Irsay Views Andrew Luck As The "aaron Rodgers" Project

[Dtman513]

On ESPN, Jim Irsay tweeted that he would take Andrew Luck in next year's draft in hopes of doing what Green Bay did with Aaron Rodgers under Brett Favre...

Ok, this means we've basically been told that Luck will be picked by the Colts to emulate the "Aaron Rodgers" project. However, if he is going to do this, he has to take into account the circumstances of Rodger's success.

What Irsay may fail to understand is that yes, Luck will be learning from THE BEST QB in the business but, the Colts still lack a solid defense and a head coach. These are two key areas he must address in order for his "Aaron Rodgers" project to come true.

Rodgers is successful for a couple of reasons....He learned from one of the greats, and inherited a solid defense, offense as well as a head coach. Rodger's team had all the tools to be successful even before he started. The Packers had a plan for his future, and it has been successful. Irsay needs to have a plan as well, and that plan should not revolve around Luck....It should revolve around THE TEAM.

The Colts currently have serious concerns, and Manning not playing has lifted the veil on these issues. A new defense needs to be built, there is virtually no special teams, the running game needs improvement, and there are questions regarding the head coach and staff.

The team MUST COME FIRST! Not, Luck.

Irsay should not let his fantasy of selecting Andrew Luck deter from solving other team matters. If he plans to make this move, he should look at the big picture and settle things in the present in order to win in the future.....

Thoughts?

[John Waylon]

Prepare to be crucified for posting that....

[coltfaninnewyork]

I agree the pack is loaded everywhere,the defense is filled with great player's raji,woodson and matthews.We have some real good player's as well just not enough.

[ruksak]

Prepare to be crucified for posting that....

I have a brand new hammer........

[indy_nick]

I think our running game is definitely coming along, especially with our recent upgrade in the trenches. I wouldn't worry too much about that. I am in complete agreement that we need to revamp our defense. Whether that means sticking with a 4-3 scheme and only implementing Tampa 2 in prevent situations or switching entirely to a 3-4 defense, something needs to be done. I have a very strong feeling that there will be a coaching change well before Luck will take the helm as the Colts starting QB. I just hope the change will be sooner rather than later to give us more time to adjust. If we keep drafting defensive players and CP continues to make small splashes in the free agency market like he did this year (I this year was a special situation with the lockout and all) then I think we can definitely build our team for the future. The QB position is the hardest and most important spot to fill in the NFL. If we put the correct peaces around a franchise QB, then great things can ensue. Lets just hope they do.

[Flash7]

I don't agree with handling this as a Rogers/Favre situation. There are many differences as you have pointed out. The front office will do a thorough investigation into Manning's health, and how well he has been able to rehab. If they project that he will be healthy enough to produce at a high level, (obviously he won't be able to produce at the same level he used to prior to surgery, and having aged) they will make a push for the Superbowl with Manning and trade down for more draft picks to surround manning with a better team. As we all know, there are many issues with this team that need to be addressed. Having more picks will allow us to do this.

If Manning's health is considered to be a future issue and he is not projected to play at a high level, they should draft Luck with the intention of starting him sooner rather than later, maybe after 1 year of being with the team. (He will not hold a clip board for 4-5 years.) With Luck, you have made a calculated decision to draft the best quarterback prospect in recent years. We also will get the first pick in every round of the draft. So essentially, we can choose from the best available players in each round and also address some of the holes in the team. In either scenario, you have protected the team and made a sound decision.

[Jason_]

erm.....

[Balzer40]

I don't agree with handling this as a Rogers/Favre situation. There are many differences as you have pointed out. The front office will do a thorough investigation into Manning's health, and how well he has been able to rehab. If they project that he will be healthy enough to produce at a high level, (obviously he won't be able to produce at the same level he used to prior to surgery, and having aged) they will make a push for the Superbowl with Manning and trade down for more draft picks to surround manning with a better team. As we all know, there are many issues with this team that need to be addressed. Having more picks will allow us to do this.

