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

[Mameluc]

It's just not ours, it's everyone who reviews college players. Look through all the sources, everyone has Luck leaps and bounds better then any other QB in this draft and is viewed as one of the top prospects to come out since Peyton. Are you saying they all are wrong? If you can find me any qualified person whose job it is to review/evaluate and project college players onto the NFL level that isn't that strong on Luck....please give me their web address and I will review it and maybe change my opinion.

those are the same sources who said hughes would improve our pass rush and brown would improve our rushing game, the same with Moala... just saying that they may be wrong

[Jason_]

Let me try to simplify it for you:

If "the greatest prospect in 15 years" is drafted by a team with Joe Schmoo as their QB, he starts on day-1

If "the greatest prospect in 15 years" is drafted by the team with " the greatest QB", he sits until retirement in 2-3years

*points to sky* Look up there, it's a bird...it's a plane...no it's the point that flew WAY over your head. The post you quoted was me directly replying to dn4192 who said in one post that Luck is the greatest prospect and most NFL ready QB of all time, but in another post said that Luck wouldn't be ready to start until year 2. These 2 points contradict one another and that's what I was trying to point out. Either Luck is the best QB prospect and most NFL ready QB (which means he'd be ready to start from day one) or he won't be ready to start for 2 years which would make him more of a project QB.

It's just not ours, it's everyone who reviews college players. Look through all the sources, everyone has Luck leaps and bounds better then any other QB in this draft and is viewed as one of the top prospects to come out since Peyton. Are you saying they all are wrong? If you can find me any qualified person whose job it is to review/evaluate and project college players onto the NFL level that isn't that strong on Luck....please give me their web address and I will review it and maybe change my opinion.

They have him projected so much higher because of his NFL readiness and ability to start from day 1. This is what I've been reading on every scouting report. Nothing about him being infinitely more intelligent, nothing about him having far superior arm strength, nothing about his overall better physical skill set. The hype about Luck is about his NFL-readiness. I have asked for months now for anyone to show me a link or report that says anything different. Regardless, you listen to what the "experts" say...the same experts that had Leaf and Manning being neck and neck...the same experts that said Houston should have drafted Vince Young etc. Yes these are only a couple of examples but it proves the experts are not always right, but I also freely admit that in many cases they are. Regardless of what the experts say, however, you have admitted numerous times that you take the word of the "experts" no questions asked...I've never taken anything with that type of blind trust. I take all things into account...what I read about players and what I see from them with my own eyes.

[Jason_]

If Luck is ready come season two, I mean really ready...hello Mr. Manning...this is a clipboard get use to it.

Again, by Luck's season 2 we would have passed the "opt out clause" in Manning's contract so...no way that happens. ;)

[dn4192]

those are the same sources who said hughes would improve our pass rush and brown would improve our rushing game, the same with Moala... just saying that they may be wrong

No question, like I said earlier any one you pick is a risk. But what you try to do is sift through all the informatin and make the right choice and everyone seems high on Luck.

[dn4192]

Again, by Luck's season 2 we would have passed the "opt out clause" in Manning's contract so...no way that happens. ;)

Why? Peyton can't ride the pine if you have a better option? Heck maybe a trade? Or a reworked contract. Trust me if we take Luck and Luck is ready say come 2014, they will find a way to get Peyton out and get Luck in.

[Jason_]

But what you try to do is sift through all the informatin and make the right choice

This I agree with 100% and is what I've been doing from the very beginning. With that, I'm done responding to you.

[dn4192]

*points to sky* Look up there, it's a bird...it's a plane...no it's the point that flew WAY over your head. The post you quoted was me directly replying to dn4192 who said in one post that Luck is the greatest prospect and most NFL ready QB of all time, but in another post said that Luck wouldn't be ready to start until year 2. These 2 points contradict one another and that's what I was trying to point out. Either Luck is the best QB prospect and most NFL ready QB (which means he'd be ready to start from day one) or he won't be ready to start for 2 years which would make him more of a project QB.

They have him projected so much higher because of his NFL readiness and ability to start from day 1. This is what I've been reading on every scouting report. Nothing about him being infinitely more intelligent, nothing about him having far superior arm strength, nothing about his overall better physical skill set. The hype about Luck is about his NFL-readiness. I have asked for months now for anyone to show me a link or report that says anything different. Regardless, you listen to what the "experts" say...the same experts that had Leaf and Manning being neck and neck...the same experts that said Houston should have drafted Vince Young etc. Yes these are only a couple of examples but it proves the experts are not always right, but I also freely admit that in many cases they are. Regardless of what the experts say, however, you have admitted numerous times that you take the word of the "experts" no questions asked...I've never taken anything with that type of blind trust. I take all things into account...what I read about players and what I see from them with my own eyes.

They are experts for a reason. They spend more time reviewing and evaluating college talent in 1 week then any "joe" fan does in his lifetime. This is their job, and for the most part they are pretty good at it. Are they correct all the time, of course not, heck even brain surgerns make mistakes. If these experts were not right more often then wrong they wouldn't be in that line of work. The objective of a draft is to improve your team, I am unsure how drafting Luck is not improving the team.

[Restored]

*points to sky* Look up there, it's a bird...it's a plane...no it's the point that flew WAY over your head. The post you quoted was me directly replying to dn4192 who said in one post that Luck is the greatest prospect and most NFL ready QB of all time, but in another post said that Luck wouldn't be ready to start until year 2. These 2 points contradict one another and that's what I was trying to point out. Either Luck is the best QB prospect and most NFL ready QB (which means he'd be ready to start from day one) or he won't be ready to start for 2 years which would make him more of a project QB.

They have him projected so much higher because of his NFL readiness and ability to start from day 1. This is what I've been reading on every scouting report. Nothing about him being infinitely more intelligent, nothing about him having far superior arm strength, nothing about his overall better physical skill set. The hype about Luck is about his NFL-readiness. I have asked for months now for anyone to show me a link or report that says anything different. Regardless, you listen to what the "experts" say...the same experts that had Leaf and Manning being neck and neck...the same experts that said Houston should have drafted Vince Young etc. Yes these are only a couple of examples but it proves the experts are not always right, but I also freely admit that in many cases they are. Regardless of what the experts say, however, you have admitted numerous times that you take the word of the "experts" no questions asked...I've never taken anything with that type of blind trust. I take all things into account...what I read about players and what I see from them with my own eyes.

Um, first off "NFL Ready" constitutues something different than what your interpretation is. It constitutes Arm Strength, Accuracy, Intelligence, Mechanics etc. This doesn't mean he is quite fully ready to start day 1 but it says he has all the ablities to be able to do so because of these traits. And in terms of intelligence he actually HAS been projected to be more intelligent than other QB's. I'll re-edit this post and give you a few links. He is running Stanfords offense the way some of the good NFL QB's run theirs with line calls, blitz adjustments and audibling. The "expert" board has been pretty universal in saying he ahead of the other QB's unlike in years past where there has been substantial arguement on who is the best QB avaliable. Secondly, players like Vince Young weren't running their offenses in college the way Luck. Especially considering he done it has with substantially less talented RB's and defense compared to Texas and LSU.

Someone also tried to shoot down the money factor but once again missed the point that Luck WONT BE GETTING PEYTON MANNING NUMBERS. There are ways to manuever around the cap and restructure contracts for it to work.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Adam Noucateri

[Restored]

I dont agree, i think money is an issue... Look, i honestly dont know what to think, for the future luck is the best choice No doubt about it, but think about it.

there is areason why pollian/irsay were so publicly trying to pressure manning to agree to a deal of less than 22 million, you cant compete with 10% of your cap room tied to 1 position...which is exactly what would happen if we draft Luck. Peyton cap hit next year would be 17 Mill (I think), and if you consider cam newton's deal which is arround 4 millions, it means Luck would get something around 4.25-4.50 million...which is around 21 Million, or 10% of your cap space, tied to 2 players OR 1 position...we would be in the same situation, which the colts smartly tried to avoid.

