Restored
-
Posts
2,874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Restored
-
-
Mate what in the world are you talking about? im telling you there is no player that would rather sit on the bench and learn than go out there and start and play!! and if there is such a player he doesnt have that competitive spirit that you would want in a player... Just a few games under your belt is worth a lifetime of what knowledge peyton can give the kid... its better to learn from your mistakes.
Are you really telling me that the guy would rather come to Indy and wait 3yrs to play WITH no practice reps and learn under peyton? if you think that then you have another thing coming. No player and i mean no player wants to be on the bench watching his team mates play.
I'm not saying he wouldn't want to go out and play. That spirit exists in every competitve player in every sport. But the fact is he would be sitting behind Peyton for 2-3 years and I am in agreement with the notion that he wouldn't have a problem with this. It would be the equivialent of him going to Grad school. I really don't think he would learn more in 2 games than Peyton would tell him in those 2-3 years but keep believing that. I'm assuming your believe in "learning from your mistakes" is self-evident instead of actually knowing what the deal is and not making the mistake in the first place.
Also at this point, its safe to say that the coaching staff would begin to give him reps along with possible playing time in pre-season and regular season games. The Polians in the past have drafted backup QB's because they knew Peyton was the guy. Now that we are in the twylight years of Peyton Maning its safe to say they are starting to look for his replacement as they have stated that this is the ideal now.
-
Lol ask one player if he would rather sit behind a HOF QB or play and see what all of them say.... theyd say they wanna play. Just like Collins not wanting to come to the colts without a gurantee of playing Luck will NOT want to sit behind peyton.... lets be rational here, would you? i know i wouldnt. Now if the colts do draft him do i think he will ask to be traded? no i dont think so but i can guarantee you he would rather start than be holding a clipboard being peytons tape buddy.
I dont follow Luck so i cant comment on why he stayed another year but there have been quite a few players who have done the same thing.
You are trying to compare a 17 year old veteran who was writing songs in Tennessee barely a week before he was signed compared to a QB who isn't in the league yet. There is a BIG difference between the two but I'll leave it at that to spare you the embarassment. Also, ask QB's such as Matt Ryan or Matt Stafford and I'm willing to bet that both of them would of traded a few years of playing to gain irreplaceable knowledge that would come from learning from the best.
I followed Luck as did others and this was the main agreeing point as to why he stayed. Why else would he have stayed?
-
This part I agree with. A lot of people keep saying Caldwell gets a pass because Manning isn't playing. If the Colts were suffering only from inept QB play then this would be a fair argument. However if anything, we have seen that QB play is not the primary reason for us having 0 wins. There have been deficiencies in several aspects on both offense and defense. Painter however has been playing well enough to win games. The fact that the team has played competitively in spurts but not enough to put a whole game together and pull out a win goes directly on the shoulders of the coach. If he can turn things around even a little bit and pull out 3-5 wins then fine, give him another year. However if the Colts go 0-16 or even 1-15 then he should be fired, imo. I want to see Coyer replaced regardless of final record.
Surprisingly, I agree with you pretty much across the board on this one Jason lol.
-
That the thing who says Luck wants that, with the hype he has... why? a guy like Luck could have instant success so why would he want to sit behind peyton.
Ok and who says he doesn't? You make a point without addressing the other side of the arguement. Don't go off the "assumption" about every player wanting to come in and play from day 1 because they'res just as many players who would take the chance to learn from a HOF QB than those that wouldnt. Because while every player has a competitive edge, there are those that are smart and realize that being humble and learning for a few years can possibly help make you go from good to great. Luck has made himself to be that player.
One other thing, if he wanted instant success, couldn't of he come out last year? The general consenus was that he would of been the #1 pick and been taken over Cam Newton. But he chose not to because he understood that in waiting a year, it would allow him to grow as a person and player and thus come out a little more prepared. A player with that attitude to me shows that he wouldn't mind sitting a few extra years and go to Grad school essentially to learn from one of the best to ever do it.