If Manning's health is considered to be a future issue and he is not projected to play at a high level, they should draft Luck with the intention of starting him sooner rather than later, maybe after 1 year of being with the team. (He will not hold a clip board for 4-5 years.) With Luck, you have made a calculated decision to draft the best quarterback prospect in recent years. We also will get the first pick in every round of the draft. So essentially, we can choose from the best available players in each round and also address some of the holes in the team. In either scenario, you have protected the team and made a sound decision.

Wow, You have made a logical, well thought out, and lucid argument. It is actually a nice change from some of the pure unadulterated nonsense that has recently been posted by some here. Thats a +1 for you.

[bavanlan]

I agree the pack is loaded everywhere,the defense is filled with great player's raji,woodson and matthews.We have some real good player's as well just not enough.

That what happens when you draft by talent, not by need.

[deedub75]

On ESPN, Jim Irsay tweeted that he would take Andrew Luck in next year's draft in hopes of doing what Green Bay did with Aaron Rodgers under Brett Favre...

Ok, this means we've basically been told that Luck will be picked by the Colts to emulate the "Aaron Rodgers" project. However, if he is going to do this, he has to take into account the circumstances of Rodger's success.

What Irsay may fail to understand is that yes, Luck will be learning from THE BEST QB in the business but, the Colts still lack a solid defense and a head coach. These are two key areas he must address in order for his "Aaron Rodgers" project to come true.

Rodgers is successful for a couple of reasons....He learned from one of the greats, and inherited a solid defense, offense as well as a head coach. Rodger's team had all the tools to be successful even before he started. The Packers had a plan for his future, and it has been successful. Irsay needs to have a plan as well, and that plan should not revolve around Luck....It should revolve around THE TEAM.

The Colts currently have serious concerns, and Manning not playing has lifted the veil on these issues. A new defense needs to be built, there is virtually no special teams, the running game needs improvement, and there are questions regarding the head coach and staff.

The team MUST COME FIRST! Not, Luck.

Irsay should not let his fantasy of selecting Andrew Luck deter from solving other team matters. If he plans to make this move, he should look at the big picture and settle things in the present in order to win in the future.....

Thoughts?

Rodgers didn't learn a thing from Favre. Favre refused to teach him.

[pacolts56]

Well....he is the shot-caller.

The owner is gonna do what he's gonna do, and no one....even Bill Polian, and certainly not any of us parrots...will stop the drafting of Andrew Luck if we have the #1 pick and that is what Irsay wants.

On the bright side for Luck-haters....the 25mil rookie cap contract he will sign, rather than the 50-70 million that guys like Bradford and Stafford signed will leave us no excuse for staying out of the free agent game and shoring up those other areas we all agree need addressing.

[Xfiles]

I don't agree with handling this as a Rogers/Favre situation. There are many differences as you have pointed out. The front office will do a thorough investigation into Manning's health, and how well he has been able to rehab. If they project that he will be healthy enough to produce at a high level, (obviously he won't be able to produce at the same level he used to prior to surgery, and having aged) they will make a push for the Superbowl with Manning and trade down for more draft picks to surround manning with a better team. As we all know, there are many issues with this team that need to be addressed. Having more picks will allow us to do this.

If Manning's health is considered to be a future issue and he is not projected to play at a high level, they should draft Luck with the intention of starting him sooner rather than later, maybe after 1 year of being with the team. (He will not hold a clip board for 4-5 years.) With Luck, you have made a calculated decision to draft the best quarterback prospect in recent years. We also will get the first pick in every round of the draft. So essentially, we can choose from the best available players in each round and also address some of the holes in the team. In either scenario, you have protected the team and made a sound decision.

For the most part agree with that assessment with the only difference in my mind being that even if you believe Manning will come back effective next year, I think you still Draft Luck as the predecessor to Manning. Its just unfortunate this has happend this way but the team has to protect itself at the most important position on the field.

[jgstriker]

I feel that there is one key flaw to your argument.

Yes, ARod was given a much better team, overall, than what Luck would inherit at this point. The team needs alot of pieces to be at the level of Green Bay on both offense and defense.

The flaw in your logic, however, is that not taking Luck would fix thse issues. Even if we didn't pick luck, the opposite would not lead us to fixing all of our other issues, it would just give us the chance to maybe get a couple of defensive guys. But regardless, we would HAVE to pick our qb of the future at some point. If we don't take luck, we end up having to take some other quarterback in the ne4xt couple of years who most likely won't be at the same caliber.

