Would you trade Andrew Luck for Aaron Rodgers or any other QB right now?

[amfootball]

that's because brady was a 6th round pick and therefore his rookie contract was next to nothing.  he didn't cash in until a few years later. 

 

 

none of them knew at the start of the season that he would miss the entire season.  And when was the last time you saw a player say "hey, I got hurt...here, take some of this money back" ?

 

 

1. you can assure no one of anything about how Elway feels

2. if that were the case, then why would Elway offer that contract to manning in the first place?

 

 

Somehow I'm less than surprised that the 2 of you have become bosom buddies. ;)

Hi there, Yes, you are right. The discusson stemmed from a poster suggesting that it was Irsay who wanted to pay Peyton all that money. My only point was that Peyton has made the most money of any football player in the history of the NFL. He has either been the highest paid or among the highest paid players his whole career. I am not saying he didn't deserve the money. Jshipp was hopeful that Luck would not sign those type of contracts and do what Brady just did or has done twice which is sign an undermarket value contract. I hope Luck does as well as I can only imagaine what the top salaries for QBs will be in three years. I think we have seen that huge contracts paid out to QBs puts the teams ability to field a champ team in jeopardy. That was the genesis of this. Then it spun out of control...

 

In terms of Elway he offered Peyton the 19 mil because that is what it took to sign him. If he thought he could have signed him for less, I am sure he would have as if anything Elway has proved to be a shrew business man. Now he owes him $40 mil guaranteed. Very risky IMO for an aging QB whose arm is still not 100 percent playing in a cold weather enviornment come playoff time.

[Tony Sullivan]

In terms of Elway he offered Peyton the 19 mil because that is what it took to sign him. If he thought he could have signed him for less, I am sure he would have as if anything Elway has proved to be a shrew business man. Now he owes him $40 mil guaranteed. Very risky IMO for an aging QB whose arm is still not 100 percent playing in a cold weather enviornment come playoff time.

Peyton was the best QB last season evidenced by the most MVP votes for a QB, and his arm was getting better and better as the season went on. Why would it be risky? The initial deal was risky, but that's why it had the opt-out ability before next year. Now it's just common sense.

[amfootball]

Peyton was the best QB last season evidenced by the most MVP votes for a QB, and his arm was getting better and better as the season went on. Why would it be risky? The initial deal was risky, but that's why it had the opt-out ability before next year. Now it's just common sense.

I would state that this is my opinion right up front. The Peyton Manning I saw was not the same player previous to the neck surgeries the entire season. Every game that I watched him play which were almost all of them as I have the NFL package, his balls did not have the same zip. Many fluttered or wobbled. I think what you saw as the season progressed was his receivers get better and get used to his Indy offense which is why things looked better as the season went along.

 

I agree about his MVP season but I think you also have to consider the schedule he played. When he played top teams he lost to all of them excpet for the Ravens late in the season who in turn then beat him in the playoffs.

 

I think the risk comes in when you have a player that is aging and still not 100 percent from the surgeries. Also, in the playoffs in the cold weather his arm seemed to bother him more especially late in the game. That is where the risk is as I think you would agree that you are not paying Manning to win league MVPs but rings.

[ruksak]

Why are y'all talkin about Peyton and Brady? 

 

AFK to wipe vomit from keyboard.

 

 

 

ON-TOPIC; I wouldn't trade Luck for any player in this league. I wouldn't trade him for 3 Aaron Rodgers'. If Aaron Rodgers was Siamese twins with Adrian Peterson, I would still keep Luck. If Aaron Rodgers and Adrian Peterson were Siamese twins and they could crap a 7 foot tall Barry Sanders, I would still keep Luck. 

[BrentMc11]

Why are y'all talkin about Peyton and Brady? 

 

AFK to wipe vomit from keyboard.

 

 

 

ON-TOPIC; I wouldn't trade Luck for any player in this league. I wouldn't trade him for 3 Aaron Rodgers'. If Aaron Rodgers was Siamese twins with Adrian Peterson, I would still keep Luck. If Aaron Rodgers and Adrian Peterson were Siamese twins and they could crap a 7 foot tall Barry Sanders, I would still keep Luck. 

I guess after that.....Luck is a keeper ruk  I am laughing out loud!  Ihope you are OK...