-
Take out that HOF QB and what do you have? an 0-6 season... the colts arent prepared for the times without manning, and its obvious.
You talk like Luck would be playing this year. In the 3-4 years Luck would be learning, this team can re-tool and have a good team to surround the incoming QB. A new coaching staff is the first thing thats needed however but thats for another thread.
-
Luck wouldn't pull a John Elway. The main reason Elway didn't want to go to Indy in the first place was because they had the label of losing since Unitas retired. Today is a completely different situation. The Colts are a winning-organization with a HOF QB that any other QB coming in the league would be foaming at the mouth over to learn from.
-
Completely ridiculous.
1) Manning's Int - Wayne's poor route
2) Freeney's ankle
3) Garcon's drop
4) Baskett not securing the kick
Those are all components of player execution and not anything having to do with Caldwell. The PLAYERS make those plays and you are talking about a Super Bowl winning coach.
Right and like the PLAYERS didn't make plays to get them to the Super Bowl in the first place right? Oh but you'd come back and say they got to the SB because of good coaching and not the players right? LOL. Hank Baskett being on the team in the first place sounds like a coaching choice to me since hes the one who decided if Baskett would be playing. The Manning-Wayne play, who made the play call? Manning? If so, I understand how good he is but last time I checked the Offensive Coordinator is suppose to be the one making the general play call so once again thats coaching. Freeney's ankle and Garcon's drop I'll give you but nothing else.
Look if we were atleast close to .500 or even had a 1-2 wins I'd say you could give Caldwell some credit for holding this team together in the absence of Peyton but that clearly isn't the case.
-
Given I am not a head coach or haven't played the game or don't have insider information I can't. But this idea that he is a bad coach is a joke. This idea that it's all Peyton is a joke. If it's all Peyton then he gets all the blame for coming up very SMALL. throughout his career. I mean who has choked more in his career...Peyton or Caldwell? I mean heck, Peyton came up small in both SB and yet he is da man?
So if its not all Peyton yet its not all Caldwell? You sound worse than a politician. Its not all Peyton and it never has been. The only playoff loss IMO you can pin most of the blame on Peyton was the 2003 AFC Championship game up in NE where he threw 4 INT's. Other than that, its been mostly bad plays on both sides of the ball. Peyton came up small in the SB? Um, he directed a good number of long drives in that SB in horrible weather and threw a TD pass that helped us win. The Saints SB wasn't really Peyton either but go ahead and believe what you want. Caldwell hasn't done anything to prove he is a good HC. The fact is he took over a already well-built team and can't win a single game without the starting QB.
-
So having a winning record, 2 division titles in 2 full seasons, a SB appearance is nothing? Wow...
When you have possibly the greatest QB of all-time, that is to be the expecatation. Great coaches lead teams to championships. In 09', the Colts had argueably one of the most talented teams in the Manning era and still didn't win the SB in part to some questionable coaching calls in the SB.
-
I think you have to consider it if we fall to 0-9 which is entirely possible. I don't care what team you play for or the loyality lines that exist. 0-9 is inexcusable. Peyton is good but geez this team can't win a stinking game without him thus far. Something has gotta changed.
-
What the colts need is a good coach no matter if he specialize in offense or defense... isnt caldwell an offensive head coach? i recall him being peytons QB's coach... anyway jim could bring in his own staff to fix the defense. When peyton gets back the offense wont be so balanced either, i think the colts need a coach that would enforce that no matter who the QB is.
Which is exactly why we don't need Caldwell around. I'd say put Jim Tressel at OC to help give Peyton some new ideas on how to do things since it looks like Christensen is just merely doing what Peyton tells him to do. Bring Fisher in to help with this defense and be the enforcer that this team needs.
-
Hey, here is a fresh thread with a really new idea of Jeff Fisher as a potential coach.
