Why In The World Would You Draft Luck

[Mark]

With Peyton injured, you're starting to see the glaring holes on this Colt team. You're starting to understand why the Colts have only won one Super Bowl in the "Peyton Era." So my question is, if the team determines that Peyton is fully healthy by draft day, why on earth would you waste a pick on a player who's going to sit and will do you no good for another 4 to 5 years even if it is Andrew Luck.

I can understand drafting him to trade and I can understand drafting a quarterback to sit behind Peyton to learn from. What I don't understand is, if you're a couple playmakers away from being a true Super Bowl contender, as oppose to a team that's relied on one magical player, why wouldn't you take someone who can help you now. Let's be honest, this team is BARELY a Super Bowl contender even with Peyton in the lineup.

You start to see that getting and winning the Super Bowl takes a team not just a player. With that said the Colts already have a strong veteran talent and leadership that can help the growth of a top young talent. You pick someone to help your run defense or someone to help the secondary or even an another all-star wide receiver and you've got at least 2 more rings before Peyton retires.

Like I said i can understand drafting a quarterback to sit behind Peyton for the future. Why does this quarterback have to be Andrew Luck. Andy Dalton was drafted in the second round and he's looking like he's going to be a future star. Aaron Rodgers was drafted in the late first round and is already at the top of the league. So who says it's gotta be a number one pick that's Peyton's backup, when you can use that number one pick to fix other glaring holes on your team.

Another thing to think about is, even if you draft Andrew Luck, with what Bill Polian and this organizations has shown, you could very well see Luck only win one Super Bowl if any when like Peyton, he could have 5 with teams like the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, or heck even the Cowboys. So no matter who the quarterback is, you've got to be concerned with Bill Polian or even "Little" Polian running the team. Keep this in mind, a Bill Polian run team has been to the Super Bowl 5 times (3 times with the Bills, and twice with the Colts.) Do you know how many rings he's won? Just one, that's because he has Peyton Manning.

[Robin]

TL;DR

He got value if you need him or not

[GoDeep]

If this guy is what he is "supposed to be"...you just don't pass on a talent like that.

It could set up that position for the next 10-15 years.

And we draft pretty well in other rounds too. It's like people think if we don't draft Luck, then this magical player we do draft is what will fix us now. "He" won't.

[John Waylon]

Let me guess... You didn't see the announcement about where Luck threads belong...

[ricker182]

Honestly, I'm not sure where Polian/Irsay want to take this team. I don't know if they want to "rebuild" or try and win a few more with Peyton.

No one in the upper offices is being honest and this is disappointing as a fan. Be honest with your fans. They know what they are planning to do. Odds are they are going to get the #1 pick because at this point, the Colts are WORSE than the Dolphins.

I can't see the Colts trading Peyton, and with the new rookie salary rules, they can probably afford to keep both QB's (Manning and Luck).

I honestly love seeing the high powered offense even with a sub-par defense. It makes Sundays more exciting.

These are all professional football players. Our defense actually has talent. They are VERY injured right now. I think the coaching is lacking.

I KNOW Jim Irsay knows what he is doing as far as building a good football team. As far as Bill Polian: I tend to question his decisions.

In the end it is a business. Fans fund the team. Fans want a winning football team. I'm not an expert, but I think drafting (and keeping) Luck would be the best decision.

[Balzer40]

Oh yeah, another Luck thread. Thats only number 4,673,267,943 threads saying the samething.

[dn4192]

With Peyton injured, you're starting to see the glaring holes on this Colt team. You're starting to understand why the Colts have only won one Super Bowl in the "Peyton Era." So my question is, if the team determines that Peyton is fully healthy by draft day, why on earth would you waste a pick on a player who's going to sit and will do you no good for another 4 to 5 years even if it is Andrew Luck.

I can understand drafting him to trade and I can understand drafting a quarterback to sit behind Peyton to learn from. What I don't understand is, if you're a couple playmakers away from being a true Super Bowl contender, as oppose to a team that's relied on one magical player, why wouldn't you take someone who can help you now. Let's be honest, this team is BARELY a Super Bowl contender even with Peyton in the lineup.