 

Cleanup...aisle 2 Hey Rodgers!!!  Cheese pizza sale

 

[Superman]

Thanks for the stats. Yeah I didn't think that Luck had better stats, but I thought they were compatible. Which they pretty much are aside from ball security. There's also the issue of rushing yards and TDs, but I'm sure both men were quite equal in that department as well.

 

Can you imagine how much more efficient our offense would have been if Luck had completed 63% of his passes and had a 1.8% interception rate?

 

Luck attempted 627 passes last season, with 329 completions, for 4,374 yards. Greater efficiency probably reduces those attempts by 100, and apply the 63% completion rate, and he still completes 322 passes (yes, seven fewer completions on 100 fewer attempts). Apply Luck's 12.9 yards/completion, and he still throws for 4,283 yards. Then apply the 1.8% interception rate, and he only throws 10 picks.

 

Ben's touchdown rate was 5.8%, vs. Luck's 3.7%. Bump Luck up to Ben's level there, and he throws 30 touchdowns. Our scoring probably goes up a good five points per game if Luck was as efficient as Ben was last year.

 

Luck was much better running with the ball, both by yards and touchdowns, but Ben I think made a concerted effort not to run last year. He was pretty banged up, missing three games. Luck also had a slightly lower sack rate, 6.1% vs. 6.3%.

 

Again, I'm not a Ben fan; I am a Luck fan. I'm just saying, let's not get carried away here. Luck wasn't better than Ben last year. Not statistically. And I think this is actually a great comparison, because the Steelers offensive line was just as bad as ours was.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RoetBe00.htm

[BrentMc11]

Can you imagine how much more efficient our offense would have been if Luck had completed 63% of his passes and had a 1.8% interception rate?

 

That, Superman is a scary thought!!!  Very nice post!

[smittywerb]

I said floor, not ceiling. At worse, he's Matt Ryan or Ben Roethlisberger. At worse.

 

And I'd still trade him for Aaron Rodgers, right now.

 

 

Sorry, you have to realize I get about 1-2 hours of sleep per night. lol

 

But if we're talking about RIGHT NOW for one year, then yeah, I would take A-Rod (lol).  But if we're talking about down the road or whatever, then I still have to keep AL.

[Superman]

Sorry, you have to realize I get about 1-2 hours of sleep per night. lol

 

But if we're talking about RIGHT NOW for one year, then yeah, I would take A-Rod (lol).  But if we're talking about down the road or whatever, then I still have to keep AL.

 

I guess I'd say it this way: I'd trade the potential of Luck's next 10+ years for the certainty of Rodgers next 5 years.

[smittywerb]

I guess I'd say it this way: I'd trade the potential of Luck's next 10+ years for the certainty of Rodgers next 5 years.

 

Debateable, but understandable. lol

[amfootball]

I guess I'd say it this way: I'd trade the potential of Luck's next 10+ years for the certainty of Rodgers next 5 years.

I would too in a heartbeat. Proven Qb vs. one that is still unknown and I love Luck but Rodgers is established.

[Superman]

Debateable, but understandable. lol

Very debateable.

[Tony Sullivan]

I think what you saw as the season progressed was his receivers get better and get used to his Indy offense which is why things looked better as the season went along.

I agree about his MVP season but I think you also have to consider the schedule he played. When he played top teams he lost to all of them excpet for the Ravens late in the season who in turn then beat him in the playoffs.

No, you just have you're anti-Manning cap on. Manning was definitely looking better at the end of the season. How his receivers run doesn't effect the velocity of the ball or whip of his arm.

Manning wk.1 vs Steelers

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap1000000060324/Week-1-Peyton-Manning-highlights

Manning playoffs Vs. Ravens

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap2000000126544/Manning-shows-velocity-on-throws

At the same time, Manning was never a Jay Cutler/Brett Favre type guy who whipped them in there, or threw spirals like Drew Brees. He's always thrown with a bit of a wobbler, but I really think those throws show he had a bit more zip at the end of the season.

So it's better to lose against teams like Arizona than only top teams? What's that say about NE's consistency? Broncos were 1-1 vs. the Champs last season in a game that needed a Broncos DB to forget how to cover a hail mary. Wasn't NE 0-2 and got handled by them?

[Superman]

No, you just have you're anti-Manning cap on. Manning was definitely looking better at the end of the season. How his receivers run doesn't effect the velocity of the ball or whip of his arm.

