Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

I saw that Irsay would be open to a QB and polian said they have the buget so im going to update my Colts mock draft. And im including 4th and 6th round comp picks for Session and Johnson.

1. Andrew Luck QB, Stanford - Like i said in my intro Irsay and Polian seem to be ok with this, and i think Manning is a classy guy who would be open to mentoring Luck.

2. Mark Barron SS, Alabama - Saftey isnt a huge need but i love Barron. He is a brusing hitter with great coverage skills. His run support ability is IMO the best out of he 2012 saftey draft class.

3. Jayron Hosley CB, Virginia Tech - Hosley is a ballhawk with the most INT's last year, and he still is producing. He can also play good zone and man.

4. Dwight Jones WR, UNC - He is a tall and physical WR. He has great run-after-the-catch ability and would be a good compliment with Garcons speed.

4. Derek Wolfe DT, Cinncinatti - This guy is a good player and specializes in stopping the run. He would fit great in our rotation of DLine man.

5. Antoine McClain G, Clemson - Ive always liked this guy as a late round prospect. He has been quietly punching holes in the run game and has been keeping the QB upright. He isnt an elite player but provides great depth.

6. Malik Jackson DE, Tennesse - Another good late round prospect who has good speed and a sure tackler for special teams.

6. Ryan Baker OLB, LSU - He is an instictive LB with good speed. He provides good depth and helps a struggling special teams.

7. Kenny Okoro CB, Wake Forest - A good nickle corner who can return punts and has quick speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see manning menor luck but I don't see it happening. That being said, Luck is the first pick in the draft for the colts second round I would love to see Mark Barron cause I would cut buillet but I think in order to protect the new qb for the colts they will go guard for the second pick in Osemele. Third round I agree with ya on Jayron Hosley. If I'.m not mistaken he is a returner as was so bonus. I'm start to believe more and more that we will trade Manning to a team of his choice out of the respect of all the selfless deeds he has done for the colts. Which are more draft picks (hopefully at least a 1st and a 3rd if not more.) For the rest of the draft try and fill the holes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manning won't mentor Luck. QB's don't mentor the guys who want their job, or who will succeed them. Montana offered nothing to Young, and Favre certainly didn't offer anything to Rodgers. Those guys were plenty classy in their day.

Manning's job is to do everything he can to give us the best chance to win Super Bowls, not develop the guy who's job it would be to succeed him. He's not paid to be a coach, trainer, or developer of personnel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manning won't mentor Luck. QB's don't mentor the guys who want their job, or who will succeed them. Montana offered nothing to Young, and Favre certainly didn't offer anything to Rodgers. Those guys were plenty classy in their day.

Manning's job is to do everything he can to give us the best chance to win Super Bowls, not develop the guy who's job it would be to succeed him. He's not paid to be a coach, trainer, or developer of personnel.

Doogan, you're correct that he's not paid to do that but here's a pretty revealing quote from Jim Sorgi.....

"Both are elite players," Sorgi said of the Mannings. "I had a great time working with Peyton, and I learned a lot, obviously. The experience was invaluable as far as my development as a professional".

And Tom Coughlin's take on Sorgi's experience....

"Jim demonstrated in the meeting room with our coaches that he is very sharp and a very good student of the game, which you would expect after spending six years backing up Peyton," Giants coach Tom Coughlin said. "He is used to spending the amount of time that is necessary in preparation. He was involved in the study and preparation and everything that Peyton does, so he will be outstanding in the meeting room with Eli."

And honestly.....what is Peyton doing down there on the bench every week flipping through photos with Painter and Orlovsky......checking out this month's Playboy? :D

Montana and Young are a legitimate example of what you are saying....but those guys were veterans truly competing for the same job and Montana still had some years left in the tank.

And Brett Favre is just a 1st class * so no level of selfishness out of that jack wagon surprises me at all, and I'd be delighted to watch Aaron Rodgers outshine his legacy with a 2nd Super Bowl ring in a third of the time that Favre played.