You start to see that getting and winning the Super Bowl takes a team not just a player. With that said the Colts already have a strong veteran talent and leadership that can help the growth of a top young talent. You pick someone to help your run defense or someone to help the secondary or even an another all-star wide receiver and you've got at least 2 more rings before Peyton retires.

Like I said i can understand drafting a quarterback to sit behind Peyton for the future. Why does this quarterback have to be Andrew Luck. Andy Dalton was drafted in the second round and he's looking like he's going to be a future star. Aaron Rodgers was drafted in the late first round and is already at the top of the league. So who says it's gotta be a number one pick that's Peyton's backup, when you can use that number one pick to fix other glaring holes on your team.

Another thing to think about is, even if you draft Andrew Luck, with what Bill Polian and this organizations has shown, you could very well see Luck only win one Super Bowl if any when like Peyton, he could have 5 with teams like the Patriots, Steelers, Packers, or heck even the Cowboys. So no matter who the quarterback is, you've got to be concerned with Bill Polian or even "Little" Polian running the team. Keep this in mind, a Bill Polian run team has been to the Super Bowl 5 times (3 times with the Bills, and twice with the Colts.) Do you know how many rings he's won? Just one, that's because he has Peyton Manning.

1. You draft Luck because he is not only the best overall player on the draft board, he fills a very important need for the Colts long term.

2. So those Buffalo teams that Polain built were not very good just because they lost the Super bowl

3. The outstanding winning overall record of the Colts over the past 10 seasons means nothing?

[Ramblinwreck7]

Nice post, but I don't agree with everything. Irsay loves Peyton Manning and I think he will want to help Peyton win the Super Bowl several more times. That's why he refused to give Peyton less money than he wanted to give him at first.

[KyFan18]

If this guy is what he is "supposed to be"...you just don't pass on a talent like that.

It could set up that position for the next 10-15 years.

And we draft pretty well in other rounds too. It's like people think if we don't draft Luck, then this magical player we do draft is what will fix us now. "He" won't.

You do pass on it if it's not what your team needs. He's not what this team needs.

It could very well be a waste of a pick. Any draft pick has the potential to be great or to be terrible. I don't know why we're all acting like Luck is the greatest college quarterback to ever play and is a sure-fire franchise QB.

Nobody wants us to take a "magical player" except those who laud Luck as the greatest thing since sliced bread who will lead whatever team he plays for to multiple Super Bowls. Those who don't think we should draft Luck don't want one "magical player," we want the pick to be traded to someone who is willing to part with multiple draft picks so we can get multiple solid players to bolster the areas where the team struggles.

[Ramblinwreck7]

You do pass on it if it's not what your team needs. He's not what this team needs.

It could very well be a waste of a pick. Any draft pick has the potential to be great or to be terrible. I don't know why we're all acting like Luck is the greatest college quarterback to ever play and is a sure-fire franchise QB.

Nobody wants us to take a "magical player" except those who laud Luck as the greatest thing since sliced bread who will lead whatever team he plays for to multiple Super Bowls. Those who don't think we should draft Luck don't want one "magical player," we want the pick to be traded to someone who is willing to part with multiple draft picks so we can get multiple solid players to bolster the areas where the team struggles.

Right you are, sir.

[Jason_]

Nice post, but I don't agree with everything. Irsay loves Peyton Manning and I think he will want to help Peyton win the Super Bowl several more times. That's why he refused to give Peyton less money than he wanted to give him at first.

Add that Irsay has already said he retires when Peyton retires. No clue at this point how he'd go with the top pick. He could try to do everything he can to ride out with Peyton in a blaze of glory, or gift-wrap a new franchise QB to daughter Casey for when she takes over the team in a couple years.

[Captain Americolt]

Add that Irsay has already said he retires when Peyton retires. No clue at this point how he'd go with the top pick. He could try to do everything he can to ride out with Peyton in a blaze of glory, or gift-wrap a new franchise QB to daughter Casey for when she takes over the team in a couple years.

