Why Are Fans Scared Of The Idea Of The Colts Drafting Luck?

[Balzer40 4,233]

Here's something I'm really curious about but I don't expect there are many people who would answer truthfully....what if Stanford winds up playing in a bowl game against a team like LSU, Clemson or Alabama...a team with a very stout NFL style defense that has been dominating every team they play against. What happens if Luck goes up against one of these teams in that final bowl game and he simply crumbles? Sure it's just one game...but it's one of the few games he plays against a team with that caliber of defense. The Pac 12 isn't exactly filled with teams who have a dominating defense...in fact, perhaps ironically, Stanford has the best defense of the division.

I will freely admit that if he plays a team like that, they take away his running game and get consistent pressure on him and he stands tall and still leads Stanford to victory (or even just keeps them in the game) then I would be much, MUCH more open to the thought of taking Luck because that would go a long way in proving that he is THAT good.

Well, I guess we will just have to wait and see. You're the one that keeps saying that Luck is surrounded by great talent and I have said that he is not. He makes his teammates much better than they are(much like another guy we all know).

[J@son 7,463]

I don't think anyone is scared. If Luck is there when the Colts will draft, the Colts have to take him. He'll sit 2-4 years behind Manning, then take over the starting roll.

Remember, Rodgers set behind Favre for 3 years before taking the starting roll. - Luck doesn't have to start right away to be effective.

Argh....Rodgers was a #24 pick and not a #1 pick. You want a #24 pick to sit for 3 years I have no problem with that. If Rodgers had been as highly touted as Luck coming out of college then he too would have been a #1 overall pick by San fran.

the guy comes out of a pro-style offense, hes smart, athletic, a prototypical size for a qb, can make any throw and hes funmentality sound. and lets not forget hes considered the next peyton manning

The Colts hardly run a pro-style offense. Foles, Landry and Jones are all prototypical QB size as well and are also smart, athletic (to varying degrees) and can make any throw. Show me one link where any of the experts call him the next peyton manning. I've seen many say he's the most "pro-ready" QB since Manning but that's not the same as saying he is the next Manning.

Let me ask you something. Do any of those other QB's have complete control over the offense? Has the offensive coor. for those other QB's turned the playcalling over to those QB's and given them the ability to make changes at the line because they have the ability to read and react to the defense? I can answer those questions and the answer to both is No! Thats the overwhelming difference between Luck and the other's. I don't remember ever hearing of another college QB that has been given that type of control because they can't handle that type of responsibility yet.

Luck no more has complete control than any of the other college QBs. They call 3 plays into him in the huddle and he calls all 3 in the huddle. Yes he goes to the LOS and determines the best play of the 3 depending on what he reads. However the other top QB's also go to the LOS, read the defense and call out adjustments or audibles as necessary. So yes, Foles, Barkley, Jones etc all do things which are very similar, though perhaps not exactly the same.

If you can provide a valid official link from any of the Stanford coaches that give him credit for having more control than I'm giving him credit for then I'm all for reading it and being proven wrong.

[CR91 11,003]

The Colts hardly run a pro-style offense. Foles, Landry and Jones are all prototypical QB size as well and are also smart, athletic (to varying degrees) and can make any throw. Show me one link where any of the experts call him the next peyton manning. I've seen many say he's the most "pro-ready" QB since Manning but that's not the same as saying he is the next Manning.

we run a no-huddle offense that take precise timing to work. how is that not pro-style?

[Balzer40 4,233]

Luck no more has complete control than any of the other college QBs. They call 3 plays into him in the huddle and he calls all 3 in the huddle. Yes he goes to the LOS and determines the best play of the 3 depending on what he reads. However the other top QB's also go to the LOS, read the defense and call out adjustments or audibles as necessary. So yes, Foles, Barkley, Jones etc all do things which are very similar, though perhaps not exactly the same.

If you can provide a valid official link from any of the Stanford coaches that give him credit for having more control than I'm giving him credit for then I'm all for reading it and being proven wrong.

Wish I could but I honestly do not know if there is one. I did not know they done that till a few weeks ago during one of the games the announcers were talking about it and said they had talked to the Head coach about how unheard of it was that they gave a college QB that type of control. The coach said they had complete trust in him to make call the right play at the line because of his ability to recognize defenses so much quicker than any other college level QB.

[Coltswarriors 828]

Argh....Rodgers was a #24 pick and not a #1 pick. You want a #24 pick to sit for 3 years I have no problem with that. If Rodgers had been as highly touted as Luck coming out of college then he too would have been a #1 overall pick by San fran.