Manning wk.1 vs Steelers

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap1000000060324/Week-1-Peyton-Manning-highlights

Manning playoffs Vs. Ravens

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap2000000126544/Manning-shows-velocity-on-throws

At the same time, Manning was never a Jay Cutler/Brett Favre type guy who whipped them in there, or threw spirals like Drew Brees. He's always thrown with a bit of a wobbler, but I really think those throws show he had a bit more zip at the end of the season.

So it's better to lose against teams like Arizona than only top teams? What's that say about NE's consistency? Broncos were 1-1 vs. the Champs last season in a game that needed a Broncos DB to forget how to cover a hail mary. Wasn't NE 0-2 and got handled by them?

 

[PrincetonTiger]

No, No, No, No, No

[amfootball]

No, you just have you're anti-Manning cap on. Manning was definitely looking better at the end of the season. How his receivers run doesn't effect the velocity of the ball or whip of his arm.

Manning wk.1 vs Steelers

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap1000000060324/Week-1-Peyton-Manning-highlights

Manning playoffs Vs. Ravens

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/0ap2000000126544/Manning-shows-velocity-on-throws

At the same time, Manning was never a Jay Cutler/Brett Favre type guy who whipped them in there, or threw spirals like Drew Brees. He's always thrown with a bit of a wobbler, but I really think those throws show he had a bit more zip at the end of the season.

So it's better to lose against teams like Arizona than only top teams? What's that say about NE's consistency? Broncos were 1-1 vs. the Champs last season in a game that needed a Broncos DB to forget how to cover a hail mary. Wasn't NE 0-2 and got handled by them?

Like I said, that was my opinion. You can disagree. I have watched the guy since 1998 and he did not look the same to me throughout the season. Previously, he always threw spirals. I never saw the wobbly ducks that were routine this past season.

 

I am pretty sure it was Ed Reed after the playoff game that said they played Manning deep in the first half and when they realized he could not throw more than 20 yards they came way up in the second half and put pressure on him. I will try to find the quote.

 

Also, I forget which game it was when the Broncos had a chance to try to either tie or win the game on a Hail Mary and they pulled Manning and put in the rookie back up who apparently has a canon for an arm. I never remember Manning ever being pulled in that situation in all his days in Indy.

[amfootball]

Sorry, I was incorrect. It was the Falcons game and Manning never actually got pulled because the Broncos never got the ball back at the end when they were trailing 27-21. But had they gotten the ball back, they would have put Osweiler in, http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/19/if-they-need-a-hail-mary-broncos-will-turn-to-osweiler-over-manning/

[Dustin]

Sorry, I was incorrect. It was the Falcons game and Manning never actually got pulled because the Broncos never got the ball back at the end when they were trailing 27-21. But had they gotten the ball back, they would have put Osweiler in, http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/19/if-they-need-a-hail-mary-broncos-will-turn-to-osweiler-over-manning/

 

Well to be fair, Peyton never had the strongest arm and Brock Lobster has a absolute cannon. Not a knock against Peyton because he probably couldn't have thrown a pass 70+ yards even in his prime.

[Superman]

Sorry, I was incorrect. It was the Falcons game and Manning never actually got pulled because the Broncos never got the ball back at the end when they were trailing 27-21. But had they gotten the ball back, they would have put Osweiler in, http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/19/if-they-need-a-hail-mary-broncos-will-turn-to-osweiler-over-manning/

 

That was in September. Reports indicate that Manning's arm got stronger as the year went on, and the stats support that idea.

 

Manning looked pretty ragged in that Falcons game. A month later, he led the Broncos on a ridiculous comeback on the road in San Diego, looking sharper.

[amfootball]

That was in September. Reports indicate that Manning's arm got stronger as the year went on, and the stats support that idea.

 

Manning looked pretty ragged in that Falcons game. A month later, he led the Broncos on a ridiculous comeback on the road in San Diego, looking sharper.

Yet throughout the season Manning kept saying he was not healthy and not at 100 percent. He certainly did not look like junk by any means just not the same as before. I have not heard anything about how he is progressing this off-season but he looked pretty ragged in the ravens playoff game which is the last game he played.

[SilentHill]

How did this thread become about Manning?