Why is his daughter going to take over the team? I'm sorry i haven't heard this before. Is it true?

[Coltsman1788]

You do pass on it if it's not what your team needs. He's not what this team needs.

It could very well be a waste of a pick. Any draft pick has the potential to be great or to be terrible. I don't know why we're all acting like Luck is the greatest college quarterback to ever play and is a sure-fire franchise QB.

Nobody wants us to take a "magical player" except those who laud Luck as the greatest thing since sliced bread who will lead whatever team he plays for to multiple Super Bowls. Those who don't think we should draft Luck don't want one "magical player," we want the pick to be traded to someone who is willing to part with multiple draft picks so we can get multiple solid players to bolster the areas where the team struggles.

Sounds good in theory but that bust theory cuts both ways...you can't just use it to say what if Luck busts. Suppose the Colts do what you suggest? You trust Polian to use all of those extra picks effectively? Last time I checked, we have had the same problems year in and year out in the Polian era. They consist of can't stop the run, bad return game, horrific special teams coverage, & can't run for first downs on 3rd and short. Polian has had years to correct these issues but after a decade of Colts ball in the Manning era these problems continue to persist. Now all of a sudden, because people have anxiety over the fact that Manning's career is fading fast, we are supposed to believe that we should forego selecting the top rated qb prospect to come out in over a decade? Instead we should all trust Polian to "magically" fix these issues enough so that we might have a chance to get one more ring with Peyton, who is on the wrong side of 30 and coming off of injury. What if we do that and Peyton still retires with one ring which is very possible...then what? After 18 fades into the sunset, this franchise would immediately become irrelevant. No thank you to that...I say draft Luck if we have the opportunity to do so. There are six other rounds in the 2012 draft and 3 years of drafting left in the Manning era to concern ourselves with trying to get Peyton another ring. If we are in a position to get a high enough draft pick to take the best rated qb prospect since Peyton himself, we'd be remiss to pass it up.

Now one thing that Bill Polian has shown that he does have a good eye for is finding franchise qbs to build around. He did it in Buffalo with Jim Kelly; he took one in Carolina in Kerry Collins; and he hit the jackpot in Indy with Peyton Manning. I trust him more if he invested a pick in Luck as a franchise guy more than I trust his ability to adequately fortify perenial weaknesses with multiple picks. Simply based on his history.

What we want is not one "magic player". We simply want the guy who has been identified by most scouts as the player with the best shot at succeeding at the next level and becoming our next franchise player. There are no guarantees that he will be this but it is a risk well worth taking given the potential upside.

[doogansquest]

You do pass on it if it's not what your team needs. He's not what this team needs.

It could very well be a waste of a pick. Any draft pick has the potential to be great or to be terrible. I don't know why we're all acting like Luck is the greatest college quarterback to ever play and is a sure-fire franchise QB.

Nobody wants us to take a "magical player" except those who laud Luck as the greatest thing since sliced bread who will lead whatever team he plays for to multiple Super Bowls. Those who don't think we should draft Luck don't want one "magical player," we want the pick to be traded to someone who is willing to part with multiple draft picks so we can get multiple solid players to bolster the areas where the team struggles.

Best post of the thread.

@Coltsman: But then we are trying to build a team around one player again, no? Is that not a recipe for struggle? Manning has been the only QB in history with the ability to win it all under those circumstances, and Luck probably won't be of a caliber anywhere near Manning's rearview mirror. Sorry, but he's just another system QB. He will go to another team. Period. And that's what's best for the Colts. Manning gives us the best chance to win Super Bowls in the near future, and Super Bowls ensure that a franchise doesn't become irrelevant (see: SF), not a college prospect.

As much as you claim the opponents of drafting Luck are using the bust argument, you guys keep saying, "we will ensure the QB spot for 10-15 years." One side is speculating a bust being possible, while the other is guaranteeing success. By default, the latter argument loses that debate for making a guarantee in which there is no evidence.