We will have to get the dfense and the quarterback at some point. Drafting luck does not ruin the chance that we could get the defense, it just means that we would have to upgrade the defense in the coming drafts. Taking the dfense now just insures that we would need to be drafting the the quarterback in the coming drafts.

Pick your poison, I would take the Lucky one

[LaughingAtIrsay]

Irsay tweeted

[WoolMagnet]

I'm sure he does have an overall plan.

He was just addressing next year's draft PLAN.

This organization has become one of the best in football in a relatively short time. It wasn't ALL Manning. Give Irsay some credit.

I think it could be alot like the Arron Rodgers project. That is assuming Manning will be back for 3 or 4 more years. I'm not convinced.

The fact that Irsay is talking about it shows he has a plan. A plan that shows he sees the value of a franchise QB. The most important position on the team.

The Colts, imo, nedd a plan in place in case Manning can't play again. To not address the QB position (besides Manning) would be not having a plan.

The Colts brought in 2 rookie OL that show promise. A DT that looks very good. They brought in some exciting free agents. I see signs of "a plan" everywhere.

Next year, CB, safety, etc. We'll be fine. We need to address the QB position for future.

Green Bay's OL and defense weren't what they are today 3 or 4 years ago either. The last three years they addressed DT, LB, and OL. Very similar to us.

[smittywerb]

Well, there you have it folks. Now let's talk about what to do with the other high 6 picks we have in the draft.

[tfunky14]

No he didn't ...He said he would consicer it, not say he would take #1 right off the bat

[ruksak]

If Kermit the Frog was in the draft Irsay would say he's "considering" him too.

[Jason_]

If Kermit the Frog was in the draft Irsay would say he's "considering" him too.

Aww man...would that mean Miss Piggy would become a cheerleader? I don't know if I'm ready for that. lol

Edited October 13, 2011 by Jason

[shakedownstreet]

andrew luck is nowhere near as good on the keyboards as aaron rodgers

[Coltsman1788]

Aww man...would that mean Miss Piggy would become a cheerleader? I don't know if I'm ready for that. lol

[Vinny]

Luck will be taken #1. Rogers was what, #20. He had flaws to fix.

What flaws does Luck have?

[pizza guy]

This comes after Week 5 of a 17 week season, and no one finds it a little fishy?

Irsay is simply pumping up the value of this pick so they can fleece someone in a draft day trade if we do in fact land the #1. We all know that the Colts front office is very guarded when it comes to the draft, not letting a single hint slip out as to who they want. Everyone knows that Luck will go #1, and Irsay is just pointing out to the rest of the league that the team that already has the best QB might just go ahead and draft the next one too, because he's that good.

It's a salesman tactic, and he nailed it. I still fully expect a trade if we "earn" the #1 pick.

[Portage Coltfans]

On ESPN, Jim Irsay tweeted that he would take Andrew Luck in next year's draft in hopes of doing what Green Bay did with Aaron Rodgers under Brett Favre...

Ok, this means we've basically been told that Luck will be picked by the Colts to emulate the "Aaron Rodgers" project. However, if he is going to do this, he has to take into account the circumstances of Rodger's success.

What Irsay may fail to understand is that yes, Luck will be learning from THE BEST QB in the business but, the Colts still lack a solid defense and a head coach. These are two key areas he must address in order for his "Aaron Rodgers" project to come true.

Rodgers is successful for a couple of reasons....He learned from one of the greats, and inherited a solid defense, offense as well as a head coach. Rodger's team had all the tools to be successful even before he started. The Packers had a plan for his future, and it has been successful. Irsay needs to have a plan as well, and that plan should not revolve around Luck....It should revolve around THE TEAM.

The Colts currently have serious concerns, and Manning not playing has lifted the veil on these issues. A new defense needs to be built, there is virtually no special teams, the running game needs improvement, and there are questions regarding the head coach and staff.

The team MUST COME FIRST! Not, Luck.

Irsay should not let his fantasy of selecting Andrew Luck deter from solving other team matters. If he plans to make this move, he should look at the big picture and settle things in the present in order to win in the future.....