As i said im 50 50, corners (as other poster already said) can be found in every draft, luck types of talent cannot. But it also means no cap space for all the OBVIOUS needs this team has, and Luck WILL NOT solve that. the only thing that i think could be done is to bassically get rid of most veteran such as mathis,wayne,diem,saturday,bracket, even Moala (who is young but is probably looking for a raise), bullit and some more (which wouldnt be taht bad since i dont think, besides wayne and mathis, deserve another deal), and replace them with rookies which because of the rookie wage scale would take significantly less money/cap. but that would mean practically building for the future, which i dont think would be fare to manning and current veterans like freeney and fans.,who would see perhaps the latest years of one of the GOAT down the drain.

i think if they draft Luck, it probably means Manning will only play 1 more year with us or maybe 2. could be and hope i am wrong.

You have no idea how the salary cap works. Stop. Peyton's 22 mil a year applies to the cap for that year specfically. If Luck gets signed for 4-5 million per year, that means he only counts 4-5 million against the cap for that year. The new Rookie Wage Scale implies that instead of rookie players coming and counting 18-20 million against the cap because of stupidly huge contracts, they will be more around 5-6 million. It doesnt go by the total price of his contract but rather what he is projected to make that year.

Also, the only players that are deserving of new deals this year are Wayne, Mathis, and Garcon. Everyone else is up in the air as I said earlier.

[Jason_]

Um, first off "NFL Ready" constitutues something different than what your interpretation is. It constitutes Arm Strength, Accuracy, Intelligence, Mechanics etc. This doesn't mean he is quite fully ready to start day 1 but it says he has all the ablities to be able to do so because of these traits.

Actually, my interpretation of "NFL ready" is exactly along the lines of what you described. I gave a multi-point description in another thread of my interpretation of what NFL ready means and essentially it was the same points you described. I don't remember the thread but if I run across it I'll link it. I've always felt that a top 5 pick QB is one who starts from day one of his second year at the very latest, but usually much sooner. A QB who's ready to start "after 2 years, 3 tops" is, imo, more of a project QB you groom due to said QB not having the overall polished mechanics, accuracy etc. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say or perhaps I didn't communicate what I was trying to say as effectively as I could have. The mere point I was trying to make is the "best QB prospect and most NFL ready QB in the last 15 years" is not going to take 2 years, 3 tops to become ready to be an NFL starter. Generally speaking, when you take a QB #1-#5 you are taking a QB who you plan to sit for no longer than 1 full year. If he's going to sit any longer than that either due to your team's current depth chart or because you think it will take him that long to be ready to start then you take one a little further down in the draft.

This doesn't mean he is quite fully ready to start day 1 but it says he has all the ablities to be able to do so because of these traits.

Again, perhaps this is just misunderstanding, but the way I'm reading this statement it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Again, it could simply be misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

[Restored]

Actually, my interpretation of "NFL ready" is exactly along the lines of what you described. I gave a multi-point description in another thread of my interpretation of what NFL ready means and essentially it was the same points you described. I don't remember the thread but if I run across it I'll link it. I've always felt that a top 5 pick QB is one who starts from day one of his second year at the very latest, but usually much sooner. A QB who's ready to start "after 2 years, 3 tops" is, imo, more of a project QB you groom due to said QB not having the overall polished mechanics, accuracy etc. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say or perhaps I didn't communicate what I was trying to say as effectively as I could have. The mere point I was trying to make is the "best QB prospect and most NFL ready QB in the last 15 years" is not going to take 2 years, 3 tops to become ready to be an NFL starter. Generally speaking, when you take a QB #1-#5 you are taking a QB who you plan to sit for no longer than 1 full year. If he's going to sit any longer than that either due to your team's current depth chart or because you think it will take him that long to be ready to start then you take one a little further down in the draft.

Again, perhaps this is just misunderstanding, but the way I'm reading this statement it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. Again, it could simply be misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

I think you are misunderstanding me. Don't get me wrong, if Luck had to come in and play right off the bat I think he would be "ready" to do so and have moderate success. But my point is no NFL QB that has come out since Marino has played statstically at a level that is reached later on in most QB's careers. Manning was better in his 2nd and 3rd year than in his 1st correct? Yet in Peyton's first year he still at a moderate level which in my mind would be the same as Luck. My point being that when he comes into the league he would be ready to start and probably play a moderate level but I think everyones notion is that in 2-4 years he could step in from learning from Peyton and play at the level Aaron Rodgers has played. Another thing people miss with Aaron Rodgers is that if Alex Smith doesn't go first, its very possible he could be in Green Bay instead of San Fran. Now you could argue that him actually playing would make him better than sitting him but there has been evidence that proves both sides of that arguement.

[Mameluc]

You have no idea how the salary cap works. Stop. Peyton's 22 mil a year applies to the cap for that year specfically. If Luck gets signed for 4-5 million per year, that means he only counts 4-5 million against the cap for that year. The new Rookie Wage Scale implies that instead of rookie players coming and counting 18-20 million against the cap because of stupidly huge contracts, they will be more around 5-6 million. It doesnt go by the total price of his contract but rather what he is projected to make that year.

Also, the only players that are deserving of new deals this year are Wayne, Mathis, and Garcon. Everyone else is up in the air as I said earlier.

errr perhaps you should re read my post cause i just said exactly that.. I said that luck would count around 4-5 million per year which is exactly what you said, I said 17 million of manning next year + the 4..5 millions luck's contract should be = 21 millions... if the cap limit is 121 million next year...thats 10% isnt it?... i dont understand what your rant is about

we also agreed on the players that should be resigned, so again...wth? lol

[Coltssouth]

Moving to the "Draft" section of the forum. Please post all Andrew Luck discussions there.

[Restored]

errr perhaps you should re read my post cause i just said exactly that.. I said that luck would count around 4-5 million per year which is exactly what you said, I said 17 million of manning next year + the 4..5 millions luck's contract should be = 21 millions... if the cap limit is 121 million next year...thats 10% isnt it?... i dont understand what your rant is about

we also agreed on the players that should be resigned, so again... wth? lol

Yes it is 10% but you also have to realize the same cap numbers for each player will be different depending on their contracts this year. Players restructure contracts all the time and im sure we can fit 4-5 million as teams leaguewide find ways to do it all time. Other teams are top heavy in RB's, Recievers or defensive players. We just happen to be the team that would be top heavy in QB money. I said 3 players out of the upcoming FA list should be re-signed and their respective contracts can be restructured to differ money to different years. I'm not 100% but I believe the remaning players who are projected to be F/A's can make up for that 4-5 million. Trading for more picks and more players also means more money to be spent so that wouldn't necessarily better either.

If Irsay said that its possible to sign him, I don't see why we wouldn't be able to if we didnt actually have the money to do so.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Adam Noucateri

[Jason_]

I think you are misunderstanding me. Don't get me wrong, if Luck had to come in and play right off the bat I think he would be "ready" to do so and have moderate success. But my point is no NFL QB that has come out since Marino has played statstically at a level that is reached later on in most QB's careers. Manning was better in his 2nd and 3rd year than in his 1st correct? Yet in Peyton's first year he still at a moderate level which in my mind would be the same as Luck. My point being that when he comes into the league he would be ready to start and probably play a moderate level but I think everyones notion is that in 2-4 years he could step in from learning from Peyton and play at the level Aaron Rodgers has played. Another thing people miss with Aaron Rodgers is that if Alex Smith doesn't go first, its very possible he could be in Green Bay instead of San Fran. Now you could argue that him actually playing would make him better than sitting him but there has been evidence that proves both sides of that arguement.

