I'm tired of the Andrew lUck speculation game

[GoColts8818]

Fans complained when we drafted Manning instead of keeping Jim Harbuagh and drafting a non-QB.

lol

Yep, I was one of those people, needless to say I know I am never ever going to be a NFL GM. At least I wanted Warren Sapp though lol. I also didn't trash the Colts front office for drafting Manning I just figured they knew what they were doing at the time of the pick. I also at least said if we did take a QB I wanted it to be Manning so I did have that going for me .

[Jason_]

I think your analogy is faulty.

Before we can come close to a similar situation to what we're in, we need to find one team with an entrenched, franchise QB who has actually gotten the #1 overall pick.

What's faulty is the comparisons of us drafting Luck to Favre/Rodgers, Montana/Young and Bledsoe/brady.

you're right though, never has a team been in the situation of having a future HOF QB out for the year leading them to have the #1 pick in the following draft with the expectation that the injured HOF QB will be back for 3-4 years. And so far we're assuming that Manning will be back because people are continuing to argue that it's not unreasonable to draft Luck and sit him for that duration. If Green Bay had somehow gotten the #1 pick that year, do you think they'd have still taken a QB? Better yet, if a team with a current franchise QB in place with 3-4 years left in him had somehow obtained the #1 pick the year Peyton came out....do you think he would have accepted sitting on the bench for 3-4 years? Would any of the colts fans today have wanted to see Peyton sit for 3-4 years if the situation had been different and we had another QB for him to "learn" behind for that long?

[CR91]

That might be but that isn't what we were talking about when I responded to your post. I've said all along that if the Colts honestly think Luck is the next Peyton Manning and we have the first overall pick in the draft I am not going to be shocked in the slightest if we take him. With that said drafting Andrew Luck does nothing to address the real needs for this team and I can already hear the fans complaining about us "wasting" the top pick on a guy who is just sitting on the bench rather than drafting player X who would have really addressed our needs.

see this is what i dont understand. why would it be a waste? how is someone that is gonna let us continue our success after peyton retires a waste? why does it make sense to give peyton more weapons to just have success until hes gone which wont be any longer then 4 years?

[Jason_]

see this is what i dont understand. why would it be a waste? how is someone that is gonna let us continue our success after peyton retires a waste? why does it make sense to give peyton more weapons to just success for until hes gone which wont be any longer then 4 years?

Because Luck is not the only QB in the draft. He is as highly projected as he is because he is NFL ready from day 1. not because he is vastly more intelligent, has remarkably superior physical talent or anything like that. He has played in a pro style system and is pro ready from day 1 but there are at least a handful of other QB's with at least very comparable skill sets who can be coached to be NFL ready when we need them to be NFL ready.

If this were going to be a relatively weak draft class like the year Rodgers and Alex Smith came out then the argument would be completely different but that is not the case. I'll predict there will be at least 4-5 QB's taken before halfway through the 2nd round and with the right coaching and the right mentor, any of them can be as good as "they" say Luck will be from day 1.

[GoColts8818]

see this is what i dont understand. why would it be a waste? how is someone that is gonna let us continue our success after peyton retires a waste? why does it make sense to give peyton more weapons to just success for until hes gone which wont be any longer then 4 years?

You might not think it's a waste. I wouldn't think it's a waste either. Still watching how quickly fans have judged guys like Hughes and Moala I could see a good number of those same fans casting the same quick judgement on Luck if he's on the bench. For example say we struggle at CB again next year. Say their a star CB that goes in the top 5 and he makes an impact right away. I can see a large number of Colts fans turning on Luck or holding up Luck as Polian wasting the top overall pick on a guy who isn't playing raher than drafting the CB that would have helped us right away. IE see Hughes vs Saffold from last year.

[bavanlan]

What's faulty is the comparisons of us drafting Luck to Favre/Rodgers, Montana/Young and Bledsoe/brady.

I'd agree with the Bledsoe/Brady sentiment, though I think the other two can shine somewhat on our position, though not completely.

you're right though, never has a team been in the situation of having a future HOF QB out for the year leading them to have the #1 pick in the following draft with the expectation that the injured HOF QB will be back for 3-4 years. And so far we're assuming that Manning will be back because people are continuing to argue that it's not unreasonable to draft Luck and sit him for that duration. If Green Bay had somehow gotten the #1 pick that year, do you think they'd have still taken a QB?