I know people have a dislike of Caldwell, but the entire premise that "Titans clearly weren't the better team yet he took risks that gave his team atleast a shot, something Caldwell would never do" is a comically uninformed idea.
Your sarcasm is unapperciated. You missed my point that Caldwell doesn't take risks like Fisher does and doesn't fit as a head coach. ie. Jets timeout, calls in the SB loss.
-
I agree. I don't think he should/would get fired mid-season but there will def be a choice at the end of this year.
-
Jim Caldwell is not getting fired after 1 bad year missing his franchise QB. The Colts don't change coaches unless they have 2 or 3 straight bad seasons. This would be Caldwell's first, and like i said he's missing the QB. Jeff Fisher is a good guy, but he should have done more with that franchise in the later years of his coaching stint. Good guy, okay coach... like Andy Reid, don't want him.
One bad year? If we end up at 0-9 which is entirely possible based on the schedule and how poorly this team has played, there isn't a coach in this league that would keep his job unless he coached the Lions, especially in this market. Last year Manning covered up again for all the injuries and this year when he hasn't been around, its been exposed how bad this team is without him. Caldwell is also under questioning for if he actually decides who plays. I realize our franchise is heavily dependent on the QB but geez we should be able to put together a couple of wins against teams we clearly are more talented than. How can you say that? As of 2008 he lead them to the top record in the AFC with Kerry Collins at QB.
-
I have been impressed with his #'s. But I saw this back in traning camp and thought he should of got the nod over Kerry. The problem is he isn't spectacular which is what Peyton was and the reason why we won so many games for so many years.
-
I'm interested to see what are some peoples thoughts on Jeff Fisher as a possiblity. He has made it known that he still wishes to coach and I believe Indy would be a great fit.
-He has knowledge of our division and knows what it takes to beat each team which could only help us.
-Not that it is says a whole lot but he was spotted wearing a Peyton Manning jersey at a press conference which to me shows he has a certain level of respect for Peyton and this team.
-He is a actual head coach that makes choices on personnel and takes risks. I remember when we played them a few years back he attempted all those onside kicks because he knew the Titans clearly weren't the better team yet he took risks that gave his team atleast a shot, something Caldwell would never do.
-He's firey, something different than we've seen in years past. Maybe that defense needs a match lit under their ___ to actually go out and do something.
Thoughts?
-
-
Incidentally
Standford is currently averaging 5.1 yards per carry and over 190 yards per game.
Okay and they are ranked 45th in the country which means 44 other teams rank higher in rushing. Some of those teams include top QB prospects that others have mentioned that have better rushing stats including your yards per carry average you threw out there. lol.
-
before I even read any further, I admit that I made a mistake, it was Anthony Gonzalez, not Donald Brown. However, the Colts DID have a 1st round pick in '07 and it was Gonzo with the #32 pick. Ugoh was taken, same year, with the #42 pick. And no, Tarik Glenn did not announce retirement before the draft:
http://www.usatoday....nn-retire_N.htm
http://tribstar.com/...nces-retirement
http://tribstar.com/...nces-retirement
These are all dated 7/27/07....the draft was held April 28 and April 29, 2007.
Yeah, I'm done with you too.
Lol so really BOTH players turned out to be busts in the same draft so you really aren't proving anything in terms of this front office not making mistakes. I stand corrected on the 1st round draft pick but really it helped your cause more than mine lol.
Oh and by the way, Polian did say they drafted him to be Glenn's replacement. The only stipulation was that he wasn't prepared for him to play as soon as he did because of Glenn's sudden retirement. So more or less we were both right and wrong on that.
-
this is multiple posts in a row where you're either misreading what I've said or you're twisting my words:
I said:
.