Thoughts?

completely agree, I'm not sure how these luck lovers think he is going to have great success with a poor supporting cast. Lets see in 2015 we will no longer have/very old:

Manning

Freeney

mathis

wayne

clark

saturday

addai

bethea

If i'm missing any all-pro's then sorry.

With luck in 2015 you will have these potiental pro-bowlers:

costanzo

angerer

powers

I think there is quite a bit of work to do before you can win past 2015

[ruksak]

Aww man...would that mean Miss Piggy would become a cheerleader? I don't know if I'm ready for that. lol

She's married to the Jets head coach. Mrs Ryan is coaching material. Perhaps we should bring her in, no?

[NM_Colts]

On ESPN, Jim Irsay tweeted that he would take Andrew Luck in next year's draft in hopes of doing what Green Bay did with Aaron Rodgers under Brett Favre...

Ok, this means we've basically been told that Luck will be picked by the Colts to emulate the "Aaron Rodgers" project. However, if he is going to do this, he has to take into account the circumstances of Rodger's success.

What Irsay may fail to understand is that yes, Luck will be learning from THE BEST QB in the business but, the Colts still lack a solid defense and a head coach. These are two key areas he must address in order for his "Aaron Rodgers" project to come true.

Rodgers is successful for a couple of reasons....He learned from one of the greats, and inherited a solid defense, offense as well as a head coach. Rodger's team had all the tools to be successful even before he started. The Packers had a plan for his future, and it has been successful. Irsay needs to have a plan as well, and that plan should not revolve around Luck....It should revolve around THE TEAM.

The Colts currently have serious concerns, and Manning not playing has lifted the veil on these issues. A new defense needs to be built, there is virtually no special teams, the running game needs improvement, and there are questions regarding the head coach and staff.

The team MUST COME FIRST! Not, Luck.

Irsay should not let his fantasy of selecting Andrew Luck deter from solving other team matters. If he plans to make this move, he should look at the big picture and settle things in the present in order to win in the future.....

Thoughts?

Great post. I tried to +1 it but exceeded my quota. You're right, the team must come 1st. We've seen first hand what happens when you build around 1 player and then that player is injured.

[John Dee]

Prepare to be crucified for posting that....

Why? He speaks 100% truth....

"If" Manning is healthy then it would be stupid for Indy to draft a QB "first overall" just to sit for 3 to 5 years. And the selection would tell one Peyton Manning... ummm sorry Bro but we are more concerned about our future than putting talent around YOU now.

"If" Manning commits to play for 4 or5 more years then there is no way in heck Indy can "afford" to draft Luck.

Irsay just simply needs to put the bottle down and whatever else he is doing because his endless jabbering online is just embarrassing.

[John Dee]

For the most part agree with that assessment with the only difference in my mind being that even if you believe Manning will come back effective next year, I think you still Draft Luck as the predecessor to Manning. Its just unfortunate this has happend this way but the team has to protect itself at the most important position on the field.

Really? just stop and think about what you just typed....

and look at the "current" team... "protect" and "important" ... and "position"... Indy did not give a darn about the "position" until they spent 4 mil for a QB they in hindsight did not need.

stellar front office work.....

[Fx Stryker]

I'm curious, does anyone else remember our last draft choice that came out of Stanford at #1? John Elway.

Remember how that went?

[bayone]

On ESPN, Jim Irsay tweeted that he would take Andrew Luck in next year's draft in hopes of doing what Green Bay did with Aaron Rodgers under Brett Favre...

Ok, this means we've basically been told that Luck will be picked by the Colts to emulate the "Aaron Rodgers" project. However, if he is going to do this, he has to take into account the circumstances of Rodger's success.

What Irsay may fail to understand is that yes, Luck will be learning from THE BEST QB in the business but, the Colts still lack a solid defense and a head coach. These are two key areas he must address in order for his "Aaron Rodgers" project to come true.

Rodgers is successful for a couple of reasons....He learned from one of the greats, and inherited a solid defense, offense as well as a head coach. Rodger's team had all the tools to be successful even before he started. The Packers had a plan for his future, and it has been successful. Irsay needs to have a plan as well, and that plan should not revolve around Luck....It should revolve around THE TEAM.