Don't know, though I can tell you that if they thought as highly of Rodgers as people think of Luck they would have. There were people predicting that Green Bay would take a QB in the first round that day (and I remember that because they were comparing hand sizes between Rodgers and Smith to see who could grip the ball better in cold Lambeau winters), so they were already thinking that direction. It wasn't simply a snap judgment to take a QB.

Better yet, if a team with a current franchise QB in place with 3-4 years left in him had somehow obtained the #1 pick the year Peyton came out....do you think he would have accepted sitting on the bench for 3-4 years?

Yes. The consummate professional. And I would guess he would expect to earn the spot rather than forcing his way somewhere else so he could have it handed to him.

Would any of the colts fans today have wanted to see Peyton sit for 3-4 years if the situation had been different and we had another QB for him to "learn" behind for that long?

Absolutely, I would. Aside from Brady, there wasn't a QB drafted in 1999-2001 that would have been even close to what Peyton would have done in 2001 or later that I would have picked instead.

[ColtsLegacy]

You might not think it's a waste. I wouldn't think it's a waste either. Still watching how quickly fans have judged guys like Hughes and Moala I could see a good number of those same fans casting the same quick judgement on Luck if he's on the bench. For example say we struggle at CB again next year. Say their a star CB that goes in the top 5 and he makes an impact right away. I can see a large number of Colts fans turning on Luck or holding up Luck as Polian wasting the top overall pick on a guy who isn't playing raher than drafting the CB that would have helped us right away. IE see Hughes vs Saffold from last year.

And those same fans will love Luck when he takes over for Manning and becomes a star (before anyone says anything: Yes, I've seen the future). Look at Rodgers, many Packer fans thought for sure he was a bust. They seem to like the guy now.

Anyway, unless you're one of the people crying about the pick, then who gives a crap?

[Jason_]

I'd agree with the Bledsoe/Brady sentiment, though I think the other two can shine somewhat on our position, though not completely.

How can Montana/Young be comparable to our position but not Bledsoe/Brady. At least NE was the team to draft Brady albeit in the 6th round. Steve young wasn't even drafted to the NFL out of college, he played first in the USFL and was then drafted (by Tampa) in a supplemental draft held specifically for USFL and CFL players.

The basic point is that none of those teams spent a #1 pick on their QB replacement and therefore none of them spent #1 overall QB money to them, though to me it's the draft pick that's more valuable.

Don't know, though I can tell you that if they thought as highly of Rodgers as people think of Luck they would have.

everything else that you said is your opinion but I strongly disagree with the majority of it. Primarily though is the assertion that GB would have taken a QB #1 overall that year. I don't think there's any way they'd have spent a #1 pick on a QB that year just like I don't think the Colts will spend a #1 pick (if they get it) on a QB in 2012. Only time will tell though.

[bavanlan]

How can Montana/Young be comparable to our position but not Bledsoe/Brady. At least NE was the team to draft Brady albeit in the 6th round. Steve young wasn't even drafted to the NFL out of college, he played first in the USFL and was then drafted (by Tampa) in a supplemental draft held specifically for USFL and CFL players.

The basic point is that none of those teams spent a #1 pick on their QB replacement and therefore none of them spent #1 overall QB money to them, though to me it's the draft pick that's more valuable.

Brady was lucked into. I don't believe there was any intent when they drafted him to make him a starter. I believe Young was traded for to be a starter eventually. That's how I think the Young situation is more comparable; at least when he was obtained, there was an intention to ultimately make him a starter down the road.

I think you're right on the draft pick being more valuable than the cost. Quite honestly, I think the cost is moot, particularly since 1) you'd be paying it anyway and 2) Peyton's contract, by all reported accounts, drops in years 4-5 (which would be years 3-4 for the rookie).

Out of curiosity and for argument's sake, lets assume that Luck turns out to be somewhere in the neighborhood of Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Manning etc. Let's further assume that all other QB's, regardless of where they ended up, were limited by ability to Eli Manning/Joe Flacco/Matt Schaub level. Do you take Luck?