You replied:
I specifically said, if they knew they were going to need a day 1 starter that I think they would have traded up IN THE FIRST ROUND instead of IN THE SECOND. In other words, instead of drafting Donald Brown, I think they would have tried to work a deal to move up to the earlier part of the first round to take one of the top first round OT's. Instead, they drafted Donald Brown and then moved up from the bottom of the second round to the earlier part of the round so they could take Ugoh...which was still a second round pick. I know they spent the following year's 1st round pick, but they spent that pick to move up in the second round for Ugoh.
Glenn retired before the draft so they clearly knew they needed a player to replace him. They also didn't have a first round draft pick in 2007 so their only option was to trade down in the 2nd. Do your research. The words came out of Polians mouth stating he was Glenn's replacement, not my words. Donald Brown and Ugoh were not taken in the same draft either lol so please do your research.
The players I've been talking about and referring to on my mock are all players that have just as much potential and talent to become IMPACT GAME CHANGING PLAYERS, as you put it.
I understand but you seem to not see that these players as well as Luck could just as easily not work out even though Luck is projected at a way higher value than any of these players you listed.
If you really would like to know some of the questions I have about Luck, then read through the earlier pages of this thread and the other Luck threads. I went into much more detail, but the general question I have is in regards to how much of his success is due to his talent, intelligence, ability compared to how much is due to the system he plays in and the team he has around him.
A quarterback's ablity to read a defense, change the play and ablity to roll out of the pocket and avoid pressure has nothing to do with the system. The system more or less could dictate the type of plays that are called such as having more 3 step drops or more shotgun passes but at the end of the day, its up to the player to make all the reads and throws. If he isn't able to do so, it doesn't matter what the system is. He does have talented recievers and O Linemen but so do other QB's in college with some of those teams having way more potent running games, something standford doesn't exactly have. So when that is taken from the equation you look at the QB's traits and skills and Luck has proven himself thus far to be the top player.
You've completely contradicted yourself. You've used the Falcons example to speak against my comparison of Walker in saying they gave away 3-4 players for a guy who isn't going to be playing in Julio Jones, but then you completely contradict this in saying we should take Luck instead of 3-4 other players. You asked me so that's what I did.
No I didn't. I used a cross-example to show that trading multiple picks for players or players for multiple picks doesn't always work. My point here being that no trades should be done with the #1 overall pick because its not guranteed to play out. We'll have the top overall pick in rounds 2-7
How does Luck give us an immediate impact game changer to have for the rest of the Manning era? I agree that we need players that have the best opportunity to make an immediate impact and that's why I've targeted the players on my mock draft because I feel they give us the best chance to acquire those immediate impact game changers. Drafting Luck gives us zero chance of getting an immediate impact player to use for the rest of the Manning era.
I never said he'd have an immediate impact but in 2-4 years when Manning retires he would have obviously have an impact, which ironically is around the same time your players you say we should draft DOWN THE ROAD IN 2-3 YEARS by trading the pick anyway would have an impact or atleast step on the field. So whats the difference?
My point was to disprove the fact that the FO has made as many bad choices as you claim. Yes Gonzo was a bust but it wasn't because picking him was a poor decision, it was because he couldn't stay healthy. If he had a history of injury in college then that would have made it a bad pick by the FO because they would have been taking a player with known durability issues. That, however, was not the case.
..Which turned out be to a poor choice because he didn't play? Thats still no excuse. What about your answer for Ugoh, and all the other players I listed? I understand every owner makes a bad choice but there have been plenty of mistakes by this organization over the years, especially in NOT taking players that clearly turned out to be a better choice.
How was I wrong? I said essentially the exact same thing? He was brought in to be the third pass rusher, in other words to play behind Mathis and Freeney. However, after bringing in Anderson and Brayton, even Freeney and Mathis are getting less playing time. Therefore if Freeney and Mathis are getting less playing time then of course Hughes is going to get less as well. So yes, Hughes was brought in to spell Freeny and Mathis during drives, but that's now what Anderson and Brayton are doing by being brought in on running downs. Therefore they take a lot of the playing time that Hughes otherwise would have gotten.