Very true and well thought out points all around. One thing I would counter with is this...you're right, Manning and most other QB's don't statistically play at their ultimate level their first year and each year they do play they do improve. The same is true of Rodgers....his first year stats were somewhat mediocre but only compared to how he's playing now. Yes, he's playing better in his first year as full time starter than the other elite QB's, but he may have and probably would be at that same level by the 3rd year anyway had he been starting right away.

There certainly is evidence for both sides, I agree with that as well. I also acknowledge that some of my posts may have come out as me exaggerating the point of NFL readiness, but if so it was only because of the posts I was responding to.

My personal opinion still however is that if Manning returns even for only 1 year then we can afford to pass on Luck. I think with even 1 year behind Peyton that either Landry Jones or Matt Barkley would be ready to take over because those things that make a QB NFL ready can be improved upon in that amount of time. In fact I would say the same about Nick Foles though even some of Foles' most staunch supporters may argue he would need at least 2, possibly 3 years. So my basic premise is that unless Peyton never returns, then we have the luxury of being able to look at the other intangibles of QB's such as Jones, Barkley, Foles, Tannehill, and Cousins (I'm not including Kellen Moore or RG3 because I'm not convinced that their overall skill sets will translate well to the NFL) and see which areas of their mechanics and what part of of the intangibles need to be addressed. If it's something simple like improving their footwork or their throwing motion then these are what I would consider very minor issues, but still are things that would keep them from being termed "NFL ready" at this point. So, while a few people may tell you differently, it's not that I'm opposed to drafting Andrew Luck nor that I have a problem with having an NFL ready QB sit behind Peyton for anywhere from 1-4 years. I just don't feel that we need to spend the #1 overall pick on a QB when we could trade down, even only 2-3 spots, and still get one of the top prospects in the draft but also acquire several picks in the process. So like many have said, it all comes down to Peyton's health come draft day and I've said this from the very beginning...though a few people may try to tell you differently.

[Steagles]

I want Luck if we know that Peyton's career has been shortened to the next 2-3 seasons and no more. I'd rather take Lance than Luck if I can get Kirkpatrick first instead and him later.

[Jason_]

Very true and well thought out points all around. One thing I would counter with is this...you're right, Manning and most other QB's don't statistically play at their ultimate level their first year and each year they do play they do improve. The same is true of Rodgers....his first year stats were somewhat mediocre but only compared to how he's playing now. Yes, he's playing better in his first year as full time starter than the other elite QB's, but he may have and probably would be at that same level by the 3rd year anyway had he been starting right away.

I meant to expand a little further on this...the point I was attempting to make was that the first year for every QB is typically going to be rough....granted Rodger's first year was much better than many others, but at the same time was his first year better than the 2nd or 3rd years of Manning, Aikman or one of the other QBs who started from day one. I think it's only fair to compare Rodger's first year with the 2nd or 3rd year of Manning or Aikman because what Rodgers was learning while being groomed, Aikman and Manning were learning on the field.

[Restored]

Very true and well thought out points all around. One thing I would counter with is this...you're right, Manning and most other QB's don't statistically play at their ultimate level their first year and each year they do play they do improve. The same is true of Rodgers....his first year stats were somewhat mediocre but only compared to how he's playing now. Yes, he's playing better in his first year as full time starter than the other elite QB's, but he may have and probably would be at that same level by the 3rd year anyway had he been starting right away.

There certainly is evidence for both sides, I agree with that as well. I also acknowledge that some of my posts may have come out as me exaggerating the point of NFL readiness, but if so it was only because of the posts I was responding to.

My personal opinion still however is that if Manning returns even for only 1 year then we can afford to pass on Luck. I think with even 1 year behind Peyton that either Landry Jones or Matt Barkley would be ready to take over because those things that make a QB NFL ready can be improved upon in that amount of time. In fact I would say the same about Nick Foles though even some of Foles' most staunch supporters may argue he would need at least 2, possibly 3 years. So my basic premise is that unless Peyton never returns, then we have the luxury of being able to look at the other intangibles of QB's such as Jones, Barkley, Foles, Tannehill, and Cousins (I'm not including Kellen Moore or RG3 because I'm not convinced that their overall skill sets will translate well to the NFL) and see which areas of their mechanics and what part of of the intangibles need to be addressed. If it's something simple like improving their footwork or their throwing motion then these are what I would consider very minor issues, but still are things that would keep them from being termed "NFL ready" at this point. So, while a few people may tell you differently, it's not that I'm opposed to drafting Andrew Luck nor that I have a problem with having an NFL ready QB sit behind Peyton for anywhere from 1-4 years. I just don't feel that we need to spend the #1 overall pick on a QB when we could trade down, even only 2-3 spots, and still get one of the top prospects in the draft but also acquire several picks in the process. So like many have said, it all comes down to Peyton's health come draft day and I've said this from the very beginning...though a few people may try to tell you differently.

Pretty much agree with all that you said except for the more draft picks part. Draft picks, like QB's as we've talked about, take time to develop and unless they are WR's or LB's, there is usually a window between 1-3 years that takes them to develop as well. Peyton may not play beyond 3 so we would essentially be drafting for the future anyway. So if thats the case, why not take the QB that many project to be a great QB in this league for years to come? Also, aquiring more picks=more money for players that could more or less take up just as much money. You don't think us drafting and signing a great DT in the top 10 would really cost us that much less than Luck? Nick Fairly's rookie contract was for 4 years-10 million which is about 2.5 million a year. That is a 2-3 million difference but that can be back-ended into the later years of Luck's rookie deal with incentives based around if he plays sooner than projected (Peyton retiring earlier than expected). Another option as well is giving Luck the 4-5 million per year in the form of 2-3mil coming in "bonuses" that doesnt count against the cap and his annual salary being 2mill which would actually count against the cap.

[super8todd]

Here is my take. Like it or Hate it. No doubt we don't want to accept that Manning is in the ending stage of his career. Of course there are some that think we should trade away the #1 pick for some 'Kings Ransom'.. but would it really be?? I mean to trade the #1 for another later #1, #2nd and #3rd even wouldn't even be equal for the unequivocal fortunate situation of getting the best QB prospect since Peyton himself. Would you even trade the current Peyton Manning now for a #1,#2,& #3?

I'm tired of this 'only a true fan' would deny taking Luck and such. Maybe it should be argued, only a true fan would want the best for its team, the Colts, and not the Peyton Manning's current era Colts.

Because, if we get the chance for selecting Luck and pass on him... No doubt that the Polians will get another Ugoh, Gonzalez, Brown, bust for the King's ransom and we will deservedly be stuck in the football gutter for the next 10 years.

[Jason_]

Draft picks, like QB's as we've talked about, take time to develop and unless they are WR's or LB's, there is usually a window between 1-3 years that takes them to develop as well.

http://forums.colts....012-mock-draft/

That's my mock and the type of players I'd like to bring in. I agree that every rookie needs some time to develop but even the ones who can't start right away should be able to contribute either in getting solid playing time in a backup role or on special teams. I do think we'd get 2-3 starters at least but several of the others would be solid contributors as backups. And actually, in the past year or 2 we've been seeing the younger guys get more playing time than we were used to under Dungy. Definitely part of this was due to injury but still, just look at guys like Wheeler, Conner, Nevis, Angerer, Collie, Castonzo, and Eldridge have just to name a few.