So the Colts should let him pass past them because he's ranked as a better player coming out of college than Rodgers was? What?

[J@son 7,463]

Well if memory serves me Mr. Manning had some very questionable games against the likes of UF and such during his run at UT didn't he?

Way to avoid the question....however this is the type of response I had counted on. ;)

Well, I guess we will just have to wait and see. You're the one that keeps saying that Luck is surrounded by great talent and I have said that he is not. He makes his teammates much better than they are(much like another guy we all know).

Ok I'm fine for debating a lot of things, but you can't deny that he's surrounded by great talent, especially on the offense. Of the 3 starters on Luck's OL that are draft eligible, 2 of them are rated as the second highest player at their position. Coby Fleener, one of the TE's I keep referring to, is rated as the 4th best TE in the nation and at 6'6" and 254 lbs he's still constantly referred to as the 3rd fastest player on the entire team. As best I can tell the other 2 TE's aren't draft eligible for 2012. I don't know if their primary RB's are draft eligible or not to be able to compare their ability to others at the same position, but you put any college caliber RB behind their OL and said RB is going to produce.

I have no problem with people saying they want to draft Luck because that simply is their preference. However when people really start reaching and talking about Luck making the players around him better and he carries the team on his shoulders....this is just false on all counts and quite honestly sounds more like something that would be regurgitated from one of the commentators during a Stanford game than anything someone who has watched even one Stanford game would say.

[J@son 7,463]

So the Colts should let him pass past them because he's ranked as a better player coming out of college than Rodgers was? What?

No that's not even close to what I was trying to say. I'm just pointing out that the Rodgers comparison is not accurate because GB didn't spend near the same for Rodgers that we would have to for Luck, neither in contract or overall pick used to land the player.

[J@son 7,463]

we run a no-huddle offense that take precise timing to work. how is that not pro-style?

If that's your lone criteria for a "pro style" offense then Arizona and USC run pro-style offenses as well.

[J@son 7,463]

Wish I could but I honestly do not know if there is one. I did not know they done that till a few weeks ago during one of the games the announcers were talking about it and said they had talked to the Head coach about how unheard of it was that they gave a college QB that type of control. The coach said they had complete trust in him to make call the right play at the line because of his ability to recognize defenses so much quicker than any other college level QB.

And it probably is true that he does have more freedom at the LOS than some QB's are given. I'm not going to dispute that. But some people (not saying you in particular) turn that around and embellish to say that Luck is essentially the offensive coordinator on the field.

[CR91 11,003]

If that's your lone criteria for a "pro style" offense then Arizona and USC run pro-style offenses as well.

you want more in-depth fine. the qb has to be to make the call on the line by what he sees. instead of just making adjustments once and awhile we need to operate the plays by what would put us in the best position to exploited the defense. not every qb can do that. most just are given one play and try to execute it, our offense your given three plays at once.

[J@son 7,463]

you want more in-depth fine. the qb has to be to make the call on the line by what he sees. instead of just making adjustments once and awhile we need to operate the plays by what would put us in the best position to exploited the defense. not every qb can do that. most just are given one play and try to execute it, our offense your given three plays at once.

so then by that logic every QB in the NFL is given 3 plays to choose from because if that's what qualifies as a pro style offense then that would be a fair assumption to make would it not?

Stanford runs a very run-heavy offense that relies on establishing their very powerful running game and then making plays off of play action. How does that sound anything like the Colts offense? Yes Luck does an excellent job of reading defenses....the other top QB's in college do the same thing and that's what makes them the top QB prospects. Yes Luck does have to make some great throws on timing routes but he makes just as many throws to wide open targets because the defense sold all out on the run. I've never once seen him have to take the team on his shoulders and put the game in his hands to try to keep Stanford in the game whereas I've seen this numerous times from Barkley and Foles, and neither of these guys have the caliber of defense behind them that Luck does.

Yes Luck is going to be a great QB, I'm sure that he will. But there are at least 2-4 other college QB's who will be in the same draft class who can be just as good. They just don't stand out as much because they're not on the same elite-caliber type of team that Luck is, with the exception of Landry Jones who plays for the exceptionally talented Oklahoma.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Jason

[LaughingAtIrsay 39]

IMO -- I don't know that "scared" is the right word. However, for lots of fans the drafting of Luck is a tangible sign that Manning's time as a Colt is coming to an end. Nobody wants to see one of the greatest of all time who they've gotten to watch up close on "their" team move on.