Look.....I don't expect the Colts to have both Manning and Luck on the roster next year....there are a number of scenarios where they wouldn't be....but if I'm wrong and they are, I believe Peyton will be the team leader and professional....and mentor....that he was/is with Sorgi, Painter and whoever else his backup is, including Luck, even with the different styles that they have.

That is just another reason why he is the greatest of all time.....wouldn't you want Luck to benefit from that if we draft him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doogan, you're correct that he's not paid to do that but here's a pretty revealing quote from Jim Sorgi.....

"Both are elite players," Sorgi said of the Mannings. "I had a great time working with Peyton, and I learned a lot, obviously. The experience was invaluable as far as my development as a professional".

And Tom Coughlin's take on Sorgi's experience....

"Jim demonstrated in the meeting room with our coaches that he is very sharp and a very good student of the game, which you would expect after spending six years backing up Peyton," Giants coach Tom Coughlin said. "He is used to spending the amount of time that is necessary in preparation. He was involved in the study and preparation and everything that Peyton does, so he will be outstanding in the meeting room with Eli."

And honestly.....what is Peyton doing down there on the bench every week flipping through photos with Painter and Orlovsky......checking out this month's Playboy? :D

Montana and Young are a legitimate example of what you are saying....but those guys were veterans truly competing for the same job and Montana still had some years left in the tank.

And Brett Favre is just a 1st class * so no level of selfishness out of that jack wagon surprises me at all, and I'd be delighted to watch Aaron Rodgers outshine his legacy with a 2nd Super Bowl ring in a third of the time that Favre played.

Look.....I don't expect the Colts to have both Manning and Luck on the roster next year....there are a number of scenarios where they wouldn't be....but if I'm wrong and they are, I believe Peyton will be the team leader and professional....and mentor....that he was/is with Sorgi, Painter and whoever else his backup is, including Luck, even with the different styles that they have.

That is just another reason why he is the greatest of all time.....wouldn't you want Luck to benefit from that if we draft him?

Watch what you call Brett Favre because your probably no better. Your telling me that you would be delighted to see a young quarterback who will probably replace you on the roster? Favre is 38 and playing at a high level with a very good team around him. Too bad that Green Bay drafted Aaron Rodgers 3 years earlier so they have to force out Brett. How would you feel? Your team that you have played with all your life dumps you out for some 3rd year player? I wouldn't think that Favre would be to happy about helping a rookie quarterback take his job when he is playing as good as ever... so don't criticize him. You have no idea what your talking about in that situation...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Watch what you call Brett Favre because your probably no better. Your telling me that you would be delighted to see a young quarterback who will probably replace you on the roster? Favre is 38 and playing at a high level with a very good team around him. Too bad that Green Bay drafted Aaron Rodgers 3 years earlier so they have to force out Brett. How would you feel? Your team that you have played with all your life dumps you out for some 3rd year player? I wouldn't think that Favre would be to happy about helping a rookie quarterback take his job when he is playing as good as ever... so don't criticize him. You have no idea what your talking about in that situation...

rotfl Yeah, your right.....Favre's perverted and creepy text messages (I'm sure his wife appreciated that), his self-centered and distracting media circuses, and his utter refusal to give Rodgers the time of day paints the picture of a true Southern gentleman and classy professional.

Sure....he was under no obligation to tutor Rodgers....but sometimes aging players who want to put a nice touch on the finish of their careers just do that. I think thats called....hang on a minute.....oh yeah, being a good team mate.

The Green Bay Packers made a terrific business decision and your boy just couldn't handle it.....and tarnished his legacy. And....news flash.....I'm not the only NFL fan who has that opinion of him, which I have every right to express by the way. And I'll continue to do so at my pleasure.

He vomited up interceptions at the worst possible times....while Rodgers, on the other hand, conducted a lethal passing clinic in last year's Super Bowl that, in one felled swoop made a TON of Green Bay Packers fans realize that maybe the entire universe didn't revolve around Brett Favre after all....something he never figured out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

rotfl Yeah, your right.....Favre's perverted and creepy text messages (I'm sure his wife appreciated that), his self-centered and distracting media circuses, and his utter refusal to give Rodgers the time of day paints the picture of a true Southern gentleman and classy professional.