No no no. Hughes was brought in as a pass rusher that was meant to give Freeney and Mathis breathers on PASSING downs. Not RUNNING downs where Anderson and Brayton are being put in anyway. He had significant playing time in pre-season and aside from one play against Cincy where the 2nd and 3rd stringers were in, he hasn't shown anything other than his ablity to run himself out of plays. If he can't do anything against 2nd and 3rd stringers, what makes you believe he can be good against starters?
Multiple posts in a row you've either failed to read what I wrote or intentionally twisted what I wrote. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that it's the former and not the latter.
-
Again, you're completely twisting my words.
Tell me the last time a player was so ridiculously that a team was able to trade down and make the type of deals I described? The closest situation I can think of would be the "great train robbery" deal when the Cowboys traded Hershel Walker. That, if memory serves, worked out pretty well.
Yes but look at what happened this year with the Falcons. They traded numerous picks to get one player and now look, Julio Jones isn't even playing this coming week. You are pointing out one situation in the history of the NFL where all of these players turned out to be good players for the team that got them. To me, the percentages would favor taking Luck who on consensus is projected to be great than 3-4 players who may or not be impactful.
Just as there's no guarantee that Luck will not bust. It's not likely but it's a possibility. The players I suggested are ones I've been scouting for a while and ones I have chosen because I think they would be able to make an easier transition than many other players at the same positions and of the most highly ranked players at their respective positions I believe them to be the best fits for our team/system/scheme.
You sound no different than the experts saying that Luck is a great QB that could be a potential HOF player. Your basing your projections the same way all other scouts do; which is fine but it doesn't give it any more merit than those that would say the opposite.
Where are you coming up with the 4-5 years figure? How many of our current players who are starters and who are making a huge impact are players that have been here 4-5 years or longer? Conversely, how many are first or second year players? From this past draft alone, 3 of the 5 draft selections were either starting from day one (Castonzo) or getting solid playing time in the rotation (Nevis, Carter) and the majority expect Nevis to become the full time starter by year's end if his injury isn't too serious. So out of 5 draft picks which we selected by drafting at the end of the round, we wound up with one day 1 starter and 2 guys who rose to #2 on the depth chart at their position and have been solid contributors. So why is it so unreasonable to think that if we double the number of picks we had, especially with the majority of the additional picks coming in the higher rounds (2-4)?
Prior to this year: Wayne, Mathis, Freeney, Brackett (Pre-injury), Manning (pre-injury), Garcon (This is his 5th year as a pro but techincally his 6th as he was a practice squad player), Addai, Saturday. My point here is that all of these players you listed are contributors but we've had contributors come from every draft in every round in the past. We need IMPACT GAME CHANGING PLAYERS, not more rotation players. And if we draft those game changing players, they still take time to develop which we don't have a whole lot left in the Manning era.
Believe what you want, but I've never listened to Polian give any kind of explanation about Ugoh. In fact, I don't think I've ever listened to him say anything about anyone. I don't watch the Polian show or any other Indy-based TV or Radio programs. Unless Polian speaks on Sportcenter, Monday NFL Countdown or NFL prime time then I'm not likely to hear it because those are the only shows I watch and I don't even watch them on a regular basis. IMO though, the proof is in the 2011 draft. They needed a day 1 starter at OT so they took Castonzo in the first round. They also needed an OT to start by the second year so they took a calculated risk with Ijalana in the second round. If they knew they were going to need a day 1 starter in the '07 draft I believe they would have traded up in the first round instead of the second. This is speculative and of course there's no way to proove one way or another.
Um, if you actually look we traded our 1st round pick in 08 to move up in the 2nd round to take Ugoh because of Tarik Glenn's retirement. Ugoh obviously didn't pan out as he was released and replaced in this years draft with Castanzo. So if he wasn't a bust then why was he released?