My thing is -- Manning is likely not to come back next season as the same QB that he left as. He'll be 18 months older since we've last seen him on the field and also will coming off of multiple major surgeries. He may be 95% of his old self or he may be 75%. There is no guarantee that he'll be able to start 16 games a year any more either.

Now, the issue is...and it's not my call to make....but if you can replace one of the greatest QB's ever with perhaps a very similar version -- that is 15 years younger should you do it? You'll have the weigh the benefit of 'minimal' return on your initial pick for a few seasons vs the impact your team can feel TODAY by either drafting a stud player at another position with that #1 pick or trading it away for multiple players to fill some holes.

Manning has -- at best -- another 4 years left (cause I don't think he plans on playing past this new contract)....is now the time to draft the QB of the future. If Manning hadn't been injured and were playing then I would have said no. However, given his injury and uncertainty I think you have to at least consider it.....especially cause I don't want them to be in a position to get this type of draft pick again in the upcoming seasons.

Couldn't have said it any better! What if the Colts were to get the #1 draft pick & trade it away instead of drafting Luck & Peyton comes out & get injured week 1? We would be right back in the situation we in now!

[CR91 11,003]

so then by that logic every QB in the NFL is given 3 plays to choose from because if that's what qualifies as a pro style offense then that would be a fair assumption to make would it not?

no thats just our offense. im just asking you how is that not considered a pro-style offense

Edited October 10, 2011 by coltsrule91

[Balzer40 4,233]

Way to avoid the question....however this is the type of response I had counted on. ;)

Ok I'm fine for debating a lot of things, but you can't deny that he's surrounded by great talent, especially on the offense. Of the 3 starters on Luck's OL that are draft eligible, 2 of them are rated as the second highest player at their position. Coby Fleener, one of the TE's I keep referring to, is rated as the 4th best TE in the nation and at 6'6" and 254 lbs he's still constantly referred to as the 3rd fastest player on the entire team. As best I can tell the other 2 TE's aren't draft eligible for 2012. I don't know if their primary RB's are draft eligible or not to be able to compare their ability to others at the same position, but you put any college caliber RB behind their OL and said RB is going to produce.

I have no problem with people saying they want to draft Luck because that simply is their preference. However when people really start reaching and talking about Luck making the players around him better and he carries the team on his shoulders....this is just false on all counts and quite honestly sounds more like something that would be regurgitated from one of the commentators during a Stanford game than anything someone who has watched even one Stanford game would say.

Wait, are you saying that Luck can't make the players around him better??? I have told you before that I have watched nearly every game of Stanfords since before even Luck started there. Im a huge Jim Harbaugh fan and thats why I started watching them. Before Luck became their regular starting QB, Stanford was on nobody's radar at all. They are relevant because of Luck and the talent they have been able to get since he started there. Yes, Stanford has some good players but they are not stacked with talent in any way shape or form. I know you just don't want to draft Luck for whatever reason and you feel compelled to try and convince everybody that does that were wrong. Thats fine, its your opinion.

[dn4192 52]

Way to avoid the question....however this is the type of response I had counted on. ;)

Ok I'm fine for debating a lot of things, but you can't deny that he's surrounded by great talent, especially on the offense. Of the 3 starters on Luck's OL that are draft eligible, 2 of them are rated as the second highest player at their position. Coby Fleener, one of the TE's I keep referring to, is rated as the 4th best TE in the nation and at 6'6" and 254 lbs he's still constantly referred to as the 3rd fastest player on the entire team. As best I can tell the other 2 TE's aren't draft eligible for 2012. I don't know if their primary RB's are draft eligible or not to be able to compare their ability to others at the same position, but you put any college caliber RB behind their OL and said RB is going to produce.

I have no problem with people saying they want to draft Luck because that simply is their preference. However when people really start reaching and talking about Luck making the players around him better and he carries the team on his shoulders....this is just false on all counts and quite honestly sounds more like something that would be regurgitated from one of the commentators during a Stanford game than anything someone who has watched even one Stanford game would say.

How am I avoiding the question? All college players have good and bad games. You have to look at their overall body of work. So what if Luck has a bad bowl game, don't care, if you look at his overall body of work and such I am unsure how you can't think he has the ability to play and play on a very high level.

[SanAntonioColt 5]

Who the heck is scared?

There is a very legitimate argument to be made for trading away the pick in order to build the franchise right now. If Manning gets a clean bill of health and there is a team will to pay the Colts a king's ransom for the rights to draft luck, that is certainly a plan worth looking into.