 

ON a side note, I can see where the Rodgers side is coming from, It's logical and it makes sense on paper, but I equate it to walking away from a craps table when you're on a roll. I'm a gambling man, and if it were me I'd hedge my bet that Luck will turn out better than Rodgers, but if you want the guarantee you'd have to take Rodgers at this point in the game. I however, would never ever even consider trading Luck + more for Rodgers in any way shape or form, that just makes no sense at all.

[Superman]

Yet throughout the season Manning kept saying he was not healthy and not at 100 percent. He certainly did not look like junk by any means just not the same as before. I have not heard anything about how he is progressing this off-season but he looked pretty ragged in the ravens playoff game which is the last game he played.

 

I never said anything about him being 100%. I said he got better as the year went on. No?

 

By the way, it's possible that Manning's neck and arm had been bothering him for several years. He might not have been "100%" for a while. He wasn't 100% in 2008, but won MVP. I'm not worried about someone's subjective idea of whether a player is at 100% or not.

 

And it's highly comical that you'd suggest Manning looked ragged against the Ravens. He made a bad decision at the end of the game. But he also threw the go ahead touchdown in the fourth quarter. The game was over until the secondary blew the lead. Manning wasn't ragged at all. He wasn't in midseason form, but all this noise about cold weather and arm strength is a lot of noise. He was fine.

[amfootball]

I never said anything about him being 100%. I said he got better as the year went on. No?

 

By the way, it's possible that Manning's neck and arm had been bothering him for several years. He might not have been "100%" for a while. He wasn't 100% in 2008, but won MVP. I'm not worried about someone's subjective idea of whether a player is at 100% or not.

 

And it's highly comical that you'd suggest Manning looked ragged against the Ravens. He made a bad decision at the end of the game. But he also threw the go ahead touchdown in the fourth quarter. The game was over until the secondary blew the lead. Manning wasn't ragged at all. He wasn't in midseason form, but all this noise about cold weather and arm strength is a lot of noise. He was fine.

I will just leave it that I have a very different opinion from you on the way Manning looked throughout the season and in the playoff game.

[Superman]

How did this thread become about Manning?

 

ON a side note, I can see where the Rodgers side is coming from, It's logical and it makes sense on paper, but I equate it to walking away from a craps table when you're on a roll. I'm a gambling man, and if it were me I'd hedge my bet that Luck will turn out better than Rodgers, but if you want the guarantee you'd have to take Rodgers at this point in the game. I however, would never ever even consider trading Luck + more for Rodgers in any way shape or form, that just makes no sense at all.

 

Fair points.

 

But who is our second best player, do you think? I'm not really sure. I'd probably have to say Reggie, a receiver who will be 35 by Week 10. I love him, and I love that he stayed in Indy last year. He was a huge part of our success last season, but he's not going to be the key to our success moving forward. We could trade back to the top of the 2nd round and take Robert Woods, who is being projected as a Reggie Wayne clone. I think we'd have a better receiving corps than the Packers had last season, with more upside.

 

Let me not get too deep into this fantasy scenario. But I wouldn't have a problem with Luck+Reggie for Rodgers.

[Coltswarriors]

No.

 

Wouldn't trade him for anyone...

[Dustin]

Fair points.

But who is our second best player, do you think? I'm not really sure. I'd probably have to say Reggie, a receiver who will be 35 by Week 10. I love him, and I love that he stayed in Indy last year. He was a huge part of our success last season, but he's not going to be the key to our success moving forward. We could trade back to the top of the 2nd round and take Robert Woods, who is being projected as a Reggie Wayne clone. I think we'd have a better receiving corps than the Packers had last season, with more upside.

Let me not get too deep into this fantasy scenario. But I wouldn't have a problem with Luck+Reggie for Rodgers.

Going by age + potential than Allen is our 2nd best player. IMO.

[SilentHill]

Going by age + potential than Allen is our 2nd best player. IMO.

 

I'd say Vontae Davis, but, to each their own. lol

[Superman]

I will just leave it that I have a very different opinion from you on the way Manning looked throughout the season and in the playoff game.