Sure....he was under no obligation to tutor Rodgers....but sometimes aging players who want to put a nice touch on the finish of their careers just do that. I think thats called....hang on a minute.....oh yeah, being a good team mate.

The Green Bay Packers made a terrific business decision and your boy just couldn't handle it.....and tarnished his legacy. And....news flash.....I'm not the only NFL fan who has that opinion of him, which I have every right to express by the way. And I'll continue to do so at my pleasure.

He vomited up interceptions at the worst possible times....while Rodgers, on the other hand, conducted a lethal passing clinic in last year's Super Bowl that, in one felled swoop made a TON of Green Bay Packers fans realize that maybe the entire universe didn't revolve around Brett Favre after all....something he never figured out.

I guess you missed the part where Brett Favre's career wasn't over when Aaron Rodgers took over for him... but whatever you say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you missed the part where Brett Favre's career wasn't over when Aaron Rodgers took over for him... but whatever you say.

RW....I just don't know why it was necessary to take your comments to that level over an opinion that is shared by alot of NFL fans....not just me. When the opening line of your post said I was no better than a married man who participates in that kind of stuff....how the heck do you expect someone to respond?

Favre spent the better part of 4 years as the ringmaster of a media circus and people got tired of it.....and then he went and did something really stupid and probably hurt his wife and family really bad.

He is probably one of the Top 10 QBs of all time and won a Super Bowl....but by many accounts, he's also a jerk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RW....I just don't know why it was necessary to take your comments to that level over an opinion that is shared by alot of NFL fans....not just me. When the opening line of your post said I was no better than a married man who participates in that kind of stuff....how the heck do you expect someone to respond?

Favre spent the better part of 4 years as the ringmaster of a media circus and people got tired of it.....and then he went and did something really stupid and probably hurt his wife and family really bad.

He is probably one of the Top 10 QBs of all time and won a Super Bowl....but by many accounts, he's also a jerk.

He's not a jerk. Yeah he was really stupid for doing that stuff to his family and wife, but what is the difference between that and something like pornagraphy? I don't want to get into a debate about it, but there's not much of a difference between that and what Brett did. Both of those things hurt wives a lot. I'm not saying you do either of those, but some people need to keep from criticizing people Favre when they are doing things that are no better. I just don't like all of the hate that gets lopped onto Favre because he is an easy target. He loves playing football, so if he retires and unretires, does it really matter? Why should people get mad at him for being indecisive? Retiring is a big decision so I don't see the big deal when he wants to come back to the NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not a jerk. Yeah he was really stupid for doing that stuff to his family and wife, but what is the difference between that and something like pornagraphy? I don't want to get into a debate about it, but there's not much of a difference between that and what Brett did. Both of those things hurt wives a lot. I'm not saying you do either of those, but some people need to keep from criticizing people Favre when they are doing things that are no better. I just don't like all of the hate that gets lopped onto Favre because he is an easy target. He loves playing football, so if he retires and unretires, does it really matter? Why should people get mad at him for being indecisive? Retiring is a big decision so I don't see the big deal when he wants to come back to the NFL.

Fair enough.... we just have a different opinion of Brett Favre and thats fine.

I was using my opinion of Favre's example to contrast what I'd expect Peyton to do IF him and Luck wind up on the roster together....thats it. And hey....I could be wrong totally wrong about how Peyton would respond.

Now....let's forget about Favre and get back to arguing about who to draft 1st. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.... we just have a different opinion of Brett Favre and thats fine.

I was using my opinion of Favre's example to contrast what I'd expect Peyton to do IF him and Luck wind up on the roster together....thats it. And hey....I could be wrong totally wrong about how Peyton would respond.