Could a pick at another position bust? Sure, but for there money, they would play and could be cut or traded before investing any further. Those who want Luck are putting all the eggs in a basket years down the road, with two possible hopes:

1. Manning leaves now, or shortly, and Luck takes over immediately like a boss.

2. Luck will somehow "learn" and not lose any ability or momentum, and then magically take over without skipping a beat 4 years from now. All of this despite the fact that neither Manning's job description, nor his professional goals, require him to teach, and Luck will probably get no 1st team snaps behind him.

The "Take Luck" scenario is the LEAST likely to ensure anything, other than spending lots of money on a non-factor.

Edited November 2, 2011 by doogansquest

[Ramblinwreck7]

Best post of the thread.

@Coltsman: But then we are trying to build a team around one player again, no? Is that not a recipe for struggle? Manning has been the only QB in history with the ability to win it all under those circumstances, and Luck probably won't be of a caliber anywhere near Manning's rearview mirror. Sorry, but he's just another system QB. He will go to another team. Period. And that's what's best for the Colts. Manning gives us the best chance to win Super Bowls in the near future, and Super Bowls ensure that a franchise doesn't become irrelevant (see: SF), not a college prospect.

As much as you claim the opponents of drafting Luck are using the bust argument, you guys keep saying, "we will ensure the QB spot for 10-15 years." One side is speculating a bust being possible, while the other is guaranteeing success. By default, the latter argument loses that debate for making a guarantee in which there is no evidence.

Could a pick at another position bust? Sure, but for there money, they would play and could be cut or traded before investing any further. Those who want Luck are putting all the eggs in a basket years down the road, with two possible hopes:

1. Manning leaves now, or shortly, and Luck takes over immediately like a boss.

2. Luck will somehow "learn" and not lose any ability or momentum, and then magically take over without skipping a beat 4 years from now. All of this despite the fact that neither Manning's job description, nor his professional goals, require him to teach, and Luck will probably get no 1st team snaps behind him.

The "Take Luck" scenario is the LEAST likely to ensure anything, other than spending lots of money on a non-factor.

There is another Luck scenario, and that's just that he doesn't work out...

[Coltsman1788]

Best post of the thread.

@Coltsman: But then we are trying to build a team around one player again, no? Is that not a recipe for struggle? Manning has been the only QB in history with the ability to win it all under those circumstances, and Luck probably won't be of a caliber anywhere near Manning's rearview mirror. Sorry, but he's just another system QB. He will go to another team. Period. And that's what's best for the Colts. Manning gives us the best chance to win Super Bowls in the near future, and Super Bowls ensure that a franchise doesn't become irrelevant (see: SF), not a college prospect.

As much as you claim the opponents of drafting Luck are using the bust argument, you guys keep saying, "we will ensure the QB spot for 10-15 years." One side is speculating a bust being possible, while the other is guaranteeing success. By default, the latter argument loses that debate for making a guarantee in which there is no evidence.

Could a pick at another position bust? Sure, but for there money, they would play and could be cut or traded before investing any further. Those who want Luck are putting all the eggs in a basket years down the road, with two possible hopes:

1. Manning leaves now, or shortly, and Luck takes over immediately like a boss.

2. Luck will somehow "learn" and not lose any ability or momentum, and then magically take over without skipping a beat 4 years from now. All of this despite the fact that neither Manning's job description, nor his professional goals, require him to teach, and Luck will probably get no 1st team snaps behind him.

The "Take Luck" scenario is the LEAST likely to ensure anything, other than spending lots of money on a non-factor.

Doogs...teams often try to build around a franchise quarterback. They do it in varying degrees though. It is not an approach that necessarilies dooms a team to struggle. Where the Colts have messed up is they put too much emphasis into the offense and skimped badly on defense. I know you are often found of saying that you can't have it all in the salary cap era. However, I don't necessarily see it that way. For instance, look at Green Bay, they have a potent offense around Aaron Rogers and a respectable defense. The Dallas teams of the early 90's had a great offense with Aikman, Irving & Emmit and a stout defense. So it can be done. It is all about how a team chooses to allocate its resources to build up around a QB.