If Manning's future is cloudy at draft time and they have "earned" the # 1 pick, then by all means take Luck.

I think you are correct. I will go a little further. The use of the word "scared" is nonsense. Moreover, an overall #1 is not going to ride the pines for long. Drafting Luck signals a quick end to the Colts career of Peyton Manning. If Peyton can go, I say accept the "King's ransom for the Luck pick and maybe pick up the missing pieces to more championships while the greatest QB of all-time is still a Colt.

[mightisright 53]

I think you are correct. I will go a little further. The use of the word "scared" is nonsense. Moreover, an overall #1 is not going to ride the pines for long. Drafting Luck signals a quick end to the Colts career of Peyton Manning. If Peyton can go, I say accept the "King's ransom for the Luck pick and maybe pick up the missing pieces to more championships while the greatest QB of all-time is still a Colt.

Amen to that! As I've already said, if Manning is healthy for the next few years, we won't be able to afford to keep Luck long enough to use him anyway.

[J@son 7,463]

Wait, are you saying that Luck can't make the players around him better??? I have told you before that I have watched nearly every game of Stanfords since before even Luck started there. Im a huge Jim Harbaugh fan and thats why I started watching them. Before Luck became their regular starting QB, Stanford was on nobody's radar at all. They are relevant because of Luck and the talent they have been able to get since he started there. Yes, Stanford has some good players but they are not stacked with talent in any way shape or form. I know you just don't want to draft Luck for whatever reason and you feel compelled to try and convince everybody that does that were wrong. Thats fine, its your opinion.

Again no that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that right now Luck doesn't have to make the players around him better because many of them are already elite players at their respective positions. I also agree that prior to Luck (and Harbaugh) that Stanford was on no one's radar....my question is however how much of their current success can be attributed only to Luck and not the system itself. Harbaugh is currently having very similar success in San Fran with Alex Smith at QB and I think we would all agree Smith is far from an elite QB.

I also agree that whether to draft Luck is a matter of opinion only and that there is no definitive right or wrong answer....I have no problem debating the merits of either argument but as I said, it's when people twist things around to make Luck sound like some sort of messiah that I have a problem with because after watching many, many games I don't see where he is THAT much better. I'm not even saying he isn't the best overall QB prospect but I don't think he's lightyears away from the other top prospects like so many people try to make him out to be.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Jason

[Balzer40 4,233]

Amen to that! As I've already said, if Manning is healthy for the next few years, we won't be able to afford to keep Luck long enough to use him anyway.

Why do people keep saying this? Its just not true. They have a new rookie wage scale and it's pretty much next to nothing.

[J@son 7,463]

How am I avoiding the question? All college players have good and bad games. You have to look at their overall body of work. So what if Luck has a bad bowl game, don't care, if you look at his overall body of work and such I am unsure how you can't think he has the ability to play and play on a very high level.

Yes I fully agree that you have to look at the overall body of work. However, if the overall body of work is against teams that are average at best then it's hard to take his accomplishments with the same validity as if they were against other top-tier teams. I tried to find actual in-game stats for the Virginia Tech bowl game from last year and tried to compare vs. Va Tech's overall defensive numbers for the year but I couldn't find the relevant data to be able to make a determination. Luck played very well against Va Tech, I won't even try to deny him that but I couldn't find anything that showed how Va Tech measured in defense over the course of the year to be able to put Luck's numbers in proper perspective. This is all I've been trying to do all along is take the hype around Luck, take what I've seen from him myself and put it in perspective with the type of offense they run and the caliber of opposition they play game in and game out. If we don't take all of these things into consideration then we may wind up drafting a guy who's the best in the game because he's playing against average to below average defenses on a team that is built around a very powerful OL and power running game.

[dn4192 52]

I think you are correct. I will go a little further. The use of the word "scared" is nonsense. Moreover, an overall #1 is not going to ride the pines for long. Drafting Luck signals a quick end to the Colts career of Peyton Manning. If Peyton can go, I say accept the "King's ransom for the Luck pick and maybe pick up the missing pieces to more championships while the greatest QB of all-time is still a Colt.

Problem is your "all time great" isn't great anymore. We need to accept this fact that we have seen the best of Peyton and it's time to begin moving towards the future. This is what I mean by "scared" Joe Colt Fan is scared to accept that it's time to begin the transition between Peyton and his replacement. This transition isn't something that should be done overnight, I would say it is about a 2 maybe 3 year process and if the opportunity is there for the replacement to be Andrew Luck, you have to take it, even if it means Peytons career comes to a end a tad sooner.