The Colts currently have serious concerns, and Manning not playing has lifted the veil on these issues. A new defense needs to be built, there is virtually no special teams, the running game needs improvement, and there are questions regarding the head coach and staff.

The team MUST COME FIRST! Not, Luck.

Irsay should not let his fantasy of selecting Andrew Luck deter from solving other team matters. If he plans to make this move, he should look at the big picture and settle things in the present in order to win in the future.....

Thoughts?

TOTALLY AGREE, wish i could have expressed it so well myself

[Xfiles]

Really? just stop and think about what you just typed....

and look at the "current" team... "protect" and "important" ... and "position"... Indy did not give a darn about the "position" until they spent 4 mil for a QB they in hindsight did not need.

stellar front office work.....

Yeah, they didnt prepare well, and the collins project has looked horrible, but it is what it is now.

[Xfiles]

I'm curious, does anyone else remember our last draft choice that came out of Stanford at #1? John Elway.

Remember how that went?

What does that have to do with Luck? Are you really trying to imply just because they are both from Stanford that will happen again? wow.

[A.J. Colt]

The notion that it would be 'stupid' to Draft Luck and let him sit ... is well... STUPID!... Even if Manning comes back healthy there is no guarantee he doesn't get blasted in the first game and reinjured ...there is no guarantee he is even the same at all... and he probably only has 3-5 years left...

So with all those factors and the fact that the QB position is by far the MOST important position in football... It's been proven over and over that having an Good to Great QB makes you viable immediately ...

Also with the new CBA the "affording it" really isn't a factor...because there is a rookie wage scale....

If you don't take Luck who is by all accounts the most 'can't miss' pick in years .... If you don't take him and Manning isn't himself or gets reinjured ....how many people are going to be ripping the Colts up and down for not having a QB option lined up for Peyton (like they are right now! Except add to it you just had a shot at a Franchise guy...)

All this trading down picking up mass picks etc... What more of a guarantee do you have that any of those will be improvements over what you have currently?

So you are going to trade the best prospect in years at the MOST IMPORTANT POSITION on the football field ... for what extra 1st rounders(D.Brown, J.Hughes, A.Gonzo) ...extra 2nd rounders? (T.Ugoh, Pollack, Jennings) extra 3rd rounders?(Pitcock, Wheeler, even K.Thomas) Do any of those light you on fire?? LOL ... LOL...LOL ... Are you so stoked to get 2 or 3 more Jerry Hughes that you'd pass up a potential P.Manning??

If the Colts have the pick and Luck is there... They would be INSANE not to pick him... INSANE!! LOL...

[doogansquest]

I feel that there is one key flaw to your argument.

Yes, ARod was given a much better team, overall, than what Luck would inherit at this point. The team needs alot of pieces to be at the level of Green Bay on both offense and defense.

The flaw in your logic, however, is that not taking Luck would fix thse issues. Even if we didn't pick luck, the opposite would not lead us to fixing all of our other issues, it would just give us the chance to maybe get a couple of defensive guys. But regardless, we would HAVE to pick our qb of the future at some point. If we don't take luck, we end up having to take some other quarterback in the ne4xt couple of years who most likely won't be at the same caliber.

We will have to get the dfense and the quarterback at some point. Drafting luck does not ruin the chance that we could get the defense, it just means that we would have to upgrade the defense in the coming drafts. Taking the dfense now just insures that we would need to be drafting the the quarterback in the coming drafts.

Pick your poison, I would take the Lucky one

Well....he is the shot-caller.

The owner is gonna do what he's gonna do, and no one....even Bill Polian, and certainly not any of us parrots...will stop the drafting of Andrew Luck if we have the #1 pick and that is what Irsay wants.

On the bright side for Luck-haters....the 25mil rookie cap contract he will sign, rather than the 50-70 million that guys like Bradford and Stafford signed will leave us no excuse for staying out of the free agent game and shoring up those other areas we all agree need addressing.

Those QB's also started right away, because that's what first overall picks do. Luck would be costing us $6 million a year to carry a clipboard.