[jackbutton96]

Brady was lucked into. I don't believe there was any intent when they drafted him to make him a starter. I believe Young was traded for to be a starter eventually. That's how I think the Young situation is more comparable; at least when he was obtained, there was an intention to ultimately make him a starter down the road.

I think you're right on the draft pick being more valuable than the cost. Quite honestly, I think the cost is moot, particularly since 1) you'd be paying it anyway and 2) Peyton's contract, by all reported accounts, drops in years 4-5 (which would be years 3-4 for the rookie).

Out of curiosity and for argument's sake, lets assume that Luck turns out to be somewhere in the neighborhood of Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Manning etc. Let's further assume that all other QB's, regardless of where they ended up, were limited by ability to Eli Manning/Joe Flacco/Matt Schaub level. Do you take Luck?

You have to add a bit more to that scenario to make it mirror the scenario we may find ourselves in. Would you rather have a team of All-Pros lead by a Joe Flacco/Eli Manning/Matt Schaub kind of quarterback, or a team of mediocre players lead by a Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Manning type QB? It's not just Luck or somebody else, it's Luck or somebody else plus a king's ransom of other talented prospects.

[Jason_]

Out of curiosity and for argument's sake, lets assume that Luck turns out to be somewhere in the neighborhood of Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Manning etc. Let's further assume that all other QB's, regardless of where they ended up, were limited by ability to Eli Manning/Joe Flacco/Matt Schaub level. Do you take Luck?

Very interesting question and I will give it careful thought and come back with a response. While I'm mulling it over I would like to propose a counter question to you....Luck is being considered nfl ready from day 1, that's the biggest (but not only) selling point for him. So it is certainly fair to argue that he wouldn't be learning all that much from Manning in that 3-4 year time frame aside from things specific to our offensive system. That same time could be spent teaching not only our offensive system, but also the things necessary to make some one NFL ready for the time when we need them to be NFL ready.

so the question....if 3-4 years spent with Manning could "groom" a guy like Matt Barkley, Landry Jones or Nick Foles to be as NFL ready as Luck is from day 1, then is it worth spending the #1 pick on Luck anyway when one of these other guys could be just as NFL ready by the time we need them to be NFL ready?

[bavanlan]

so the question....if 3-4 years spent with Manning could "groom" a guy like Matt Barkley, Landry Jones or Nick Foles to be as NFL ready as Luck is from day 1, then is it worth spending the #1 pick on Luck anyway when one of these other guys could be just as NFL ready by the time we need them to be NFL ready?

1) Can you define "NFL Ready"?

2) Does "NFL Ready" include or assume as equal any future growth potential beyond "day 1"?

[bavanlan]

You have to add a bit more to that scenario to make it mirror the scenario we may find ourselves in. Would you rather have a team of All-Pros lead by a Joe Flacco/Eli Manning/Matt Schaub kind of quarterback, or a team of mediocre players lead by a Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Manning type QB? It's not just Luck or somebody else, it's Luck or somebody else plus a king's ransom of other talented prospects.

Was assumed in the hypothetical, but is a fair point nonetheless (though I would disagree the trade down value, once another QB is subtracted out, would lead to "a team of All-Pros").

[GoColts8818]

And those same fans will love Luck when he takes over for Manning and becomes a star (before anyone says anything: Yes, I've seen the future). Look at Rodgers, many Packer fans thought for sure he was a bust. They seem to like the guy now.

Anyway, unless you're one of the people crying about the pick, then who gives a crap?

I am not crying about anything. I just know how Colts fans tend to react when a guy isn't a star right off the bat and how they love to second guess Bill Polian. I've seen it with Hughes, Moala, Brown, and we were starting to hear it with Ijalana up till Monday night. I said myself I could very well see the Colts taking Luck if they think he's the next Peyton Manning and I said I wouldn't have an issue with that. I also said I can hear the Colts fans that are going to be upset with the pick if he sits for three to four years. Drafting Luck doesn't address any needs that are going to help us win right now with Peyton Manning and there are going to be fans who are upset about that. If you don't believe that I would advise you to go back and look at fan reactions to other top picks who didn't do anything right away.

[Jason_]

1) Can you define "NFL Ready"?