I do attempt to acknowledge that there is no guarantee that Luck succeeds in most of my posts on the subject including the one in this thread. This is a risk inherent with any player in the draft. But the fact that he is so highly regarded shouldn't be discounted either. These evaluations are coming from scouts paid to evaluate talent. They are not just fan lip service. True this does not guarantee success but it would seem to suggest that Luck is the candidate with the best risk/reward ratio and thus the safest pick. I recognize that there are valid arguments for not selecting him just as there are valid reasons for why we should. I think most have already entrenched themselves on this issue and it will be fun to see how it all plays out in the end. Ultimately though it will be the front office's judgement call and no one here knows with any certainty exactly how things will go down.

I agree that Manning (if healthy) does give us the best shot at winning in the short term. Which is why I am against trading Manning even if we draft Luck. Luck will sit and wait for as long as the Colts need him to if they are the ones stroking his check. Also if the Colts were to bring in Luck it would not be to simply be Peyton's back up but to eventually become his successor. Thus, I believe that they would handle him differently than say Painter, etc. because they would have intentions of handing him the franchise keys for the long run. And if he eventually did get his chance to take over who said that he must do so without skipping a beat? He will have to go through his growing pains just like every other quarterback short of Marino.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Coltsman1788

[coltfaninnewyork]

Todd Mcshay who has better credentials than anyone here,said Luck will be special and has not said that about any qb's in the last 10 years.That was in response to phil simms saying that luck has not made any difficult throws.Stanford run's a power running offense with 3 tight end sets,and does not have a nfl receiver prospect on roster.

[doogansquest]

This is hilarious. I love speaking in absolutes and watching the "WE HAVE TO DRAFT DE LUCKZZZ!!!!1!!!!!1!11! HE'S OUR AARON RODGERS11111!!!" squirm.

Watch this...

Hypothetical questions follow:

When the Miami Dolphins draft Andrew Luck (which is what will happen in April), what will you guys do? Let's say they are still terrible and he's looking like nothing more than an average QB, will the homers disappear? Will you say we should have taken him anyway?

What if we take Luck, and watch as Coples, Claiborne, Kirkpatrick, Barkley, etc., are all tearing it up somewhere else while our guy rides the pine? Will you regret the pick? Or will you still consider $24 million (+signing bonuses, etc.) a worthwhile investment for a stat-line that reads 0 ATT, 0 COMP, 0 YDS, 0 TD?

[KyFan18]

Todd Mcshay who has better credentials than anyone here,said Luck will be special and has not said that about any qb's in the last 10 years.That was in response to phil simms saying that luck has not made any difficult throws.Stanford run's a power running offense with 3 tight end sets,and does not have a nfl receiver prospect on roster.

"I can't remember being in such awe of a quarterback in my decade of attending combines and pro days. Russell's passing session was the most impressive of all the pro days I've been to. His footwork for such a big quarterback was surprising. He was nimble in his dropbacks, rolling out and throwing on the run. The ball just explodes out of his hands." - Todd McShay on Jamarcus Russell

[coltfaninnewyork]

"I can't remember being in such awe of a quarterback in my decade of attending combines and pro days. Russell's passing session was the most impressive of all the pro days I've been to. His footwork for such a big quarterback was surprising. He was nimble in his dropbacks, rolling out and throwing on the run. The ball just explodes out of his hands." - Todd McShay on Jamarcus Russell

Touche

[Mike Cockrell]

listen, this year has shown how HORRIBLE our defense is.

Andrew Luck will NOT be a member of the Colts, if we have the first pick we will take trade offers to get some help on the defensive side.

if Luck does become a member of the colts, he will not ride the bench. Manning will be out of Indianapolis.

[Jason_]

Why is his daughter going to take over the team? I'm sorry i haven't heard this before. Is it true?

http://www.theindychannel.com/sports/17926225/detail.html

"I think there's no doubt that (my daughters) will (follow in my footsteps) and have begun the process," he said.