And again, the players I have selected in my mock draft are ones that I feel have the best chance of doing this. The only other way to get a number of players to make a significant impact by starting immediately is to go spend a crapload of money on FA's. Do you really expect the team to do that? I don't and that's why I feel that, for a team with a mantra of building through the draft, it makes perfect sense to take the opportunity to acquire as many additional picks as we can, both in the 2012 draft and whatever future picks we can get for 2013 and maybe even 2014.
You act like we can't get significantly good picks already with picking number 1 overall in every round. Heck we could trade our 2nd round pick and get more in the 3rd and 4th. My point is we don't have to get rid of #1 overall pick in which case we'd get picks for down the road for 2 years or so which would add more time into your equation of players becoming impactful.
Gonzalez is a bust because he has been injury plagued, which he was not in college. That cannot be predicted. Luck has as much of a chance of being that injury riddled as any other player in the draft. Due to sitting behind Mathis and Freeney as a pass rushing DE and the addition of Anderson and Brayton to play on running downs, Hughes has received very little playing time. He has looked improved in the playing time he's seen this year but without getting more playing time we don't really know what he can do. However, I have gone on record many times in saying that I disagreed with the drafting of both Brown and Hughes.
..Luck has just much of a chance of getting hurt his rookie year ss do the players you stated we should draft so what's your point here lol? Wrong, the point in drafting Huges was to put him in on passing downs to give Freeney or Mathis a breather during drives. Polian stated that himself as to why Hughes was taken. He could possibly be Mathis's replacement at the end of this year however I haven't been to impressed with him although he has shown talent at times.
1. Logic would dictate that the more picks we have, the better chance we have of getting players who will succeed, though I have no doubt you'll turn this around and say it only gives us a chance to draft that many more busts. That's your prerogative and that's fine. I disagree.
I do believe it would actually give us the chance to draft more busts because history has shown in recent years with this organization that this is the case ie. Ugoh, Gonzalez (While not entirely his fault this is how it is viewed because he simply hasn't produced when he was drafted to do so), Quinn Pitcock, Roy Hall, to name a past few as well. Luck meanwhile has a full consensus to be lock and for him to fail would be the biggest wrong call in the history of the league which I don't forsee happening considering there would have to be a huge drop in his already potent skill. Recent QB's that played in a QB-centered pro offense have had moderate success thus far as well (Matt Ryan).
2. You're assuming Luck will become Manning 2.0. This is no more a guarantee than it would be to say he will miss his entire rookie season due to injury. I don't believe Luck is anywhere near Manning. I'm sure he will be a very good or even great QB but I have several questions about him and that, primarily, is why I don't believe he is worth the #1 overall pick for us. I don't believe there is any one player that we should spend the #1 pick on.
Again the same could be applied to all of the players you listed above in terms of injury, all of which are unpredictable. You may feel that way but had Luck came out last year, he would of been taken #1 over Cam Newton. I'd like to see what questions you have about Luck other than "can he succeed at the pro level?" which is the same question for every freaking player in the draft so I don't see your point there.
Or, we do what we normally do each year but we get the added bonus of 2-4 (or more) additional picks in rounds 2-4 PLUS an additional first round pick in 2013 (which could be anywhere in the round depending on the success of the team we trade with) PLUS a possible additional first round pick in 2014 (some are already predicting Luck will cost a minimum of 3 first round picks plus additional mid-round picks) but even if the 2014 first round pick doesn't happen we would also get an additional early to mid round pick in 2013.
I like your idea on pick values but it has nothing to do with the fact that by 2014 Peyton could possibly be not playing. And again like I stated before, we wouldn't have to trade the pick to get more. We could trade our #2 or #3 round pick and get players as well.
