Irsay Views Andrew Luck As The "aaron Rodgers" Project

[pacolts56]

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.

My contention for drafting Andrew Luck was, is and always will be.... if Peyton and his doctors/inner circle come to the conclusion that he is on an abbreviated timeline of 2 seasons or less.

Doogan.... you follow the draft as much as anyone on the board and you know that whatever players we take... under the 2-season or less scenario for Manning that may very well be the case.... have a very slim possibility of being impact contributors in that short of a time span. And our coaching staff I'm afraid doesn't exactly bolster my confidence in that regard.

Take Patrick Peterson of the Cards as an example.... who was proclaimed as a pro-ready CB and has unbelievably good measurables PLUS he comes from the almighty (bow down in reverence everybody) SEC. Peterson has been getting incinerated in pass coverage so far this season. Will he be a great CB in 2-3 seasons?...sure, he may even be a Pro Bowler. It just rarely ever happens overnight.

Mark Ingram of the Saints.... another SEC product.... runs behind arguably the best interior run-blocking line in the NFL supported with unquestionably one of the most potent and diverse NFL passing attacks... and still has posted fairly pedestrian numbers. But in 1-2 seasons from now he might blow up and be a Pro Bowler as well.

These things take time. We might not have time.

IF.... and I've always stated IF Peyton Manning is down to a 1- 2 season career shelf life, then Andrew Luck should be our choice as part of a well-balanced roster retooling. Any longer than 2 seasons projected for Manning.... then the trade down scenario gains merit, although I'm not sure how anyone predicts these things.

It's a gamble no matter what way Irsay and Polian go. The very cold reality is that the Colts may be in the midst of a very substantial rebuild and we're just gonna have to wait for championship results.

But as other posters have pointed out and the front office is painfully learning.... with a rookie salary cap and hopefully some smart free agency plays... never again should the Colts be SO QB-centric and so dogmatically "pass-first" that we wind up perennially at the bottom of NFL rushing statistics even WITH a star QB....and at the same time left with a defense thats exclusively built to protect a lead that he provides.

[ruksak]

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

Remember how that went?

Indianapolis was a crap-show back then. Everything has changed on this side, and I would figure any rookie would be excited about joining an organization like this. And yes, I do remember how Elway's career went. It was pretty good.

[Jaric]

Guys, take a look at how Manning's contract is structured.

It's pretty obvious it was only intended to be for the first 3 years, after which Manning take a very significant pay cut.

If we're in a position to draft Andrew Luck, we do it. That gives us two years to rebuild the team into a balanced team not dependent on ONE player to succede (even though that one player is about as awesome as I've ever seen play)

[jskinnz]

Guys, take a look at how Manning's contract is structured.

It's pretty obvious it was only intended to be for the first 3 years, after which Manning take a very significant pay cut.

If we're in a position to draft Andrew Luck, we do it. That gives us two years to rebuild the team into a balanced team not dependent on ONE player to succede (even though that one player is about as awesome as I've ever seen play)

What makes you say this about Manning's contract? How is it structured?

[oldunclemark]

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?

I agree Dt Man....

..we lived in a fantasy football world that was going to end when Peyton retired..

This is like pigskin remake of 'A Wonderful Life'

..we're getting a glimpse of what it would be like had Peyton not happened..

[Larry Horseman]

I find the argument that we need Luck as insurance for Manning flawed. I guarantee if Luck was our QB right now, we would be in essentially the same position...maybe 1-4. With our current coaching staff and roster, this is at best a 3 win team regardless of if we are starting a rookie/second year Luck or Painter. I have been trying to comprehend what is going on this year, and I think I have finally decided that it is coaching, not talent (we do have holes in our team, but so does every NFL team...both the Pats and the Packers D get scorched on a weekly basis and have average O lines and running games but they win because of their offense identity, which is based on their QBs, and the Ravens O is terrible many weeks but they win because of their D). PM is so transcendent that he really does take a lot of pressure off of Caldwell and his game planning/preparation /adjustments. Caldwell, Christensen, and Coyer cannot find an identity for the team because there has always been one supplied for them. They can't decide if we are a running team, passing team, high powered offensive team, an aggressive defensive team, a Tampa 2 team, etc. They don't know because we've always been Peyton's team, and evidently aren't competent enough to figure it out. There is no reason we don't have 2-4 wins right now except for poor coaching. If you want to look at an example of how important coaching is in the NFL, look no further than San Francisco. They were terrible last year, and now are a very good team. The roster is essentially the exact same. The difference? The coaching staff.