I mean to trade the #1 for another later #1, #2nd and #3rd even wouldn't even be equal for the unequivocal fortunate situation of getting the best QB prospect since Peyton himself.

You're way underestimating what we expect we'd be able to get for the #1 pick. Some "experts" (wish I had a link but I don't at the moment...will add one later if I can find one) are predicting that the "Luck pick" could be worth 3 first round picks (the later 2012 pick as well as first round picks in 2013 and 2014) PLUS additional mid round picks. Remember, in order to get Julio Jones, Atlanta swapped 1st round picks last year, plus gave up the 2nd and 4th last year PLUS their 1st and 4th in 2012. There is no way I'd consider trading that #1 pick if we don't get at least one future first round pick as well. The whole deal would/should work out to adding 6-7 or more picks spread out between 2012, 2013 and maybe even 2014. None of us "trade down" folks are suggesting to let it go for only a couple extra 2012 picks. I am partially intrigued by the trade down option simply to find out exactly what some teams would be willing to give up to move up for him.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Jason

[Restored]

http://forums.colts....012-mock-draft/

That's my mock and the type of players I'd like to bring in. I agree that every rookie needs some time to develop but even the ones who can't start right away should be able to contribute either in getting solid playing time in a backup role or on special teams. I do think we'd get 2-3 starters at least but several of the others would be solid contributors as backups. And actually, in the past year or 2 we've been seeing the younger guys get more playing time than we were used to under Dungy. Definitely part of this was due to injury but still, just look at guys like Wheeler, Conner, Nevis, Angerer, Collie, Castonzo, and Eldridge have just to name a few.

You're way underestimating what we expect we'd be able to get for the #1 pick. Some "experts" (wish I had a link but I don't at the moment...will add one later if I can find one) are predicting that the "Luck pick" could be worth 3 first round picks (the later 2012 pick as well as first round picks in 2013 and 2014) PLUS additional mid round picks. Remember, in order to get Julio Jones, Atlanta swapped 1st round picks last year, plus gave up the 2nd and 4th last year PLUS their 1st and 4th in 2012. There is no way I'd consider trading that #1 pick if we don't get at least one future first round pick as well. The whole deal would/should work out to adding 6-7 or more picks spread out between 2012, 2013 and maybe even 2014. None of us "trade down" folks are suggesting to let it go for only a couple extra 2012 picks. I am partially intrigued by the trade down option simply to find out exactly what some teams would be willing to give up to move up for him.

So you mean to tell me trade away our #1 pick on a possible great franchise QB for primarily backup players? The 2-3 players you say that could aren't any more of a solid to be a contributing starter any more than Luck. They could end up being another Ugoh for us. And once again, the players projected wouldn't have a full impact for another 2-3 years. In that sense, you are primairily hoping that we can have 1 amazing year where all these players fall into place and us to win a championship. While I applaud your fanminship, its not that realistic.

[Jason_]

So you mean to tell me trade away our #1 pick on a possible great franchise QB for primarily backup players? The 2-3 players you say that could aren't any more of a solid to be a contributing starter any more than Luck. They could end up being another Ugoh for us. And once again, the players projected wouldn't have a full impact for another 2-3 years. In that sense, you are primairily hoping that we can have 1 amazing year where all these players fall into place and us to win a championship. While I applaud your fanminship, its not that realistic.

Lordy lordy....no, I did NOT say to trade away the #1 pick "primarily for backup players". You either misunderstood or are trying to twist my words...i'm hoping for the former.

I said I fully believe we get (minimum) 2-3 starters and others who can contribute solidly from day one and groom into eventually starters either later throughout the season or by day 1 of year 2. Of the players on my Mock (look past the first post because I updated it further down the page), players like Manti Te'o LB, Stephon Gilmore CB, Mark Barron SS, and Kevin Zeitler OG are players I would expect to be day 1 starters. Josh Chapman could very well be a day 1 starter as well but if he doesn't prove by the start of the season that he is ready to supplant AJ then he at least gets a lot of playing time in rotation with AJ, much like Nevis has this year with Moala (prior to injuries). Just like Nevis, I would expect Chapman to be the starter by midway through the season his first season. TE Coby Fleener and WR Reuben Randle would very likely see significant playing time in year one and Fleener would likely pass Eldridge, but Randle most likely wouldn't move into a starters position until year 2..though he really isn't relevant to the conversation because I have him as a 5th round pick.

So no, I don't see how it looks like I'm hoping they fall into place for one run 2-3 years down the line. Many, in fact most, of these players would make a significant impact either from day one or midway through the first year (barring injuries of course).

I have a hard time considering Ugoh a bust because it was more due to unforseen circumstances at the time rather than it simply being a bad pick. See my post here if you'd like a more indepth explanation on Ugoh.

[super8todd]

http://forums.colts....012-mock-draft/

That's my mock and the type of players I'd like to bring in. I agree that every rookie needs some time to develop but even the ones who can't start right away should be able to contribute either in getting solid playing time in a backup role or on special teams. I do think we'd get 2-3 starters at least but several of the others would be solid contributors as backups. And actually, in the past year or 2 we've been seeing the younger guys get more playing time than we were used to under Dungy. Definitely part of this was due to injury but still, just look at guys like Wheeler, Conner, Nevis, Angerer, Collie, Castonzo, and Eldridge have just to name a few.

You're way underestimating what we expect we'd be able to get for the #1 pick. Some "experts" (wish I had a link but I don't at the moment...will add one later if I can find one) are predicting that the "Luck pick" could be worth 3 first round picks (the later 2012 pick as well as first round picks in 2013 and 2014)

Okay. Let's just say for the sake of argument we get a chance for taking Luck. If #1 pick, its a no-brainer. Let's say we could've received 3 first round future picks for him... look at our results in the past 3 years picking first round.. all busts: Gonzalez, Brown, Hughes.... So you're saying you'd rather take a risk on getting 3 more busts than getting Peyton Manning 2.0? Take a look back to 1998. Imagine we didn't take Peyton Manning. Let's say we received 3 1st round picks for him, we'd still be last in the league... with the fact we lose talent to free agency every year, why would this be a good plan? Besides, when we are having a winning season our 1st round pick ends up being almost at around the area of a 2nd round pick, so if we have 2nd round pick1, then we are still doing what we normally do every year... but get the added Bonus of getting Luck (Peyton Manning 2.0)... i just don't understand why some are so anti-Luck?

<p class="rep_bar clearfix right" id="rep_post_51380" style="margin-top: 6px; margin-right: 4px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-left: 4px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; float: right; white-space: nowrap; ">

• 0
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• 
  

[Restored]

Lordy lordy....no, I did NOT say to trade away the #1 pick "primarily for backup players". You either misunderstood or are trying to twist my words...i'm hoping for the former.

I said I fully believe we get (minimum) 2-3 starters and others who can contribute solidly from day one and groom into eventually starters either later throughout the season or by day 1 of year 2. Of the players on my Mock (look past the first post because I updated it further down the page), players like Manti Te'o LB, Stephon Gilmore CB, Mark Barron SS, and Kevin Zeitler OG are players I would expect to be day 1 starters. Josh Chapman could very well be a day 1 starter as well but if he doesn't prove by the start of the season that he is ready to supplant AJ then he at least gets a lot of playing time in rotation with AJ, much like Nevis has this year with Moala (prior to injuries). Just like Nevis, I would expect Chapman to be the starter by midway through the season his first season. TE Coby Fleener and WR Reuben Randle would very likely see significant playing time in year one and Fleener would likely pass Eldridge, but Randle most likely wouldn't move into a starters position until year 2..though he really isn't relevant to the conversation because I have him as a 5th round pick.