If Irsay believes this is anything like Rodgers, he has truly lost it. Rodgers was 24th overall and cost the Packers nothing while they developed him and built a team. Luck would be setting us back first pick money and contributing nothing. Meanwhile, it would hinder our ability to retain and acquire pieces to make us a viable contender during Manning's remaining years.

If Luck manages to pair himself with a good agent, life becomes more difficult. He may hold out for bonuses, incentives, or even a trade, because he could be launching a storied career somewhere else instead of waiting for Manning's last chapter to close. The rookie cap only truncated how much a rookie can demand up front. It doesn't restrict what they can ask for once signed, however.

People talk as if they knew Rodgers would play well with the current Packers squad. He was virtually unheralded, and certainly didn't come with the hype and expectations surrounding Luck.

Is QB the most important position on the field? No. (Gasp) A QB will get nowhere without an offensive line. A QB can't win when a defense doesnt get him the ball back. Any QB can look good with weapons and competent support (see: Sanchez). The only exception to this fact, this law of football, has been Manning himself. I can guarantee you Luck won't be that good.

People claim trading out of the Luck pick would land us more Hughes, Brown, and Gonzo's. What about Clark, Castonzo, Angerer, Sanders, Wayne, Carter, Addai? Those guys were in the first four rounds too. Don't conveniently overlook the fact that the 2010 draft was a freaking knockout to make your argument. Cherry picking is easy.

Luck may be a sure thing, but that does nothing to improve our team's chances of winning Super Bowls until after 2015. I'd rather win them now. No franchise future has ever been more secure than when it wins Super Bowls. Green Bay went almost 30 years without until Favre came along, but their fans hadn't diminished. The 49ers haven't been relevant since 1994, but they still pack their stadium every week. The Rams have been LOUSY since Warner left, but they have a phenomenal fanbase. All mid or small market teams, propped up by a history of Super Bowls and the idea that they will once again get it back.

Indianapolis can secure it's future by winning a few more Super Bowls with Manning. Not by building a team that gets by until Luck is ready, and then hope he pans out.

Edited October 13, 2011 by doogansquest

[Quantum88]

I am confused. I read Irsay's tweet as well when it was posted and am still trying to see how people are reading to mean, "We will draft Luck." Nothing in that tweet said anything of the kind. It just said we would consider him, along with about 300 other players.

[Smitto]

All i gotta say to this is if the colts draft luck he better start the year after cause then he would just be another sorgi or painter...... except on steroids (meaning he looks and is better).... I wonder how fans would react to see the team field the same defense next year... because thats basically whats gonna happen unless that get really lucky in the 2nd and 3rd round.

[chad72]

All this discussion will end up being a moot point as I see the Dolphins go 0-16 and the Colts go 1-15/2-14 thus ending with the No.2 pick. Actually, we might be better off with the No.2 or No.3 pick where there will be less consensus players to be chosen and thus making them ideal trade down scenarios since there are needs across the board and we will need several picks to address them.

If we do end up with Luck at No.1 (the only consensus pick I see in the top 3), I also have my doubts that Manning makes it past 2 more years, these neck issues could end up being recurring and I would be shocked if they don't come back again. So, if it turns out that way that Luck starts after a couple of years like Rivers or Brees did in San Diego (unlike Rodgers caught behind a Favre that won't go away and starting 4 years later), I won't blast the Colts for taking Luck at No.1 at all. Definitely not Sam Bradford or Mathew Stafford money to worry about for 2 years if that were the case.

If we do have a No.2 or No.3 pick, I bet the Colts keep Manning's offseason health reports under wraps till after the draft is over, just to give the Colts an edge come draft day.

We will win one of the Jaguars games, btw.

Edited October 13, 2011 by chad72

[jskinnz]

On ESPN, Jim Irsay tweeted that he would take Andrew Luck in next year's draft in hopes of doing what Green Bay did with Aaron Rodgers under Brett Favre...

Ok, this means we've basically been told that Luck will be picked by the Colts to emulate the "Aaron Rodgers" project. However, if he is going to do this, he has to take into account the circumstances of Rodger's success.

What Irsay may fail to understand is that yes, Luck will be learning from THE BEST QB in the business but, the Colts still lack a solid defense and a head coach. These are two key areas he must address in order for his "Aaron Rodgers" project to come true.