He's also made Casey a deal that might make many Colts fans cringe: "When Peyton retires, then it's her team."

[Ramblinwreck7]

http://www.theindych...225/detail.html

She's a bad daughter, why would you force your own dad to give you the team, especially when she doesn't know near as much about football as her dad. Why in the first place is Irsay letting his daughter dictate what to do with the team. It's his team, he could sell it if he wants, she should have no say in it whatsoever.

[Jason_]

She's a bad daughter, why would you force your own dad to give you the team, especially when she doesn't know near as much about football as her dad. Why in the first place is Irsay letting his daughter dictate what to do with the team. It's his team, he could sell it if he wants, she should have no say in it whatsoever.

I didn't take any of that from the article. How is she a bad daughter? And you're right, it is Jim's team and it was passed down to him by daddy Robert Irsay. It's a business but it's clearly a family business...I'm not surprised in the slightest that Jim would pass ownership on to one of his kids when he's ready to move on.

[Ramblinwreck7]

I didn't take any of that from the article. How is she a bad daughter? And you're right, it is Jim's team and it was passed down to him by daddy Robert Irsay. It's a business but it's clearly a family business...I'm not surprised in the slightest that Jim would pass ownership on to one of his kids when he's ready to move on.

Oh no, it's fine that he passes ownership onto her. I just don't think it's necessary for her to strong arm it from Jim Irsay once Peyton retires.

[Jason_]

Oh no, it's fine that he passes ownership onto her. I just don't think it's necessary for her to strong arm it from Jim Irsay once Peyton retires.

But again I don't get where that's coming from. My understanding was that Jim made the decision to ride it out with Peyton and then call it a day. I didn't see anything that would suggest she's strong-arming him into leaving with Peyton.

[Ramblinwreck7]

But again I don't get where that's coming from. My understanding was that Jim made the decision to ride it out with Peyton and then call it a day. I didn't see anything that would suggest she's strong-arming him into leaving with Peyton.

Oh, I didn't read the article. Based on what you first wrote though, I got the impression that she wanted to force out her dad after Peyton retires. If it's his decision, then that's fine with me.

[Jason_]

Oh, I didn't read the article. Based on what you first wrote though, I got the impression that she wanted to force out her dad after Peyton retires. If it's his decision, then that's fine with me.

Ah gotcha....no didn't mean to imply that at all. I definitely took it as he had decided that he's going to ride it out with Manning and then move on to other things once the ride is over. I'm guessing that he's thinking there will be some sort rebuilding process when a new QB is brought in. No matter how highly the new QB is projected, no matter how talented he is and no matter how many years he's been "groomed"...it's still going to be a learning process that won't truly begin until said QB actually becomes the #1 QB and starts seeing in-game action.

[BOTT]

"I can't remember being in such awe of a quarterback in my decade of attending combines and pro days. Russell's passing session was the most impressive of all the pro days I've been to. His footwork for such a big quarterback was surprising. He was nimble in his dropbacks, rolling out and throwing on the run. The ball just explodes out of his hands." - Todd McShay on Jamarcus Russell

not defending mcshay......but he was simply talking about his pro day, not what he thought about him overall.

[super8todd]

This is hilarious. I love speaking in absolutes and watching the "WE HAVE TO DRAFT DE LUCKZZZ!!!!1!!!!!1!11! HE'S OUR AARON RODGERS11111!!!" squirm.

Watch this...

Hypothetical questions follow:

When the Miami Dolphins draft Andrew Luck (which is what will happen in April), what will you guys do? Let's say they are still terrible and he's looking like nothing more than an average QB, will the homers disappear? Will you say we should have taken him anyway?

What if we take Luck, and watch as Coples, Claiborne, Kirkpatrick, Barkley, etc., are all tearing it up somewhere else while our guy rides the pine? Will you regret the pick? Or will you still consider $24 million (+signing bonuses, etc.) a worthwhile investment for a stat-line that reads 0 ATT, 0 COMP, 0 YDS, 0 TD?