2) Does "NFL Ready" include or assume as equal any future growth potential beyond "day 1"?

My understanding of what the experts mean by "NFL ready" include:

Is the QB able to manipulate the pocket so side step pressure?

Is the QB able to read a defense and go through his progressions to find the open receiver or does he always target a specific receiver?

Does the QB wait until a receiver is open before throwing the ball or does the QB throw to a spot anticipating where the receiver is going to be?

Does the QB have the required arm strength to make all necessary NFL type throws into tight windows in a zone or by leading the receiver to an open spot against man coverage or does the QB only have the arm strength to lob a pass to a receiver who has already beaten the defender?

is the QB only accurate to open receivers or does he have the accuracy to throw a receiver open? Does the QB have a "prototype" throwing motion or are there any issues with the throwing motion that would cause issues at the NFL level (Vince Young with his tendency to side-arm as an example)

So basically this all is asking how much "grooming" the QB needs. How much does the QB need to learn aside from just the playbook and offensive system before he can start at the NFL level. The majority of the hype around Luck is the fact that he already excels at these things so the playbook would be all he'd need to learn. It doesn't take 3-4 years to do this so that's why some people say that yes, 3-4 years is far too long for a QB like Luck to sit and "learn" behind Manning. A QB only sits that long when there are other aspects of his game that need work. In this regard then, no NFL readiness doesn't take into account any potential that can be improved upon with experience after day 1.

So now to the question you asked me....[quote]Out of curiosity and for argument's sake, lets assume that Luck turns out to be somewhere in the neighborhood of Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Manning etc. Let's further assume that all other QB's, regardless of where they ended up, were limited by ability to Eli Manning/Joe Flacco/Matt Schaub level. Do you take Luck?

Only with the benefit of the assumptions you made would I say to go ahead and take Luck. However, there's no more guarantee he'll be as successful as Manning, Brady or Rodgers than there is that he'll wind up another Tim Couch, Alex Smith or David Carr. People can argue all they want that there's no way that can happen but there is no way to know that for sure at this point. Of the guys you mentioned, Manning was the only #1 overall. Brady was a 6th round pick, Brees a 2nd and Rodgers a late first. Steve Young, Brett Favre, Kurt Warner and countless others were not even drafted by the team they had the most success with. That only furthers the point that there are a lot more options than using the #1 pick to find the next franchise QB. A lot of people like Matt Flynn. If San Fran wants to trade up for Luck then they no longer have any use for Colin Kaepernick (someone Polian scouted last year). Ryan Mallett most likely has no future with NE and will be used as trade bait at some point.

One final point I want to bring up is to all of the people mentioning Favre/Rodgers and Montana/Young....it's pretty well known that neither Favre nor Montana never really went out of their way to try to help develop the new guy. Can't remember if it was on MNF preshow or another show that they were talking to Steve Young about this and he pretty much confirmed he had more of an adversarial relationship with Montana and Favre said a number of times that he was no mentor. We have a guy in Manning who is willing to and wants to help develop the new guy. This would lead me to believe we could expect an even higher level of improvement from the new QB from the time he's drafted to the time he takes over.

[ColtsLegacy]

I am not crying about anything. I just know how Colts fans tend to react when a guy isn't a star right off the bat and how they love to second guess Bill Polian. I've seen it with Hughes, Moala, Brown, and we were starting to hear it with Ijalana up till Monday night. I said myself I could very well see the Colts taking Luck if they think he's the next Peyton Manning and I said I wouldn't have an issue with that. I also said I can hear the Colts fans that are going to be upset with the pick if he sits for three to four years. Drafting Luck doesn't address any needs that are going to help us win right now with Peyton Manning and there are going to be fans who are upset about that. If you don't believe that I would advise you to go back and look at fan reactions to other top picks who didn't do anything right away.

I didn't say you were crying nor did I imply that I thought "no fan would be upset with the pick of Luck". You missed my point by a mile and I don't feel like repeating myself.

[bumstah]

The 'Fins are much worse off than the Colts.

They don't have a defense, running game, passing game, and an injured QB that is mediocre at best.

The Colts came pretty close upsetting the Bucs, they had a few things working for them.

The 'Fins, on the other hand, are in shambles. Within a few more weeks, the Colts are bound to win at least 1-2 games.