So no, I don't see how it looks like I'm hoping they fall into place for one run 2-3 years down the line. Many, in fact most, of these players would make a significant impact either from day one or midway through the first year (barring injuries of course).

I have a hard time considering Ugoh a bust because it was more due to unforseen circumstances at the time rather than it simply being a bad pick. See my post here if you'd like a more indepth explanation on Ugoh. http://forums.colts....ll-as-expected/

..Making an impact as a special teams player or defensive backup rotation players in a year or two, in which Peyton could or could not be playing. Please tell me of a recent team that drafted 2-4 players that stepped in year 1 and started and IMPACTED significantly. I understand drafting for the future but my point is we would need players that could either make an impact immediately in a STARTING position. Luck could be the exception to this because he would be a long term 10+ year option at the most important position on the team whereas some of these players you talk about could maybe play 4-5 years and even with that, there is no gurantee they will be as impactful as you claim.

By the way, you sould an awful lot like Polian in your explanation for Ugoh. The fact is he came in and had one decent season and proceeded to practically disappear after that.

[Jason_]

..Making an impact as a special teams player or defensive backup rotation players in a year or two,

Again, you're completely twisting my words.

I said I fully believe we get (minimum) 2-3 starters and others who can contribute solidly from day one and groom into eventually starters either later throughout the season or by day 1 of year 2.

in which Peyton could or could not be playing. Please tell me of a recent team that drafted 2-4 players that stepped in year 1 and started and IMPACTED significantly.

Tell me the last time a player was so ridiculously that a team was able to trade down and make the type of deals I described? The closest situation I can think of would be the "great train robbery" deal when the Cowboys traded Hershel Walker. That, if memory serves, worked out pretty well.

I understand drafting for the future but my point is we would need players that could either make an impact immediately in a STARTING position. Luck could be the exception to this because he would be a long term 10+ year option at the most important position on the team whereas some of these players you talk about could maybe play 4-5 years and even with that, there is no gurantee they will be as impactful as you claim.

Just as there's no guarantee that Luck will not bust. It's not likely but it's a possibility. The players I suggested are ones I've been scouting for a while and ones I have chosen because I think they would be able to make an easier transition than many other players at the same positions and of the most highly ranked players at their respective positions I believe them to be the best fits for our team/system/scheme.

Where are you coming up with the 4-5 years figure? How many of our current players who are starters and who are making a huge impact are players that have been here 4-5 years or longer? Conversely, how many are first or second year players? From this past draft alone, 3 of the 5 draft selections were either starting from day one (Castonzo) or getting solid playing time in the rotation (Nevis, Carter) and the majority expect Nevis to become the full time starter by year's end if his injury isn't too serious. So out of 5 draft picks which we selected by drafting at the end of the round, we wound up with one day 1 starter and 2 guys who rose to #2 on the depth chart at their position and have been solid contributors. So why is it so unreasonable to think that if we double the number of picks we had, especially with the majority of the additional picks coming in the higher rounds (2-4)?

By the way, you sould an awful lot like Polian in your explanation for Ugoh. The fact is he came in and had one decent season and proceeded to practically disappear after that.

Believe what you want, but I've never listened to Polian give any kind of explanation about Ugoh. In fact, I don't think I've ever listened to him say anything about anyone. I don't watch the Polian show or any other Indy-based TV or Radio programs. Unless Polian speaks on Sportcenter, Monday NFL Countdown or NFL prime time then I'm not likely to hear it because those are the only shows I watch and I don't even watch them on a regular basis. IMO though, the proof is in the 2011 draft. They needed a day 1 starter at OT so they took Castonzo in the first round. They also needed an OT to start by the second year so they took a calculated risk with Ijalana in the second round. If they knew they were going to need a day 1 starter in the '07 draft I believe they would have traded up in the first round instead of the second. This is speculative and of course there's no way to proove one way or another.

but my point is we would need players that could either make an impact immediately in a STARTING position.

And again, the players I have selected in my mock draft are ones that I feel have the best chance of doing this. The only other way to get a number of players to make a significant impact by starting immediately is to go spend a crapload of money on FA's. Do you really expect the team to do that? I don't and that's why I feel that, for a team with a mantra of building through the draft, it makes perfect sense to take the opportunity to acquire as many additional picks as we can, both in the 2012 draft and whatever future picks we can get for 2013 and maybe even 2014.

Let's say we could've received 3 first round future picks for him... look at our results in the past 3 years picking first round.. all busts: Gonzalez, Brown, Hughes....

Gonzalez is a bust because he has been injury plagued, which he was not in college. That cannot be predicted. Luck has as much of a chance of being that injury riddled as any other player in the draft. Due to sitting behind Mathis and Freeney as a pass rushing DE and the addition of Anderson and Brayton to play on running downs, Hughes has received very little playing time. He has looked improved in the playing time he's seen this year but without getting more playing time we don't really know what he can do. However, I have gone on record many times in saying that I disagreed with the drafting of both Brown and Hughes.

So you're saying you'd rather take a risk on getting 3 more busts than getting Peyton Manning 2.0?

1. Logic would dictate that the more picks we have, the better chance we have of getting players who will succeed, though I have no doubt you'll turn this around and say it only gives us a chance to draft that many more busts. That's your prerogative and that's fine. I disagree.

2. You're assuming Luck will become Manning 2.0. This is no more a guarantee than it would be to say he will miss his entire rookie season due to injury. I don't believe Luck is anywhere near Manning. I'm sure he will be a very good or even great QB but I have several questions about him and that, primarily, is why I don't believe he is worth the #1 overall pick for us. I don't believe there is any one player that we should spend the #1 pick on.

Besides, when we are having a winning season our 1st round pick ends up being almost at around the area of a 2nd round pick, so if we have 2nd round pick1, then we are still doing what we normally do every year... but get the added Bonus of getting Luck

Or, we do what we normally do each year but we get the added bonus of 2-4 (or more) additional picks in rounds 2-4 PLUS an additional first round pick in 2013 (which could be anywhere in the round depending on the success of the team we trade with) PLUS a possible additional first round pick in 2014 (some are already predicting Luck will cost a minimum of 3 first round picks plus additional mid-round picks) but even if the 2014 first round pick doesn't happen we would also get an additional early to mid round pick in 2013.

i just don't understand why some are so anti-Luck?

If you would read the other posts I've made, you would see that I have never said I am anti-Luck. What I am is anti-using the #1 pick on any one player. If we trade down to the 3-5 spot and some how Luck falls and we draft him in picks 3-5 then fantastic. I'm not at all ready to crown him Peyton Manning 2.0, I do have some questions about him but I never said he wasn't the best QB in the draft. I've always said I don't believe he is lightyears ahead of the other top 2-4 QB's in the draft like so many make him out to be. To be honest, I kind of feel bad for the guy because as out of hand as the media hype is getting, it's going to get to the point that he can't live up to expectations but through no fault of his own, rather because expectations were set so ridiculously high that no rookie QB could meet them.

[Restored]

Again, you're completely twisting my words.

Tell me the last time a player was so ridiculously that a team was able to trade down and make the type of deals I described? The closest situation I can think of would be the "great train robbery" deal when the Cowboys traded Hershel Walker. That, if memory serves, worked out pretty well.

Yes but look at what happened this year with the Falcons. They traded numerous picks to get one player and now look, Julio Jones isn't even playing this coming week. You are pointing out one situation in the history of the NFL where all of these players turned out to be good players for the team that got them. To me, the percentages would favor taking Luck who on consensus is projected to be great than 3-4 players who may or not be impactful.

Just as there's no guarantee that Luck will not bust. It's not likely but it's a possibility. The players I suggested are ones I've been scouting for a while and ones I have chosen because I think they would be able to make an easier transition than many other players at the same positions and of the most highly ranked players at their respective positions I believe them to be the best fits for our team/system/scheme.