[dn4192 52]

Amen to that! As I've already said, if Manning is healthy for the next few years, we won't be able to afford to keep Luck long enough to use him anyway.

Why not? With the new CBA top picks don't get the mega bucks. Under the old system you would be right, but that system is gone.

[Duolian 18]

If it should pan out that the Colts end up with the top pick, I think they go with Luck for the following reasons, in no particular order:

1. It is the safest pick for people whose jobs may be on the line. If he doesn't pan out, EVERYONE in the NFL was wrong about him, not just the Colts.

2. If you have fundamental questions about your entire defensive philosophy (and I would hope the Colts do, at this point) - how do you evaluate defensive talent since you may not know exactly what you need the most? Do you trade a Luck-pick for three BPA's and cross your fingers they fit in somehow? Do you bring in a new DC well before the draft to start figuring that out? If not, would you simply draft to patch up/rejuvenate the Tampa 2? Luck buys time to make those hard decisions/transitions on defensive philosophy.

3. Luck seems like the safest bet to ensure a waiting list for season tickets for the next 10-15 years.

Think of the pressure on Peyton next year, assuming he is able to come back. Not only is there the expected scrutiny of how he looks vs. how he used to look, but you have this additional elephant in the room that a perennial playoff team had an historic implosion without him at the helm. Does half the team resent him, and half offer to wash his feet? If the Colts don't immediately resume their winning ways, will the talk of "he's lost it" begin? Shakespeare could work with stuff like this.

Ultimately, I think behind closed doors, Manning helps them make the call. He is a student of himself as much as a student of the game. He is going to know where he stands physically, and how much is left in the tank. I suspect if the Colts draft Luck, it will be with Manning's implicit approval that it is the smart move.

[J@son 7,463]

2. If you have fundamental questions about your entire defensive philosophy (and I would hope the Colts do, at this point) - how do you evaluate defensive talent since you may not know exactly what you need the most? Do you trade a Luck-pick for three BPA's and cross your fingers they fit in somehow? Do you bring in a new DC well before the draft to start figuring that out? If not, would you simply draft to patch up/rejuvenate the Tampa 2? Luck buys time to make those hard decisions/transitions on defensive philosophy.

to address the question about defense, if they are going to make a scheme change then they'll make a coaching change as well and that would likely be done almost immediately after our season is over. So new coaches would already be in place to be able to determine what types of players would be needed.

[oldunclemark 10,314]

Why do Colts fans want Andrew Luck when we're down to street players in the lines and the defensive secondary..

Sounds like a lot of folks are watching a lot of ESPN...?

Why dont we draft what we need instead of what SporstCenter wants??

[dn4192 52]

Why do Colts fans want Andrew Luck when we're down to street players in the lines and the defensive secondary..

Sounds like a lot of folks are watching a lot of ESPN...?

Why dont we draft what we need instead of what SporstCenter wants??

Ummm because you don't pass on someone with the talent of Luck. SportsCenter has nothing to do with it.

[oldunclemark 10,314]

You dont repair your bleeding defensive secondary and offensive lines because you cant pass on a QB you cant play??

Think about what you're saying.

[dn4192 52]

You dont repair your bleeding defensive secondary and offensive lines because you cant pass on a QB you cant play??

Think about what you're saying.

It's going to take a couple of drafts to repair both the bleeding defensive and offensive line. You take your franchise QB with the first overall pick and then spend the next picks next year addressing that issue and again the following draft. You never pass on a "franchise" player, never.

[J@son 7,463]

It's going to take a couple of drafts to repair both the bleeding defensive and offensive line. You take your franchise QB with the first overall pick and then spend the next picks next year addressing that issue and again the following draft. You never pass on a "franchise" player, never.

Anyone in the top 10 could be considered a "franchise player" at their respective position. We could draft Alshon Jeffrey, a franchise WR to help now and help the transition to the new QB when that time comes. At minimum Matt Barkley and Landry Jones are also considered franchise QBs. Or are you saying the #1 overall pick is the only place to acquire a franchise player? Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Favre, Young, etc etc etc etc would all beg to differ

[oldunclemark 10,314]

Thank you Jason...a voice of reason.....in a world of crazy.

[IndyTrav 769]

Im not scared of drafting Luck. Im scared of the draft position we have in general. If recent history holds true we're going to reach for a system guy who will more than likely not pan out. Only it will have been done with a Top 3 pick, not the 30th. My personal hope is we do land the #1 and hold it for a kings ransome to teams like Seattle/Mia and hope to land it.