[Smitto]

Seeing as how many people had Tebow as a FB instead of a QB to the point where Tebow had to state that he wanted to be drafted as a QB, I don't think there was quite the Tebow hype you're making it out to be.

A FB? where did you see that? the man was drafted as a QB by the broncos in the 1st round so obviously teams thought he was a QB.

[bavanlan]

http://www.footballrumormill.com/2009/10/02/tim-tebow-a-fourth-round-fullback/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/08/tim-tebow-will-play-whatever-position-hes-told-to-play/

[Yehoodi]

L U C K = L E A F ... nuff said!

Hey the dreaded four letter "L" word . . . :o

[SilentHill]

If the colts take luck, it would be a HUGE failure by the front office. You take that pick and trade it to a team like Miami for Multiple first round picks and other picks as well. We have WAY to many issues to fix in the draft and taking a QB #1 overall is not the answer.

[Jason_]

If the colts take luck, it would be a HUGE failure by the front office. You take that pick and trade it to a team like Miami for Multiple first round picks and other picks as well. We have WAY to many issues to fix in the draft and taking a QB #1 overall is not the answer.

I love the way you think AND your username references the greatest survival horror video game of all time. Definite +1 lol

[SilentHill]

I love the way you think AND your username references the greatest survival horror video game of all time. Definite +1 lol

+1 because my name is also Jason lol

[pacolts56]

Was assumed in the hypothetical, but is a fair point nonetheless (though I would disagree the trade down value, once another QB is subtracted out, would lead to "a team of All-Pros").

Thank you!

Among many other assumptions being made in the case against taking Andrew Luck is that the guys we trade down for will unquestionably be blue-chip future All-Pros when we all know they are just as susceptible, and probably much more so, to being a bust as Luck is.

[Jason_]

Thank you!

Among many other assumptions being made in the case against taking Andrew Luck is that the guys we trade down for will unquestionably be blue-chip future All-Pros when we all know they are just as susceptible, and probably much more so, to being a bust as Luck is.

Very true, however the trade down scenario involves acquiring several additional picks that would help protect us in case someone winds up being a bust. It only stands to reason that the more opportunities you have to draft a player, the better odds you have of finding guys who won't bust. Of course someone will undoubtedly come along and say that would simply give Polian the opportunity to draft that many more busts. lol

[pacolts56]

My understanding of what the experts mean by "NFL ready" include:

Is the QB able to manipulate the pocket so side step pressure?

Is the QB able to read a defense and go through his progressions to find the open receiver or does he always target a specific receiver?

Does the QB wait until a receiver is open before throwing the ball or does the QB throw to a spot anticipating where the receiver is going to be?

Does the QB have the required arm strength to make all necessary NFL type throws into tight windows in a zone or by leading the receiver to an open spot against man coverage or does the QB only have the arm strength to lob a pass to a receiver who has already beaten the defender?

is the QB only accurate to open receivers or does he have the accuracy to throw a receiver open? Does the QB have a "prototype" throwing motion or are there any issues with the throwing motion that would cause issues at the NFL level (Vince Young with his tendency to side-arm as an example)

So basically this all is asking how much "grooming" the QB needs. How much does the QB need to learn aside from just the playbook and offensive system before he can start at the NFL level. The majority of the hype around Luck is the fact that he already excels at these things so the playbook would be all he'd need to learn. It doesn't take 3-4 years to do this so that's why some people say that yes, 3-4 years is far too long for a QB like Luck to sit and "learn" behind Manning. A QB only sits that long when there are other aspects of his game that need work. In this regard then, no NFL readiness doesn't take into account any potential that can be improved upon with experience after day 1.

Only with the benefit of the assumptions you made would I say to go ahead and take Luck. However, there's no more guarantee he'll be as successful as Manning, Brady or Rodgers than there is that he'll wind up another Tim Couch, Alex Smith or David Carr. People can argue all they want that there's no way that can happen but there is no way to know that for sure at this point. Of the guys you mentioned, Manning was the only #1 overall. Brady was a 6th round pick, Brees a 2nd and Rodgers a late first. Steve Young, Brett Favre, Kurt Warner and countless others were not even drafted by the team they had the most success with. That only furthers the point that there are a lot more options than using the #1 pick to find the next franchise QB. A lot of people like Matt Flynn. If San Fran wants to trade up for Luck then they no longer have any use for Colin Kaepernick (someone Polian scouted last year). Ryan Mallett most likely has no future with NE and will be used as trade bait at some point.