That being said, Luck as a long term option is fine, but not as insurance to PM. I am of the opinion that if we draft Luck, Peyton should not be on the roster past next year. We should trade him, and let our new franchise QB take over. This is not my preference, but it makes the most sense for the franchise and future of the team if we do draft Luck. Painter is good enough insurance for Peyton, but is not the future. At this stage, Luck would be just as good of insurance (not better perhaps worse), but could be the future. Basically if we draft Luck, we are saying that we are ready to put an end to the PM years and move on. You can agree or disagree, but I do not believe the Colts can have it both ways and be successful...it's Manning or Luck, and if we draft Luck I would want him to start in his second year and get his growing pains out of the way asap. Even if he sits behind PM for three or four years, his first year starting will be a struggle and I want that to happen as soon as possible. (Again, I would prefer to not draft Luck). Also, if we do draft Luck, then we should hope that we change our coaching staff or else it won't really matter.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Larry Horseman

[Jason_]

Also, if we do draft Luck, then we should hope that we change our coaching staff or else it won't really matter.

I'm at the point that we should change our coaching staff regardless.

[doogansquest]

BTW, Irsay didn't say anything concrete. He just used words like "hypothetically" and "consider." He also said it could be like the scenario in Green Bay, but anyone with a brain knows the obvious and tangible differences.

And since when did we suddenly start taking Irsay's tweets seriously? I mean, this is the same guy who gets flamed all day long for tweeting, but the moment he feigns even the slightest, hypothetical interest in a player the know-nothings are fawning about, he's suddenly definitively chosen Andrew Luck.

[Moncrief]

Sadly doogan that's the way this forum has come to. Only hear what they want to hear.

[Jason_]

Sadly doogan that's the way this forum has come to. Only hear what they want to hear.

Amen to that.

[pacolts56]

BTW, Irsay didn't say anything concrete. He just used words like "hypothetically" and "consider." He also said it could be like the scenario in Green Bay, but anyone with a brain knows the obvious and tangible differences.

And since when did we suddenly start taking Irsay's tweets seriously? I mean, this is the same guy who gets flamed all day long for tweeting, but the moment he feigns even the slightest, hypothetical interest in a player the know-nothings are fawning about, he's suddenly definitively chosen Andrew Luck.

To be honest Doogan....I liked it better when we heard absolutely nothing from the front office.

But Irsay threw it out there and right now....everything about the health of Peyton Manning and his remaining time as an NFL QB is also hypothetical, which in turn drives the QB discussion and the interest in Andrew Luck.

What's wrong with that? It's only our opinions.

Trust me, I'd have much preferred Peyton show up this season healthy and full strength, and we'd be discussing our crappy defense...again...instead of college QBs.

But evidently, there are no DTs worth a Top 5 pick...and Peyton's neck is phucked up...so kicking ideas around about future QBs isn't a topic for the backburner any more. No one here knows what they'll do...but if we wind up at #1 and we can't come up with a trade down partner...who the heck else should they draft?

[super8todd]

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... 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 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?

[John Dee]

Indy will NOT draft Luck if Manning is healthy and they have the pick.

It is all about PM's health. We will know for sure by Dec. Indy could really use an influx of talent and parlaying the 1st overall pick into half a starting D would be lovely.

[John Dee]

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.

I don't see it. Indy has lost very winnable games to teams they really should have beaten. But they did not. I am worried about he locker room. And Kravitz, DD, and JMV have all "heard grumblings" of discontent withing the locker room with the coaching staff.

Tryon? Was he right?

If Caldwell holds this thing together then he will have may respect 100% ... but I really think this thing is going to get real ugly, real fast.

This team has NO leadership.... at any level.

and here comes

@Cincy

@NO

@Tenn

ATL

JAX

CAR

@NE

@Balt

Tenn

Hou

@JAX

I don't think Indy will beat any of these teams. Jax is the best shot. And then Indy sees Andy Dalton and Cam Newton....

It will be so interesting to see if Jim C can keep this thing together.