 

Based on what? The stats don't support you. The games don't support you. You keep pushing this idea that Manning deteriorated over the course of the season and couldn't throw in the cold against the Ravens, and that's why they lost the game, and it's just not supported by what actually happened. Just look at the game log: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00/gamelog/2012/

 

 

Look at the numbers. Starting with the Oakland game, Manning went on a tear for basically the rest of the season. The only loss was against the Pats, and he looked fine in that one. He had the second best statistical season of his career, and all this while he was still building up his arm strength.

 

And even if the cold did affect him, that's not why he got picked off at the end. He got picked off because he broke a cardinal rule of quarterbacking.

[Dustin]

I'd say Vontae Davis, but, to each their own. lol

 

Meh, Vontae was good the last few games for sure. Allen was a beast all season though. Both receiving and blocking.

[SilentHill]

Fair points.

 

But who is our second best player, do you think? I'm not really sure. I'd probably have to say Reggie, a receiver who will be 35 by Week 10. I love him, and I love that he stayed in Indy last year. He was a huge part of our success last season, but he's not going to be the key to our success moving forward. We could trade back to the top of the 2nd round and take Robert Woods, who is being projected as a Reggie Wayne clone. I think we'd have a better receiving corps than the Packers had last season, with more upside.

 

Let me not get too deep into this fantasy scenario. But I wouldn't have a problem with Luck+Reggie for Rodgers.

 

Not that this would ever even come to a head, but I'd argue that getting 10 years of Luck for 5 years of Rodgers is like getting 2 players in itself. Unless the deal is Luck + Vaughn, then maybe...lol

[SilentHill]

Meh, Vontae was good the last few games for sure. Allen was a beast all season though. Both receiving and blocking.

 

True, he was very good, but I think just being a CB elevates Vontae to the #2 spot on my list, they both played great, but TE's can be had much cheaper and easier than a really good CB. Really good CB's are pretty rare in this league.

[Superman]

Going by age + potential than Allen is our 2nd best player. IMO.

 

 

I'd say Vontae Davis, but, to each their own. lol

 

I'd throw either in without a moment's hesitation. Both are very replaceable. Assuming you were on board with the premise of trading Luck for Rodgers, do you think you'd let a player like Allen or Davis stand in the way?

 

Like I said, Luck + any other player on the roster, or Luck + our entire draft class. I'd do it. Only impediment would be the cap, but we can work that out later.

[SilentHill]

I'd throw either in without a moment's hesitation. Both are very replaceable. Assuming you were on board with the premise of trading Luck for Rodgers, do you think you'd let a player like Allen or Davis stand in the way?

 

Like I said, Luck + any other player on the roster, or Luck + our entire draft class. I'd do it. Only impediment would be the cap, but we can work that out later.

 

Luck + all of our picks? Now you've gone too far. lol

[Dustin]

I'd throw either in without a moment's hesitation. Both are very replaceable. Assuming you were on board with the premise of trading Luck for Rodgers, do you think you'd let a player like Allen or Davis stand in the way?

 

Like I said, Luck + any other player on the roster, or Luck + our entire draft class. I'd do it. Only impediment would be the cap, but we can work that out later.

 

I'd trade all 3 for Rodgers. 

[Balzer40]

Wow, some of you guys are wanting to get back to the Polian way of building a team. A high priced QB and having to fill the rest of the team with less than mediocre talent. No way I would trade Luck for a soon to be 30 yr. old Rodgers and having to destroy the rest of the team to pay him. We have a good long while before we'll have to pay Luck big money and that allows us to build an actual good team around him. To be honest, I'm really flabbergasted that anybody would even consider such a deal considering all the yrs. we had to endure of having to pay Manning and a few others, then having no substantial team around them. No way in heck!!!

[Superman]

Luck + all of our picks? Now you've gone too far. lol

 

Look at what we've done in the offseason already. I think we've filled all but two or three needs, assuming our signings work out. We're deeper along the defensive front, our secondary has starters in every spot, we added another receiver to round out our corps, and we signed two offensive linemen. I'd like another guard and another pass rusher, maybe another corner, but we already have a pretty balanced roster. What we need in order to contend is growth from our young guys (particularly Luck), and improvements in offensive scheme and execution. Again, this is assuming our signings work out. Replacing Luck with Rodgers would take our offense to the next level right away.

 

I think we'd survive one year of no draft picks. Might be kind of reckless, but the whole scenario is. You're trading away potentially 10+ years of high level potential for 5 years of virtual certainty.