Rodgers is successful for a couple of reasons....He learned from one of the greats, and inherited a solid defense, offense as well as a head coach. Rodger's team had all the tools to be successful even before he started. The Packers had a plan for his future, and it has been successful. Irsay needs to have a plan as well, and that plan should not revolve around Luck....It should revolve around THE TEAM.

The Colts currently have serious concerns, and Manning not playing has lifted the veil on these issues. A new defense needs to be built, there is virtually no special teams, the running game needs improvement, and there are questions regarding the head coach and staff.

The team MUST COME FIRST! Not, Luck.

Irsay should not let his fantasy of selecting Andrew Luck deter from solving other team matters. If he plans to make this move, he should look at the big picture and settle things in the present in order to win in the future.....

Thoughts?

First off, what Irsay tweets in September has little bearing on what will happen if the time comes to actually draft Luck or trade the pick. Secondly, the season is only five games old and there appears to be many potential teams that will be in the running for the # 1 pick.

In other words, this is a whole lot of nothing right now.

[jskinnz]

I am confused. I read Irsay's tweet as well when it was posted and am still trying to see how people are reading to mean, "We will draft Luck." Nothing in that tweet said anything of the kind. It just said we would consider him, along with about 300 other players.

Exactly. It means next to nothing right now.

Of course they have to consider the possibility. But they also have to consider the alternative. They Colts had to consider taking Leaf in 1998 as well - did not mean they were ever going to take him.

[Jason_]

This comes after Week 5 of a 17 week season, and no one finds it a little fishy?

Irsay is simply pumping up the value of this pick so they can fleece someone in a draft day trade if we do in fact land the #1. We all know that the Colts front office is very guarded when it comes to the draft, not letting a single hint slip out as to who they want. Everyone knows that Luck will go #1, and Irsay is just pointing out to the rest of the league that the team that already has the best QB might just go ahead and draft the next one too, because he's that good.

It's a salesman tactic, and he nailed it. I still fully expect a trade if we "earn" the #1 pick.

Something else I found fishy was all of the media hype that was present around Bill Polian going to the Stanford vs. Duke game. http://www.mockingth...n-suck-for-luck Like you said, considering how guarded the Colts are about the draft, am I think only one that thinks that if Polian wanted to, he could have gotten to that game without the media being as aware of it as they were? I got the impression that perhaps they wanted the media to know and make a big deal about it, which is what happened. Why make sure the media knows? Because everyone will assume that Polian is there to scout Luck, which everyone did. This could have been another attempt to jack up the price of the #1 overall pick. Or, perhaps, as the article said, Polian was there to scout one of the Stanford offensive lineman or TE's which are 2 other areas of need for the Colts. This might be considered even by "trade down" folks as a little bit of a reach thinking the media was alerted on purpose and I admit that, but still...the whole thing just seemed a little fishy to me.

Is QB the most important position on the field? No. (Gasp) A QB will get nowhere without an offensive line of which Stanford has one of the best OL in football. A QB can't win when a defense doesnt get him the ball back Stanford has the best defense in their relatively weak conference and also one of the top defenses overall in college football. Any QB can look good with weapons and competent support (see: Sanchez and Alex Smith in San Fran who is now in a very similar scheme/system. On one of the weekly NFL shows I watched last night, Steve Young was talking about the turn-around by Alex Smith because of the system he's now playing in (Harbaugh's system which is the same he installed at Stanford that Luck has played in for the entire duration of his college career) which is designed specifically around making the QB "look good" (Steve's words, not mine) and I suspect it's only a matter of time before the comparisons between Smith's sudden success and Luck start being made and media "experts" start to question this as well). The only exception to this fact, this law of football, has been Manning himself. I can guarantee you Luck won't be that good.

Just wanted to expand on and further empasise some of the excellent points you made.

Exactly. It means next to nothing right now.

Of course they have to consider the possibility. But they also have to consider the alternative. They Colts had to consider taking Leaf in 1998 as well - did not mean they were ever going to take him.

Now see, all you're doing is trying to confuse people by presenting logical facts. *tisk tisk* LOL (j/k of course)

Excellent points and +1's all around

Edited October 13, 2011 by Jason