Its because if we take him, they will be serious about trading Peyton Manning in a year, after Luck learns what he can in that year. Our rebuild is going to take more years than Peyton will be able to carry us every year.

[Captain Americolt]

Super8todd. The fins are worse than us. And even if both the fins and colts end up with the same record, miami will have the first pick based in strength of schedule (i believe).. I highly doubt the colts will have luck at the end of april.

[Balzer40]

Super8todd. The fins are worse than us. And even if both the fins and colts end up with the same record, miami will have the first pick based in strength of schedule (i believe).. I highly doubt the colts will have luck at the end of april.

Sorry but im pretty sure thats wrong. First of all, Miami is better than the Colts, at least they have a defense, they just have no offense what so ever. The Colts really have neither defense or offense. Secondly, if the Colts and Miami finish in a tie, the Colts play in the weaker division and will have the easier schedule overall through the season. ESPN was talking about this one day last week and this is what they said.

[super8todd]

Sorry but im pretty sure thats wrong. First of all, Miami is better than the Colts, at least they have a defense, they just have no offense what so ever. The Colts really have neither defense or offense. Secondly, if the Colts and Miami finish in a tie, the Colts play in the weaker division and will have the easier schedule overall through the season. ESPN was talking about this one day last week and this is what they said.

Balzer is correct. We will end up having the easier schedule and will beat miami out for the pick (we can thank Jacksonville's season ending record for this edge compared to the tough division of the AFC East). And Miami truly did throw the game vs. Denver at the end. At least we aren't trying to be the worst, we just are right now, it's why its time to rebuild this ship.

[Captain Americolt]

Sorry but im pretty sure thats wrong. First of all, Miami is better than the Colts, at least they have a defense, they just have no offense what so ever. The Colts really have neither defense or offense. Secondly, if the Colts and Miami finish in a tie, the Colts play in the weaker division and will have the easier schedule overall through the season. ESPN was talking about this one day last week and this is what they said.

I dont think its about witch division is weaker. I think its about strength of schedule and the colts have the harder schedule (I really dont know this stuff that well), so miami has the weaker schedule and if we end up in a tie, they will have the no. 1 pick (?). And yeah lol i take back what i said about the fins. They actually do have a defense and are currently winning their game

[Balzer40]

I dont think its about witch division is weaker. I think its about strength of schedule and the colts have the harder schedule (I really dont know this stuff that well), so miami has the weaker schedule and if we end up in a tie, they will have the no. 1 pick (?). And yeah lol i take back what i said about the fins. They actually do have a defense and are currently winning their game

I was just going by what ESPN said. They said Colts play in weaker division so they'll get the 1st pick. Also, I still stick to the Colts will have the weaker overall schedule. Miami put a butt whooping on the Chiefs today so they are already gonna be better than the Colts. I don't see us winning any.

[Ramblinwreck7]

I was just going by what ESPN said. They said Colts play in weaker division so they'll get the 1st pick. Also, I still stick to the Colts will have the weaker overall schedule. Miami put a butt whooping on the Chiefs today so they are already gonna be better than the Colts. I don't see us winning any.

Miami has the easier strength of schedule.

[BOTT]

Miami has the easier strength of schedule.

i don't think so. plus it isn't based on last year so it won't be tallied until the end of the season....but if you look at the divisions it would seem the fins have the more difficult schedule.

[rizon]

If I'm Luck, I'm not sure I would want to be on the Colts, especially the way they've been playing lately.

[super8todd]

Miami has the easier strength of schedule.

Disagree. Miami's division is much tougher.. sure our schedule SEEMS tough because of all the good teams we face. But Miami faces an even tougher schedule for sure. We will find out 8 more games from now. but all this is moot, because Miami finally won a game against KC. So they are looking pretty good compared to us.

[super8todd]

i don't think so. plus it isn't based on last year so it won't be tallied until the end of the season....but if you look at the divisions it would seem the fins have the more difficult schedule.

Agreed. Its nice to see someone else who actually looks at all the data instead of just making it up.