You sound no different than the experts saying that Luck is a great QB that could be a potential HOF player. Your basing your projections the same way all other scouts do; which is fine but it doesn't give it any more merit than those that would say the opposite.

Where are you coming up with the 4-5 years figure? How many of our current players who are starters and who are making a huge impact are players that have been here 4-5 years or longer? Conversely, how many are first or second year players? From this past draft alone, 3 of the 5 draft selections were either starting from day one (Castonzo) or getting solid playing time in the rotation (Nevis, Carter) and the majority expect Nevis to become the full time starter by year's end if his injury isn't too serious. So out of 5 draft picks which we selected by drafting at the end of the round, we wound up with one day 1 starter and 2 guys who rose to #2 on the depth chart at their position and have been solid contributors. So why is it so unreasonable to think that if we double the number of picks we had, especially with the majority of the additional picks coming in the higher rounds (2-4)?

Prior to this year: Wayne, Mathis, Freeney, Brackett (Pre-injury), Manning (pre-injury), Garcon (This is his 5th year as a pro but techincally his 6th as he was a practice squad player), Addai, Saturday. My point here is that all of these players you listed are contributors but we've had contributors come from every draft in every round in the past. We need IMPACT GAME CHANGING PLAYERS, not more rotation players. And if we draft those game changing players, they still take time to develop which we don't have a whole lot left in the Manning era.

Believe what you want, but I've never listened to Polian give any kind of explanation about Ugoh. In fact, I don't think I've ever listened to him say anything about anyone. I don't watch the Polian show or any other Indy-based TV or Radio programs. Unless Polian speaks on Sportcenter, Monday NFL Countdown or NFL prime time then I'm not likely to hear it because those are the only shows I watch and I don't even watch them on a regular basis. IMO though, the proof is in the 2011 draft. They needed a day 1 starter at OT so they took Castonzo in the first round. They also needed an OT to start by the second year so they took a calculated risk with Ijalana in the second round. If they knew they were going to need a day 1 starter in the '07 draft I believe they would have traded up in the first round instead of the second. This is speculative and of course there's no way to proove one way or another.

Um, if you actually look we traded our 1st round pick in 08 to move up in the 2nd round to take Ugoh because of Tarik Glenn's retirement. Ugoh obviously didn't pan out as he was released and replaced in this years draft with Castanzo. So if he wasn't a bust then why was he released?

And again, the players I have selected in my mock draft are ones that I feel have the best chance of doing this. The only other way to get a number of players to make a significant impact by starting immediately is to go spend a crapload of money on FA's. Do you really expect the team to do that? I don't and that's why I feel that, for a team with a mantra of building through the draft, it makes perfect sense to take the opportunity to acquire as many additional picks as we can, both in the 2012 draft and whatever future picks we can get for 2013 and maybe even 2014.

You act like we can't get significantly good picks already with picking number 1 overall in every round. Heck we could trade our 2nd round pick and get more in the 3rd and 4th. My point is we don't have to get rid of #1 overall pick in which case we'd get picks for down the road for 2 years or so which would add more time into your equation of players becoming impactful.

Gonzalez is a bust because he has been injury plagued, which he was not in college. That cannot be predicted. Luck has as much of a chance of being that injury riddled as any other player in the draft. Due to sitting behind Mathis and Freeney as a pass rushing DE and the addition of Anderson and Brayton to play on running downs, Hughes has received very little playing time. He has looked improved in the playing time he's seen this year but without getting more playing time we don't really know what he can do. However, I have gone on record many times in saying that I disagreed with the drafting of both Brown and Hughes.

..Luck has just much of a chance of getting hurt his rookie year ss do the players you stated we should draft so what's your point here lol? Wrong, the point in drafting Huges was to put him in on passing downs to give Freeney or Mathis a breather during drives. Polian stated that himself as to why Hughes was taken. He could possibly be Mathis's replacement at the end of this year however I haven't been to impressed with him although he has shown talent at times.

1. Logic would dictate that the more picks we have, the better chance we have of getting players who will succeed, though I have no doubt you'll turn this around and say it only gives us a chance to draft that many more busts. That's your prerogative and that's fine. I disagree.

I do believe it would actually give us the chance to draft more busts because history has shown in recent years with this organization that this is the case ie. Ugoh, Gonzalez (While not entirely his fault this is how it is viewed because he simply hasn't produced when he was drafted to do so), Quinn Pitcock, Roy Hall, to name a past few as well. Luck meanwhile has a full consensus to be lock and for him to fail would be the biggest wrong call in the history of the league which I don't forsee happening considering there would have to be a huge drop in his already potent skill. Recent QB's that played in a QB-centered pro offense have had moderate success thus far as well (Matt Ryan).

2. You're assuming Luck will become Manning 2.0. This is no more a guarantee than it would be to say he will miss his entire rookie season due to injury. I don't believe Luck is anywhere near Manning. I'm sure he will be a very good or even great QB but I have several questions about him and that, primarily, is why I don't believe he is worth the #1 overall pick for us. I don't believe there is any one player that we should spend the #1 pick on.

Again the same could be applied to all of the players you listed above in terms of injury, all of which are unpredictable. You may feel that way but had Luck came out last year, he would of been taken #1 over Cam Newton. I'd like to see what questions you have about Luck other than "can he succeed at the pro level?" which is the same question for every freaking player in the draft so I don't see your point there.

Or, we do what we normally do each year but we get the added bonus of 2-4 (or more) additional picks in rounds 2-4 PLUS an additional first round pick in 2013 (which could be anywhere in the round depending on the success of the team we trade with) PLUS a possible additional first round pick in 2014 (some are already predicting Luck will cost a minimum of 3 first round picks plus additional mid-round picks) but even if the 2014 first round pick doesn't happen we would also get an additional early to mid round pick in 2013.

I like your idea on pick values but it has nothing to do with the fact that by 2014 Peyton could possibly be not playing. And again like I stated before, we wouldn't have to trade the pick to get more. We could trade our #2 or #3 round pick and get players as well.

If you would read the other posts I've made, you would see that I have never said I am anti-Luck. What I am is anti-using the #1 pick on any one player. If we trade down to the 3-5 spot and some how Luck falls and we draft him in picks 3-5 then fantastic. I'm not at all ready to crown him Peyton Manning 2.0, I do have some questions about him but I never said he wasn't the best QB in the draft. I've always said I don't believe he is lightyears ahead of the other top 2-4 QB's in the draft like so many make him out to be. To be honest, I kind of feel bad for the guy because as out of hand as the media hype is getting, it's going to get to the point that he can't live up to expectations but through no fault of his own, rather because expectations were set so ridiculously high that no rookie QB could meet them.

So instead of making him have to play to high rookie expectations, why don't you have him sit a few years and learn the system behind Peyton and let some of the high expecatations tapor off with him not playing? Rodgers no doubt would of had unrealistic expectations had he had to come in and start right off the bat but after sitting for years expectations for him fell of a little more which allowed him to fully exceed them.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Adam Noucateri

[Jason_]

this is multiple posts in a row where you're either misreading what I've said or you're twisting my words:

I said:

.

If they knew they were going to need a day 1 starter in the '07 draft I believe they would have traded up in the first round instead of the second. This is speculative and of course there's no way to proove one way or another.

