkley next year if we pass on Luck is a flawed theory. I will ask you if Manning is healthy next year are you against taking Luck? Then there will be no assuming. I don't think there is one person in the world (unless you just really hate Luck) that would say if Manning isn't healthy next year we shouldn't take Luck. So I don't see where that is an issue. The issue how do you feel if Manning IS healthy. You seem to be against taking Luck then and I disagree with that but like I said I am asking you so there will be no more assuming on that part.
What if Luck is the next Peyton Manning and we pass on him? You going to tell me in about 8 years when Manning is retired and Luck is in the prime of his career you wouldn't be upset we passed on him just because we had Peyton Manning on the roster? If the Colts honestly think Luck is going to be the next Manning they take him regardless of what is going on with Peyton just like they have pretty much said they will do.
i already answered your question in the above post.
your assumption was that i was against taking luck no matter what, and that's not true.
i won't be upset at all! if manning is healthy he will play a minimum of 4 more years.
-
Jim Irsay has made it pretty clear what he wants and he owns the team so if he tells Polian that's what he wants that's what is going to happen.
if this is true then it is going to be a long time before the colts are a winning team again.
he hired polian to make personnel decisions, and i don't see that changing.
-
At the most, he will sit for the length of Manning's contract. Peyton is the greatest competitor this game has ever seen; if you knew anything about this surgery, coupled with his current progress, you'd know that he will likely be better in 2012 than he was at any point during the last 3 years. He also won't be stepping aside for Luck if he's still playing at a high level. Manning is not satisfied with anything less than Super Bowls, so he'll play as long as he feels he can achieve that.
Luck will be benched for 4 years, or (rightfully) traded before he has to worry about that.
i completely agree!
-
How am I am completely wrong abuot my assumption? I didn't assume anything. I just responded to what you said about being able to trade the picks next year for Barkley if we want to and pointed out that why do that when you can just take Luck who is suppsoed to be the better player? Also we might not be able to trade for Barkley. Let's say Manning comes back and we have a good season and end up with say a late 20's to early 30's pick. Let's say the team we trade with get's Luck and he has an Andy Dalton type rookie season and leads that team to the playoffs so we now have an early 20's pick and an late 20's pick. If Barkley is the first overall pick or a top five pick it's going to cost more than that to go up and get him. Also if it's a team that needs a QB like say Miami they aren't going to trade the picks. So there seems to be a major assumption on your part to think we can just go get Barkley next year if we trade Luck.
no big deal, if manning is healthy we can put off looking for a qb another year or two. what if luck is a bust? you never know.
you assumed that i didn't want luck and was looking for an excuse to not take him " you following into the finding any excuse to not take Luck trap".
-
Let me try again...my assumpitions was..that we'd be drafting 2nd
Now they we are drafting 1, not 2..
To get OUR No.1 overall..
Cleveland needs to give us their two No.1s....their No. 2
..and Colt McCoy to back up Manning..
If they want Andrew Luck..they dont need McCoy..and they'd still have their no.1 next season..
why would we want colt mccoy??
-
Who might not be as good Luck and means we have to sit threw a year probably very close to what we went threw. Why not just take Luck? Again like someone said in this thread you following into the finding any excuse to not take Luck trap.
i have said before, if manning can't play you draft luck (you are completely wrong on your assumption). but if he can play, the value is to trade the pick. barkley will be coming out next year, and he was being compared to luck. maybe there is a better qb coming out after that. the colts are in a position to help the franchise for a long time if manning is healthy.
assuming why someone posts something makes you look bad or just desperate to prove your point of view.
-
The last time we traded John Elway for 3 first round draft picks bad move. You do not trade the chance to get a franchise QB who will be there until maybe 2030.
they swapped 1st round picks and the colts got qb mark herman and the broncos 1st the next year. that's two 1st's and a bad qb.
-
Since we pick 1st, it actually makes more sense to say we are taking Andrew Luck because it will increase his draft value. Other teams were already hyped on Luck as it is. Now you have the Colts saying they'll take him 1st. That raises his draft value, forcing other teams to put more on the table if they want to trade up.
At this point, nobody can do anything. If we say we want Andrew Luck, then we've got Andrew Luck. Watch for the Colts to use that ammo to their advantage to scare teams into trading more.
exactly. the gm isn't telling the truth like i said.
-
Exactly. People look at trading the pick and go oh we are going to get so many picks and that's true but most of them probably wont be in this draft. Let's say we get three first rounds and a couple of second rounders for the pick which would be a real haul for it. Well we are going to trade this year's first and get a first this year back and maybe a second rounder this year that's only a net one pick in this draft. Most of those picks will be down the road which if you are trying to rebuild the team with an aging QB wont help much. Also just having more picks doesn't mean that value is going to be greater than Luck. Let's just say we traded Peyton Manning rather than taking him with the first pick how many picks would you need to make up the value he has had to this team? If Luck is as good as advertised all the extra picks may not equal the value of Luck.
having extra picks next year gives the colts ammunition to trade up for the top qb next year of manning isn't healthy. you would be keeping all your options open. if manning can play next year, you have to trade the pick!
-
It's not the GM playing his had it's the owner. Jim Irsay has made no secret that he wants Luck and Manning. Polian has been more coy about it but has hinted that taking a QB was a possiablity but is quick to point out they aren't sure what is going to happen this off-season due to Manning's health and needs at other poistions like you would expect the GM to be. Jim Irsay has been the one pretty much saying we want the young QB and yes Jim Irsay strikes me as the kind of guy who would play his hand before the draft.
thankfully the owner doesn't make the personnel decisions any more like he used to, i saw how that went years ago. he has the final say, but he realizes that polian knows better than he does what it takes to win.
-
Maybe you went a little overboard....
Maybe you cant take the extra second to correct your mistakes and not look like a 9 year old when you type? Its not that hard dude....
this isn't a english forum. i could care less about that stuff.
The Future of Caldwell and the Polians [Mega-merge]
in Colts Football
Posted
we must be about the same age. i remember all that. change is tough, but when it works out it's all good!