If you would read the other posts I've made, you would see that I have never said I am anti-Luck. What I am is anti-using the #1 pick on any one player. If we trade down to the 3-5 spot and some how Luck falls and we draft him in picks 3-5 then fantastic. I'm not at all ready to crown him Peyton Manning 2.0, I do have some questions about him but I never said he wasn't the best QB in the draft. I've always said I don't believe he is lightyears ahead of the other top 2-4 QB's in the draft like so many make him out to be. To be honest, I kind of feel bad for the guy because as out of hand as the media hype is getting, it's going to get to the point that he can't live up to expectations but through no fault of his own, rather because expectations were set so ridiculously high that no rookie QB could meet them.
So instead of making him have to play to high rookie expectations, why don't you have him sit a few years and learn the system behind Peyton and let some of the high expecatations tapor off with him not playing? Rodgers no doubt would of had unrealistic expectations had he had to come in and start right off the bat but after sitting for years expectations for him fell of a little more which allowed him to fully exceed them.
-
Lordy lordy....no, I did NOT say to trade away the #1 pick "primarily for backup players". You either misunderstood or are trying to twist my words...i'm hoping for the former.
I said I fully believe we get (minimum) 2-3 starters and others who can contribute solidly from day one and groom into eventually starters either later throughout the season or by day 1 of year 2. Of the players on my Mock (look past the first post because I updated it further down the page), players like Manti Te'o LB, Stephon Gilmore CB, Mark Barron SS, and Kevin Zeitler OG are players I would expect to be day 1 starters. Josh Chapman could very well be a day 1 starter as well but if he doesn't prove by the start of the season that he is ready to supplant AJ then he at least gets a lot of playing time in rotation with AJ, much like Nevis has this year with Moala (prior to injuries). Just like Nevis, I would expect Chapman to be the starter by midway through the season his first season. TE Coby Fleener and WR Reuben Randle would very likely see significant playing time in year one and Fleener would likely pass Eldridge, but Randle most likely wouldn't move into a starters position until year 2..though he really isn't relevant to the conversation because I have him as a 5th round pick.
So no, I don't see how it looks like I'm hoping they fall into place for one run 2-3 years down the line. Many, in fact most, of these players would make a significant impact either from day one or midway through the first year (barring injuries of course).
I have a hard time considering Ugoh a bust because it was more due to unforseen circumstances at the time rather than it simply being a bad pick. See my post here if you'd like a more indepth explanation on Ugoh. http://forums.colts....ll-as-expected/
..Making an impact as a special teams player or defensive backup rotation players in a year or two, in which Peyton could or could not be playing. Please tell me of a recent team that drafted 2-4 players that stepped in year 1 and started and IMPACTED significantly. I understand drafting for the future but my point is we would need players that could either make an impact immediately in a STARTING position. Luck could be the exception to this because he would be a long term 10+ year option at the most important position on the team whereas some of these players you talk about could maybe play 4-5 years and even with that, there is no gurantee they will be as impactful as you claim.
By the way, you sould an awful lot like Polian in your explanation for Ugoh. The fact is he came in and had one decent season and proceeded to practically disappear after that.
-
http://forums.colts....012-mock-draft/
That's my mock and the type of players I'd like to bring in. I agree that every rookie needs some time to develop but even the ones who can't start right away should be able to contribute either in getting solid playing time in a backup role or on special teams. I do think we'd get 2-3 starters at least but several of the others would be solid contributors as backups. And actually, in the past year or 2 we've been seeing the younger guys get more playing time than we were used to under Dungy. Definitely part of this was due to injury but still, just look at guys like Wheeler, Conner, Nevis, Angerer, Collie, Castonzo, and Eldridge have just to name a few.
You're way underestimating what we expect we'd be able to get for the #1 pick. Some "experts" (wish I had a link but I don't at the moment...will add one later if I can find one) are predicting that the "Luck pick" could be worth 3 first round picks (the later 2012 pick as well as first round picks in 2013 and 2014) PLUS additional mid round picks. Remember, in order to get Julio Jones, Atlanta swapped 1st round picks last year, plus gave up the 2nd and 4th last year PLUS their 1st and 4th in 2012. There is no way I'd consider trading that #1 pick if we don't get at least one future first round pick as well. The whole deal would/should work out to adding 6-7 or more picks spread out between 2012, 2013 and maybe even 2014. None of us "trade down" folks are suggesting to let it go for only a couple extra 2012 picks. I am partially intrigued by the trade down option simply to find out exactly what some teams would be willing to give up to move up for him.