You replied:

Um' date=' if you actually look we traded our 1st round pick in 08 to move up in the 2nd round to take Ugoh because of Tarik Glenn's retirement. Ugoh obviously didn't pan out as he was released and replaced in this years draft with Castanzo. So if he wasn't a bust then why was he released?[/quote']

I specifically said, if they knew they were going to need a day 1 starter that I think they would have traded up IN THE FIRST ROUND instead of IN THE SECOND. In other words, instead of drafting Donald Brown, I think they would have tried to work a deal to move up to the earlier part of the first round to take one of the top first round OT's. Instead, they drafted Donald Brown and then moved up from the bottom of the second round to the earlier part of the round so they could take Ugoh...which was still a second round pick. I know they spent the following year's 1st round pick, but they spent that pick to move up in the second round for Ugoh.

We need IMPACT GAME CHANGING PLAYERS, not more rotation players.

The players I've been talking about and referring to on my mock are all players that have just as much potential and talent to become IMPACT GAME CHANGING PLAYERS, as you put it.

I'd like to see what questions you have about Luck other than "can he succeed at the pro level?" which is the same question for every freaking player in the draft so I don't see your point there.

If you really would like to know some of the questions I have about Luck, then read through the earlier pages of this thread and the other Luck threads. I went into much more detail, but the general question I have is in regards to how much of his success is due to his talent, intelligence, ability compared to how much is due to the system he plays in and the team he has around him.

Yes but look at what happened this year with the Falcons. They traded numerous picks to get one player and now look, Julio Jones isn't even playing this coming week. You are pointing out one situation in the history of the NFL where all of these players turned out to be good players for the team that got them. To me, the percentages would favor taking Luck who on consensus is projected to be great than 3-4 players who may or not be impactful.

You've completely contradicted yourself. You've used the Falcons example to speak against my comparison of Walker in saying they gave away 3-4 players for a guy who isn't going to be playing in Julio Jones, but then you completely contradict this in saying we should take Luck instead of 3-4 other players. You asked me

Please tell me of a recent team that drafted 2-4 players that stepped in year 1 and started and IMPACTED significantly.

so that's what I did.

We need IMPACT GAME CHANGING PLAYERS, not more rotation players. And if we draft those game changing players, they still take time to develop which we don't have a whole lot left in the Manning era.

How does Luck give us an immediate impact game changer to have for the rest of the Manning era? I agree that we need players that have the best opportunity to make an immediate impact and that's why I've targeted the players on my mock draft because I feel they give us the best chance to acquire those immediate impact game changers. Drafting Luck gives us zero chance of getting an immediate impact player to use for the rest of the Manning era.

..Luck has just much of a chance of getting hurt his rookie year ss do the players you stated we should draft so what's your point here lol?

My point was to disprove the fact that the FO has made as many bad choices as you claim. Yes Gonzo was a bust but it wasn't because picking him was a poor decision, it was because he couldn't stay healthy. If he had a history of injury in college then that would have made it a bad pick by the FO because they would have been taking a player with known durability issues. That, however, was not the case.

Wrong, the point in drafting Huges was to put him in on passing downs to give Freeney or Mathis a breather during drives.

How was I wrong? I said essentially the exact same thing? He was brought in to be the third pass rusher, in other words to play behind Mathis and Freeney. However, after bringing in Anderson and Brayton, even Freeney and Mathis are getting less playing time. Therefore if Freeney and Mathis are getting less playing time then of course Hughes is going to get less as well. So yes, Hughes was brought in to spell Freeny and Mathis during drives, but that's now what Anderson and Brayton are doing by being brought in on running downs. Therefore they take a lot of the playing time that Hughes otherwise would have gotten.

Multiple posts in a row you've either failed to read what I wrote or intentionally twisted what I wrote. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that it's the former and not the latter.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Jason

[Restored]

this is multiple posts in a row where you're either misreading what I've said or you're twisting my words:

I said:

.

You replied:

I specifically said, if they knew they were going to need a day 1 starter that I think they would have traded up IN THE FIRST ROUND instead of IN THE SECOND. In other words, instead of drafting Donald Brown, I think they would have tried to work a deal to move up to the earlier part of the first round to take one of the top first round OT's. Instead, they drafted Donald Brown and then moved up from the bottom of the second round to the earlier part of the round so they could take Ugoh...which was still a second round pick. I know they spent the following year's 1st round pick, but they spent that pick to move up in the second round for Ugoh.

Glenn retired before the draft so they clearly knew they needed a player to replace him. They also didn't have a first round draft pick in 2007 so their only option was to trade down in the 2nd. Do your research. The words came out of Polians mouth stating he was Glenn's replacement, not my words. Donald Brown and Ugoh were not taken in the same draft either lol so please do your research.

The players I've been talking about and referring to on my mock are all players that have just as much potential and talent to become IMPACT GAME CHANGING PLAYERS, as you put it.

I understand but you seem to not see that these players as well as Luck could just as easily not work out even though Luck is projected at a way higher value than any of these players you listed.

If you really would like to know some of the questions I have about Luck, then read through the earlier pages of this thread and the other Luck threads. I went into much more detail, but the general question I have is in regards to how much of his success is due to his talent, intelligence, ability compared to how much is due to the system he plays in and the team he has around him.

A quarterback's ablity to read a defense, change the play and ablity to roll out of the pocket and avoid pressure has nothing to do with the system. The system more or less could dictate the type of plays that are called such as having more 3 step drops or more shotgun passes but at the end of the day, its up to the player to make all the reads and throws. If he isn't able to do so, it doesn't matter what the system is. He does have talented recievers and O Linemen but so do other QB's in college with some of those teams having way more potent running games, something standford doesn't exactly have. So when that is taken from the equation you look at the QB's traits and skills and Luck has proven himself thus far to be the top player.

You've completely contradicted yourself. You've used the Falcons example to speak against my comparison of Walker in saying they gave away 3-4 players for a guy who isn't going to be playing in Julio Jones, but then you completely contradict this in saying we should take Luck instead of 3-4 other players. You asked me so that's what I did.

No I didn't. I used a cross-example to show that trading multiple picks for players or players for multiple picks doesn't always work. My point here being that no trades should be done with the #1 overall pick because its not guranteed to play out. We'll have the top overall pick in rounds 2-7

How does Luck give us an immediate impact game changer to have for the rest of the Manning era? I agree that we need players that have the best opportunity to make an immediate impact and that's why I've targeted the players on my mock draft because I feel they give us the best chance to acquire those immediate impact game changers. Drafting Luck gives us zero chance of getting an immediate impact player to use for the rest of the Manning era.

I never said he'd have an immediate impact but in 2-4 years when Manning retires he would have obviously have an impact, which ironically is around the same time your players you say we should draft DOWN THE ROAD IN 2-3 YEARS by trading the pick anyway would have an impact or atleast step on the field. So whats the difference?

My point was to disprove the fact that the FO has made as many bad choices as you claim. Yes Gonzo was a bust but it wasn't because picking him was a poor decision, it was because he couldn't stay healthy. If he had a history of injury in college then that would have made it a bad pick by the FO because they would have been taking a player with known durability issues. That, however, was not the case.

..Which turned out be to a poor choice because he didn't play? Thats still no excuse. What about your answer for Ugoh, and all the other players I listed? I understand every owner makes a bad choice but there have been plenty of mistakes by this organization over the years, especially in NOT taking players that clearly turned out to be a better choice.

How was I wrong? I said essentially the exact same thing? He was brought in to be the third pass rusher, in other words to play behind Mathis and Freeney. However, after bringing in Anderson and Brayton, even Freeney and Mathis are getting less playing time. Therefore if Freeney and Mathis are getting less playing time then of course Hughes is going to get less as well. So yes, Hughes was brought in to spell Freeny and Mathis during drives, but that's now what Anderson and Brayton are doing by being brought in on running downs. Therefore they take a lot of the playing time that Hughes otherwise would have gotten.