[Superman]

Wow, some of you guys are wanting to get back to the Polian way of building a team. A high priced QB and having to fill the rest of the team with less than mediocre talent. No way I would trade Luck for a soon to be 30 yr. old Rodgers and having to destroy the rest of the team to pay him. We have a good long while before we'll have to pay Luck big money and that allows us to build an actual good team around him. To be honest, I'm really flabbergasted that anybody would even consider such a deal considering all the yrs. we had to endure of having to pay Manning and a few others, then having no substantial team around them. No way in heck!!!

 

I don't know if you've looked at Bronx thread about how Grigson has set up the cap, but there's a discussion going on in there that really highlights the myth that paying a quarterback big money is going to hamstring your team. What you pay your quarterback is really not the issue, and hopefully Grigson continues to set things up so that it doesn't become the issue in the future.

 

And even if you don't buy that, if you keep Luck and he turns into what you hope he does, you have three more years, at best, of him at a low cap hit. After that, you're right back in the same situation.

[Balzer40]

Look at what we've done in the offseason already. I think we've filled all but two or three needs, assuming our signings work out. We're deeper along the defensive front, our secondary has starters in every spot, we added another receiver to round out our corps, and we signed two offensive linemen. I'd like another guard and another pass rusher, maybe another corner, but we already have a pretty balanced roster. What we need in order to contend is growth from our young guys (particularly Luck), and improvements in offensive scheme and execution. Again, this is assuming our signings work out. Replacing Luck with Rodgers would take our offense to the next level right away.

 

I think we'd survive one year of no draft picks. Might be kind of reckless, but the whole scenario is. You're trading away potentially 10+ years of high level potential for 5 years of virtual certainty.

 

 

 

Yeah, but then add in what you would have to pay Rodgers and were saying bye bye to half the players on the team. Were only 9 mil under the cap right now with Lucks very small contract, add in what Rodgers contract would be and we would have to release a ton of guys. I think a team can easily compete for super bowls without a top 3 QB in the league as long as you have a good team around a top 10 QB which we will have.

 

Look, I just do not ever want us to build a team like Polian did ever again. It's the wrong formula even though it gave us successful regular seasons. Once the playoffs came around we were always out toughed by other teams, with the exception of our super bowl yrs.. I also am not trading 10-13 yrs. of Luck for 5-7 yrs. of Rodgers. For all we know Luck could be better than Rodgers in 2 more yrs.. I don't understand your way of thinking on this topic, but that's OK, we can agree to disagree, but there is just no way I would even entertain the thoughts of making even a straight up Luck for Rodgers trade, let alone throwing in extra.

[amfootball]

Based on what? The stats don't support you. The games don't support you. You keep pushing this idea that Manning deteriorated over the course of the season and couldn't throw in the cold against the Ravens, and that's why they lost the game, and it's just not supported by what actually happened. Just look at the game log: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00/gamelog/2012/

 

 

Look at the numbers. Starting with the Oakland game, Manning went on a tear for basically the rest of the season. The only loss was against the Pats, and he looked fine in that one. He had the second best statistical season of his career, and all this while he was still building up his arm strength.

 

And even if the cold did affect him, that's not why he got picked off at the end. He got picked off because he broke a cardinal rule of quarterbacking.

For a forum moderator you sure do like to insight me. I have been trying to politely bow out of this convo given you have reminded me this thread is not about Manning. Do you think you can step off just a little?

[Balzer40]

I don't know if you've looked at Bronx thread about how Grigson has set up the cap, but there's a discussion going on in there that really highlights the myth that paying a quarterback big money is going to hamstring your team. What you pay your quarterback is really not the issue, and hopefully Grigson continues to set things up so that it doesn't become the issue in the future.

 

And even if you don't buy that, if you keep Luck and he turns into what you hope he does, you have three more years, at best, of him at a low cap hit. After that, you're right back in the same situation.

 

 

Your right, I don't really buy it, and I know that we'll eventually have to pay Luck, but we have 3 more yrs. to prepare for that and can make smart decisions before that ever has to happen. We can build an actual team and have contracts structured in a way that won't kill us to pay Luck. That is the problem if you made a trade right now for Rodgers, the team is not prepared to take on a monster contract and it would kill everything they have built for up to now. It's never going to happen anyway, but the thought of it turns my stomach to be honest.