Then why bother with ANY of this QB business, Jason....if all it takes is a season or two for Peyton to "groom" any swingin' dick college QB who can throw the ball 60 yards into a successful "NFL ready" replacement....then Curtis Painter is our guy, right?

[Jay305]

Did Aaron Rodgers walk? who says Peyton even comes back next season? the people mad about the Luck talk are so in denial of the seriousness of Peytons injury. Ed Reed has the same issue and he himself says he would never have the surgery Peyton had. Be real people

[ts07]

Chad Henne just had season-ending surgery today, so now the Dolphins are more likely to go 0-16 then we are

[Jason_]

Then why bother with ANY of this QB business, Jason....if all it takes is a season or two for Peyton to "groom" any swingin' dick college QB who can throw the ball 60 yards into a successful "NFL ready" replacement....then Curtis Painter is our guy, right?

Wow, talk about a huge over simplification of what I said. And as for Painter, you can no more say that he has no future in the NFL than I could say that he does. He has 1 NFL start to his name...that's it. I'm certainly not saying he's our guy but there's absolutely no way anyone can say beyond a doubt at this point that he can't be a solid NFL starter. Again, I'm not saying he can or will be...just pointing out that no one can say one way or another at this point.

[pacolts56]

Wow, talk about a huge over simplification of what I said. And as for Painter, you can no more say that he has no future in the NFL than I could say that he does. He has 1 NFL start to his name...that's it. I'm certainly not saying he's our guy but there's absolutely no way anyone can say beyond a doubt at this point that he can't be a solid NFL starter. Again, I'm not saying he can or will be...just pointing out that no one can say one way or another at this point.

All I'm saying is how lousy would it be if we trade down....and among the "non-NFL ready" QBs like Barkley or Jones or Foles that we take....time winds down on Peyton's career and he walks into Irsay's office and says "sorry boss I tried, but this kid (Barkley/Foles/Jones) just ain't got it".

Painter has earned the right to start....and no one will be happier to see him develop into a solid starter than me. We'll see how he progresses this year...and they should scrap the Collins experiment so we can find out. As for the team around him...it is what it is and he and any other Colts QB will have to deal with it.

But more times than not....I believe you have 75% of your finished product on Draft Day, good or bad....when it comes to QBs They've learned what they've learned and played with it for 3-4 seasons....and in alot of cases, they can't unlearn those things.

In Luck's case....by all the measures that we amateurs accept every year about QB evaluations done by professionals, this kid is the real deal. The rest of them have question marks.

What the heck else do we have to go on?

[bavanlan]

My understanding of what the experts mean by "NFL ready" include:

Is the QB able to manipulate the pocket so side step pressure?

Is the QB able to read a defense and go through his progressions to find the open receiver or does he always target a specific receiver?

Does the QB wait until a receiver is open before throwing the ball or does the QB throw to a spot anticipating where the receiver is going to be?

Does the QB have the required arm strength to make all necessary NFL type throws into tight windows in a zone or by leading the receiver to an open spot against man coverage or does the QB only have the arm strength to lob a pass to a receiver who has already beaten the defender?

is the QB only accurate to open receivers or does he have the accuracy to throw a receiver open? Does the QB have a "prototype" throwing motion or are there any issues with the throwing motion that would cause issues at the NFL level (Vince Young with his tendency to side-arm as an example)

So basically this all is asking how much "grooming" the QB needs. How much does the QB need to learn aside from just the playbook and offensive system before he can start at the NFL level. The majority of the hype around Luck is the fact that he already excels at these things so the playbook would be all he'd need to learn. It doesn't take 3-4 years to do this so that's why some people say that yes, 3-4 years is far too long for a QB like Luck to sit and "learn" behind Manning. A QB only sits that long when there are other aspects of his game that need work. In this regard then, no NFL readiness doesn't take into account any potential that can be improved upon with experience after day 1.