No no no. Hughes was brought in as a pass rusher that was meant to give Freeney and Mathis breathers on PASSING downs. Not RUNNING downs where Anderson and Brayton are being put in anyway. He had significant playing time in pre-season and aside from one play against Cincy where the 2nd and 3rd stringers were in, he hasn't shown anything other than his ablity to run himself out of plays. If he can't do anything against 2nd and 3rd stringers, what makes you believe he can be good against starters?

Multiple posts in a row you've either failed to read what I wrote or intentionally twisted what I wrote. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that it's the former and not the latter.

[Jason_]

Glenn retired before the draft so they clearly knew they needed a player to replace him. They also didn't have a first round draft pick in 2007 so their only option was to trade down in the 2nd. Do your research. The words came out of Polians mouth stating he was Glenn's replacement, not my words. Donald Brown and Ugoh were not taken in the same draft either lol so please do your research.

before I even read any further, I admit that I made a mistake, it was Anthony Gonzalez, not Donald Brown. However, the Colts DID have a 1st round pick in '07 and it was Gonzo with the #32 pick. Ugoh was taken, same year, with the #42 pick. And no, Tarik Glenn did not announce retirement before the draft:

http://www.usatoday....nn-retire_N.htm

http://tribstar.com/...nces-retirement

http://tribstar.com/...nces-retirement

These are all dated 7/27/07....the draft was held April 28 and April 29, 2007.

Yeah, I'm done with you too.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Jason

[Restored]

before I even read any further, I admit that I made a mistake, it was Anthony Gonzalez, not Donald Brown. However, the Colts DID have a 1st round pick in '07 and it was Gonzo with the #32 pick. Ugoh was taken, same year, with the #42 pick. And no, Tarik Glenn did not announce retirement before the draft:

http://www.usatoday....nn-retire_N.htm

http://tribstar.com/...nces-retirement

http://tribstar.com/...nces-retirement

These are all dated 7/27/07....the draft was held April 28 and April 29, 2007.

Yeah, I'm done with you too.

Lol so really BOTH players turned out to be busts in the same draft so you really aren't proving anything in terms of this front office not making mistakes. I stand corrected on the 1st round draft pick but really it helped your cause more than mine lol.

Oh and by the way, Polian did say they drafted him to be Glenn's replacement. The only stipulation was that he wasn't prepared for him to play as soon as he did because of Glenn's sudden retirement. So more or less we were both right and wrong on that.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Adam Noucateri

[Jason_]

Incidentally

some of those teams having way more potent running games, something standford doesn't exactly have.

Standford is currently averaging 5.1 yards per carry and over 190 yards per game. NOW...I'm done. :cool:

Edited October 14, 2011 by Jason

[Restored]

Incidentally

Standford is currently averaging 5.1 yards per carry and over 190 yards per game.

Okay and they are ranked 45th in the country which means 44 other teams rank higher in rushing. Some of those teams include top QB prospects that others have mentioned that have better rushing stats including your yards per carry average you threw out there. lol.

http://espn.go.com/c.../_/stat/rushing

Edited October 14, 2011 by Adam Noucateri

[Jason_]

Okay and they are ranked 45th in the country which means 44 other teams rank higher in rushing. Some of those teams include top QB prospects that others have mentioned that have better rushing stats including your yards per carry average you threw out there. lol.

http://espn.go.com/c.../_/stat/rushing

Ugh, I kind of hate myself right now for even replying again but.....come on man, some of those teams are only better BECAUSE THEY'VE PLAYED MORE GAMES...The rankings you show are total yardage....not yards per game. :duh:

Then you'd have to factor out the teams who have completely option based gimmicky offenses like Army, Navy, Georgia Tech etc but I'm not going to get that deep into it because I'm already getting a headache from all the :wall:

So I bid you good day, have a great weekend etc etc

[Restored]

Touche' fellow fan.

[super8todd]

Jason, i've read your rebuttals. i don't have the time to point to every single argument, i respect your opinion, but i just vehemently disagree. There is a reason Luck is worth 3 1st round picks. and with the Colts being a smaller market team, we need to invest the whole enchilada on the one position that counts. QB. Peyton Manning has proved that. Of course in an ideal fantasy world it would be great to have over 20 first,second,third round picks.. but our Colts can't afford to keep any of them but maybe 1 or 2. So, it makes the most sense to take the next Peyton Manning and have him learn from the best and move on. Anything but this, we will always be an 8-8 team. Nobody wants to play in Indianapolis. The only reason they currently do is because we have the best QB in football.. So if we continue that formula it is the best way for us to compete.

[super8todd]

I will also add this. If we pass on Luck on #1, i strongly believe it would be the equivalent of passing on Peyton Manning of #1 back in 1998. The risk of taking Luck with #1 is well worth it... even if he turns out to be a bust. But, im sure the Polians will do just as you say.. because they always seem to screw everything up and pick losers with every pick.

[Jason_]

Nobody wants to play in Indianapolis.

Do you have anything to back this up or is it merely your opinion? As to the rest, I'm burned out at the moment on the whole Luck or no Luck so I'm not even going to bother at this point. I'm simply curious what makes you say that no one wants to play here.

[fvantagio]

SIGH. everyone talks about the Favre to Rodgers situation but seem to forget that the packers were a 13-3 team the previous year. Rodgers stepped into a top tier team. The colts are not of that caliber! The only QB in the country who can win with this team is Peyton and this year is proving it. It takes 3 years to rebuild a team, last year was a solid offseason. I say we use this offseason again to rebuild THIS team, not the team 5 years from now. The steelers have won 2 and been in 3 SBs with a great team and pretty good QB in big ben. Patriots have won 3 and been in 4 with a great team and a really good QB. But Peyton is the GOAT and has won 1 and been in 2? The point im trying to make is that we need a great colts team first and for most. Why get luck to watch him score with 2 min left, just to watch the defense allow a TD and go away with a loss. Build the team up this year, next year grab your future QB and the final pieces to the puzzle. Only then could we watch success for the next 10 years.

[Jason_]

Something else that needs to be taken into consideration that no one has mentioned yet (not that I've seen anyway) and I didn't really think about it either until reading a mock draft a few minutes ago....some people are talking about Peyton's window being closed and even if he comes back there's the risk he gets re-injured so even though Peyton would be our starter it would still be the smart thing to take Luck as an insurance policy......but what does that say to our other guys like Wayne, Mathis, Freeney, Clark and Saturday who also have a limited window. You know these guys also want a chance to go for another Superbowl and three of these guys are FA's at the end of the year. Why would they want to stay here if we were going to use the best draft pick available on a guy who won't do anything to help them win another SB?

I can already imagine some of the replies this will get and I'm sure this does nothing to change anyone's mind and that's fine...but just keep in mind that if Manning does return but we draft Luck anyway, I can't see that sitting well with the other vets on the team. And I'm going to go ahead and beat someone to the punch because I'm sure that someone will say "well these guys are professionals so they'd understand it's for the future" and I'm going to say that's a pile of nonsense . Yes they're professionals but they're also competitors and they want to win while they still can. So...just something else to think about.

[super8todd]

Do you have anything to back this up or is it merely your opinion?... I'm simply curious what makes you say that no one wants to play here.

Lets face it. I love Indy. But I'm realistic. We are a smaller market trying to compete with the big boys. And our location isn't the most desired place for a young athlete out of college, we aren't an amazing state like the east coast or west coast can offer for lifestyle of these guys. We have couple of sportsbars and a couple of good steakhouses and a whole lot of cornfields. no beach, no parties, no big events besides the Indy500. I love Indiana because i grew up and have family there, but if given a choice, it would never be at the top of anyone's list, its too boring.