So you mean to tell me trade away our #1 pick on a possible great franchise QB for primarily backup players? The 2-3 players you say that could aren't any more of a solid to be a contributing starter any more than Luck. They could end up being another Ugoh for us. And once again, the players projected wouldn't have a full impact for another 2-3 years. In that sense, you are primairily hoping that we can have 1 amazing year where all these players fall into place and us to win a championship. While I applaud your fanminship, its not that realistic.
-
Very true and well thought out points all around.
One thing I would counter with is this...you're right, Manning and most other QB's don't statistically play at their ultimate level their first year and each year they do play they do improve. The same is true of Rodgers....his first year stats were somewhat mediocre but only compared to how he's playing now. Yes, he's playing better in his first year as full time starter than the other elite QB's, but he may have and probably would be at that same level by the 3rd year anyway had he been starting right away.There certainly is evidence for both sides, I agree with that as well. I also acknowledge that some of my posts may have come out as me exaggerating the point of NFL readiness, but if so it was only because of the posts I was responding to.
My personal opinion still however is that if Manning returns even for only 1 year then we can afford to pass on Luck. I think with even 1 year behind Peyton that either Landry Jones or Matt Barkley would be ready to take over because those things that make a QB NFL ready can be improved upon in that amount of time. In fact I would say the same about Nick Foles though even some of Foles' most staunch supporters may argue he would need at least 2, possibly 3 years. So my basic premise is that unless Peyton never returns, then we have the luxury of being able to look at the other intangibles of QB's such as Jones, Barkley, Foles, Tannehill, and Cousins (I'm not including Kellen Moore or RG3 because I'm not convinced that their overall skill sets will translate well to the NFL) and see which areas of their mechanics and what part of of the intangibles need to be addressed. If it's something simple like improving their footwork or their throwing motion then these are what I would consider very minor issues, but still are things that would keep them from being termed "NFL ready" at this point. So, while a few people may tell you differently, it's not that I'm opposed to drafting Andrew Luck nor that I have a problem with having an NFL ready QB sit behind Peyton for anywhere from 1-4 years. I just don't feel that we need to spend the #1 overall pick on a QB when we could trade down, even only 2-3 spots, and still get one of the top prospects in the draft but also acquire several picks in the process. So like many have said, it all comes down to Peyton's health come draft day and I've said this from the very beginning...though a few people may try to tell you differently.
Pretty much agree with all that you said except for the more draft picks part. Draft picks, like QB's as we've talked about, take time to develop and unless they are WR's or LB's, there is usually a window between 1-3 years that takes them to develop as well. Peyton may not play beyond 3 so we would essentially be drafting for the future anyway. So if thats the case, why not take the QB that many project to be a great QB in this league for years to come? Also, aquiring more picks=more money for players that could more or less take up just as much money. You don't think us drafting and signing a great DT in the top 10 would really cost us that much less than Luck? Nick Fairly's rookie contract was for 4 years-10 million which is about 2.5 million a year. That is a 2-3 million difference but that can be back-ended into the later years of Luck's rookie deal with incentives based around if he plays sooner than projected (Peyton retiring earlier than expected). Another option as well is giving Luck the 4-5 million per year in the form of 2-3mil coming in "bonuses" that doesnt count against the cap and his annual salary being 2mill which would actually count against the cap.
Don't Be Surprised To See Lacey Start
in Colts Football
Posted
I heard that Kevin Thomas, who has been inactive for quite sometime will be starting or atleast play a significant amount of min. on Sunday.
OT- Lacey blows.