Working under your parameters where all QB's are NFL ready (as defined by you) after 3-4 years, then you take the QB who is the smartest (best able to absorb and implement the offense) and has the best work ethic. Physical attributes can get consideration, though all QB's listed seem to have sufficient amounts of those attributes and any small deficiencies can be cured over 3-4 years.

One final point I want to bring up is to all of the people mentioning Favre/Rodgers and Montana/Young....it's pretty well known that neither Favre nor Montana never really went out of their way to try to help develop the new guy. Can't remember if it was on MNF preshow or another show that they were talking to Steve Young about this and he pretty much confirmed he had more of an adversarial relationship with Montana and Favre said a number of times that he was no mentor. We have a guy in Manning who is willing to and wants to help develop the new guy. This would lead me to believe we could expect an even higher level of improvement from the new QB from the time he's drafted to the time he takes over.

Can you provide a basis for you comments about Manning? It would seem to be his focus is on winning and preparing, not taking time to explain things to his replacement.

[bavanlan]

All I'm saying is how lousy would it be if we trade down....and among the "non-NFL ready" QBs like Barkley or Jones or Foles that we take....time winds down on Peyton's career and he walks into Irsay's office and says "sorry boss I tried, but this kid (Barkley/Foles/Jones) just ain't got it".

Painter has earned the right to start....and no one will be happier to see him develop into a solid starter than me. We'll see how he progresses this year...and they should scrap the Collins experiment so we can find out. As for the team around him...it is what it is and he and any other Colts QB will have to deal with it.

But more times than not....I believe you have 75% of your finished product on Draft Day, good or bad....when it comes to QBs They've learned what they've learned and played with it for 3-4 seasons....and in alot of cases, they can't unlearn those things.

In Luck's case....by all the measures that we amateurs accept every year about QB evaluations done by professionals, this kid is the real deal. The rest of them have question marks.

What the heck else do we have to go on?

As a follow up to this, I think the "NFL Ready" analysis fails to examine upside beyond simply NFL ready. Who is smarter? Who works harder? Who is more physically gifted?

It gives them all a year 3 baseline but ignores (or is indifferent to) the possibility of development beyond that baseline.

[Jason_]

But more times than not....I believe you have 75% of your finished product on Draft Day, good or bad....when it comes to QBs They've learned what they've learned and played with it for 3-4 seasons....and in alot of cases, they can't unlearn those things.

I agree, and things will be much more clear come draft day. My mentioning of Foles is based on my belief (which is shared on many draft sites) that he will rise quickly up the boards as the season wears on. However, if for some reason, the other guys like Jones, Barkley and Foles drop off and have poor years whereas Luck has a stellar year then absolutely, that changes things drastically.

In Luck's case....by all the measures that we amateurs accept every year about QB evaluations done by professionals, this kid is the real deal. The rest of them have question marks.

What the heck else do we have to go on?

I watch the games myself and form my own opinions. That's all I have. When I see a guy like Nick Foles take the entire Arizona team on his shoulders and keep them in a position where to win the game more often than not, with no running game to speak of and only 1 WR who's name some people might recognize and also no credible defense, then I compare that to a guy like Luck who has the top defense in their conference, a running game that averages over 200 yards per game and 3 TE's who will most likely be All-Pro's in the NFL someday then I have to wonder if it's not worth the risk to trade down, acquire the extra picks, take a chance on Foles and have Peyton work with him on some of the issues he has like a somewhat abnormal throwing motion and a tendency to hold on to the ball too long. There are some issues that can be easily corrected by coaching and/or a good mentor while others will be much harder to correct. You have to look at what the issues are with the particular prospect and judge for yourself how easily you think they can be corrected.

As a follow up to this, I think the "NFL Ready" analysis fails to examine upside beyond simply NFL ready. Who is smarter? Who works harder? Who is more physically gifted?

It gives them all a year 3 baseline but ignores (or is indifferent to) the possibility of development beyond that baseline.

I absolutely agree.

[bavanlan]

I absolutely agree.

So then which QB has the highest ceiling for football IQ? Work ethic? Leadership? Physical attributes? Who do you take #1 if you can't trade out?