[MAC 2,496]

It's going to take a couple of drafts to repair both the bleeding defensive and offensive line.

I disagree. Castonzo, Ijalana, Reitz, Pollack, Nevis, and Moala (at a minimum) appear to be long-term keepers. We are one offensive guard and one defensive tackle away from being set at both positions for years to come. We obviously also need a DB or three.

Planning to replace Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, and Clark is obviously also a consideration - but IF Manning is healthy, QB doesn't need to be addressed for another couple of years.

That being said, if the Colts see someone who THEY FEEL is the perfect QB fall to them, I'd have no problems with them taking him. You get it when you can.

[leatherman 18]

I would rather upgrade the O-line and secondary than draft luck......

[dn4192 52]

Anyone in the top 10 could be considered a "franchise player" at their respective position. We could draft Alshon Jeffrey, a franchise WR to help now and help the transition to the new QB when that time comes. At minimum Matt Barkley and Landry Jones are also considered franchise QBs. Or are you saying the #1 overall pick is the only place to acquire a franchise player? Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Favre, Young, etc etc etc etc would all beg to differ

No, I franchise player is a game changer and doesn't "have" to be a No. 1 pick. Tom Brady is an example of that as is Aaron Roger and such. I don't see WR or RB being "franchise" players, good to great but not "franchise" A "Franchise" player is someone who takes that team to the next level all by themselves which really limits what position they play.

[dn4192 52]

I disagree. Castonzo, Ijalana, Reitz, Pollack, Nevis, and Moala (at a minimum) appear to be long-term keepers. We are one offensive guard and one defensive tackle away from being set at both positions for years to come. We obviously also need a DB or three.

Planning to replace Freeney, Mathis, Wayne, and Clark is obviously also a consideration - but IF Manning is healthy, QB doesn't need to be addressed for another couple of years.

That being said, if the Colts see someone who THEY FEEL is the perfect QB fall to them, I'd have no problems with them taking him. You get it when you can.

At this point we don't know what the young OF line guys can do and even if they do well it won't be overnight (next year in the NFL). Not taking Luck because "Maybe" Manning who is getting older every day is just wise and foolish. We are talking about the most important position in pro sports. No other single position in any sport has the impact the QB and the chance to replace your aging QB with SERIOUS health issues in the coming years with probably the highest graded QB to come out of college SINCE your present QB came out is unthinkable.

[dn4192 52]

I would rather upgrade the O-line and secondary than draft luck......

Then this team is bound to revert back to it's play/record pre Manning, which isn't all bad I mean hey means more seats available at Lucas to see the Colts, no more of those pesky Monday night or Sunday night or even thursday night games and no worries about saving up to buy those "Superbowl" tickets each year......

[leatherman 18]

At this point we don't know what the young OF line guys can do and even if they do well it won't be overnight (next year in the NFL). Not taking Luck because "Maybe" Manning who is getting older every day is just wise and foolish. We are talking about the most important position in pro sports. No other single position in any sport has the impact the QB and the chance to replace your aging QB with SERIOUS health issues in the coming years with probably the highest graded QB to come out of college SINCE your present QB came out is unthinkable.

If i'm luck i wouldn't want to come here and potentially sit behind manning for four years........and i also wouldn't want to play with this defense.......If i felt they were going to pick me i'd just play another year of college ball

[OLD FAN MAN 643]

because of our recent history on high picks, uhgo, gonzo, brown, hughes, etc.pats found brady in the 6 rd, let the media make our pick and it might turn out better

[deedub75 1,315]

I can see valid arguments for both sides. Drafting Luck would not be nearly as expensive with the new CBA as it was with the old one. The problem I see is having Luck sit on the sidelines for the next 4 years. Rodgers was a rarity because he fell so low in the draft. I think Manning will come back and be his old self next season. The surgery he had will make him like new. His surgery is similar to a pitcher having Tommy Johns surgery. They usually come back stronger than they were before having the surgery. If Manning's surgery is successful he will be back at 100% then how can you justify sitting a number 1 overall pick on the sidelines for possibly 4 years? Those first rounders are usually reserved for players who can make an immediate impact. I say it all depends on Manning's health which way we go in the draft. I also think that we will end up winning a few games at the end of the season and we will not get the first pick anyway.

[deedub75 1,315]

We should have pick Ryan Mallett. Patriots have their future Brady replacement.