[Jason_]

Working under your parameters where all QB's are NFL ready (as defined by you) after 3-4 years, then you take the QB who is the smartest (best able to absorb and implement the offense) and has the best work ethic. Physical attributes can get consideration, though all QB's listed seem to have sufficient amounts of those attributes and any small deficiencies can be cured over 3-4 years.

Now don't get me wrong, I never said that all QB's are NFL ready after 3-4 years. I'm just pointing out that there are at least a few who can be just as NFL ready with at least comparable levels of intelligence, work ethic and physical tools as compared to Luck but they won't be to that point until a couple of years down the road. the biggest point I'm trying to make is that some people keep saying to draft luck and "groom" him for 3-4 years but there's nothing to "groom" if he's as NFL-ready as experts say he is and that is his biggest selling point. You pick up a QB to "groom" who might have clumsy footwork, an awkward throwing motion, poor pocket presence etc etc.

Can you provide a basis for you comments about Manning? It would seem to be his focus is on winning and preparing, not taking time to explain things to his replacement.

This I'm merely going by the reports that it was discussed and, as is my understanding, agreed upon by Polian and Manning during the contract negotiations. IMO, if Manning showed no desire to help groom his replacement then the whole topic would probably never have been brought up to the media. I have nothing else to go on though so this is largely speculation.

[hawkeyes]

Hey the dreaded four letter "L" word . . . :o

It seems like some sort of omen to me ....

[CR91]

Chad Henne just had season-ending surgery today, so now the Dolphins are more likely to go 0-16 then we are

dolphins still have matt moore so its not like there season is over. they can split with the bills. beat the broncos and maybe the raiders.

[WSO]

Now don't get me wrong, I never said that all QB's are NFL ready after 3-4 years. I'm just pointing out that there are at least a few who can be just as NFL ready with at least comparable levels of intelligence, work ethic and physical tools as compared to Luck but they won't be to that point until a couple of years down the road. the biggest point I'm trying to make is that some people keep saying to draft luck and "groom" him for 3-4 years but there's nothing to "groom" if he's as NFL-ready as experts say he is and that is his biggest selling point. You pick up a QB to "groom" who might have clumsy footwork, an awkward throwing motion, poor pocket presence etc etc.

This I'm merely going by the reports that it was discussed and, as is my understanding, agreed upon by Polian and Manning during the contract negotiations. IMO, if Manning showed no desire to help groom his replacement then the whole topic would probably never have been brought up to the media. I have nothing else to go on though so this is largely speculation.

but you are under the assumption that day 1 of the next season Manning will return to his old form, will still play at a high level, and the nerve regeneration won't be bothering him

We don't know if Manning plays for 3-4 years this is all just speculation for all we know Manning could have another complication down the road leading him to missing more time. What if Manning takes a viscous hit next year or gets injured? This is why Luck has great value to the Colts because QB's like Painter, Sorgi etc. who have been 'groomed' in our system do not pan out. If something happens to Manning we have a very good backup who can learn the system and come in to play and WIN unlike our current backups.

Just because a team with a HOF QB has never used a #1 pick on a QB before doesn't make it wrong or senseless. Especially considering the player is the BEST PLAYER IN THE DRAFT.

I would be ticked if a few years from now Luck is playing at a high caliber level while we are still 'grooming' or finding a replacement for Manning. We have wasted countless first round picks on unproven talent (gonzo, hughes, brown etc.).

Bottom line is we don't know how Manning will be next year, we don't know if he will play 4 more years. We are all just assuming Manning will come back and be playing at a high level again starting next season. These assumptions make a great counter-argument for not drafting Luck but we don't know if Manning will be the Manning of old. Taking Luck is a smart decision.

[WSO]

Chad Henne just had season-ending surgery today, so now the Dolphins are more likely to go 0-16 then we are

they signed Safe Rosenfels

[Jason_]

but you are under the assumption that day 1 of the next season Manning will return to his old form, will still play at a high level, and the nerve regeneration won't be bothering him

I have said over and over that come draft day, they will have a much better idea of how his health is and where he is at from a recuperation standpoint. If they feel at that time that he will not return to his pre-injury form, then this changes things. Just like I don't know, right now, that Manning will ever return to his previous form, you don't know that he won't. However, I think it's pretty safe to say that they will at least have a pretty good idea come draft day.