Now....let's forget about Favre and get back to arguing about who to draft 1st. :D

I hope we start winning games so that we get the #2 pick ;) hahah. I don't want us to draft a quarterback so that would help to almost eliminate Andrew Luck from the list of draft choices. It also just seems kind of unfair to me that if we get the #1 pick and trade it for several 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks. We could draft so much talent that our team would be loaded. Now if we get the #2 pick and trade back for 2 1st round picks and a 2nd rounder, then that would be better. We would still have to make great draft picks, but if we do, then we will have a great team. It makes it more challenging, but getting all those picks for the 1st overall draft spot just seems too easy to me. ;) That would take the fun out of winning championships!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we start winning games so that we get the #2 pick ;) hahah. I don't want us to draft a quarterback so that would help to almost eliminate Andrew Luck from the list of draft choices. It also just seems kind of unfair to me that if we get the #1 pick and trade it for several 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks. We could draft so much talent that our team would be loaded. Now if we get the #2 pick and trade back for 2 1st round picks and a 2nd rounder, then that would be better. We would still have to make great draft picks, but if we do, then we will have a great team. It makes it more challenging, but getting all those picks for the 1st overall draft spot just seems too easy to me. ;) That would take the fun out of winning championships!

Well.... I'd like a winning streak too, but @NE AND @Baltimore with those two teams have nothing sewn up doesn't bode well for us. I don't know what the "magic number" is for us to be doomed to the #1 pick but after the Carolina loss I'm just taking it for granted.

Anyway....if Peyton is healthy and all indications are that he can finish out his contract.... then I'm fine with a trade of the #1 pick. I'm not sure we can find that out by February.

But the one thing I think the front office should demand in ANY trade down though is at least one very high-quality starting player in addition to draft picks.

For instance.....

If we were to deal with Denver and John Elway is so intent on getting Andrew Luck, then I want LB Von Miller plus two 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder.

If we were to deal with Cleveland, who may or may not be sold on Colt McCoy..... then I want CB Joe Haden, DT Phil Taylor, the Browns pick acquired from Atlanta (probably #22-#25) and their 2nd round pick..... at say, #40. They can keep their own 1st rounder and get Luck a toy with that.

There are other teams and trade down scenarios we could come up with but with 4 years or less being Peyton's career shelf life we don't have the time or the coaching staff to get a bunch of rookies tuned up for a realistic shot at the Super Bowl.... we need good young players with experience that can plug and play next year.... and I'd want this trade as "bust proof" as possible. If Andrew Luck winds up being "all world" in 2-3 years I want something to show for it, especially with our recent 1st round picks over the last 4-5 years. And a trade down that can settle one or two glaring needs for us also eliminates dabbling in free agency which the Colts don't like doing anyway.

I'd love the Cleveland scenario... which I understand some Forum posters don't think will happen.... because Haden and Taylor would address CB and DT immediately, and the #22-#25 pick we'd get could be spent on OG Cordy Glenn or David DeCastro and the foundation of our O-line would be set.

That would still leave us with #33 and #40 in round 2. I'd grab Nick Foles and the best Safety available with those picks.

I still think we'll wind up just drafting Luck.... but if we trade down, this Cleveland scenario is the package I'd want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.... I'd like a winning streak too, but @NE AND @Baltimore with those two teams have nothing sewn up doesn't bode well for us. I don't know what the "magic number" is for us to be doomed to the #1 pick but after the Carolina loss I'm just taking it for granted.

Anyway....if Peyton is healthy and all indications are that he can finish out his contract.... then I'm fine with a trade of the #1 pick. I'm not sure we can find that out by February.

But the one thing I think the front office should demand in ANY trade down though is at least one very high-quality starting player in addition to draft picks.

For instance.....

If we were to deal with Denver and John Elway is so intent on getting Andrew Luck, then I want LB Von Miller plus two 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder.

If we were to deal with Cleveland, who may or may not be sold on Colt McCoy..... then I want CB Joe Haden, DT Phil Taylor, the Browns pick acquired from Atlanta (probably #22-#25) and their 2nd round pick..... at say, #40. They can keep their own 1st rounder and get Luck a toy with that.

There are other teams and trade down scenarios we could come up with but with 4 years or less being Peyton's career shelf life we don't have the time or the coaching staff to get a bunch of rookies tuned up for a realistic shot at the Super Bowl.... we need good young players with experience that can plug and play next year.... and I'd want this trade as "bust proof" as possible. If Andrew Luck winds up being "all world" in 2-3 years I want something to show for it, especially with our recent 1st round picks over the last 4-5 years. And a trade down that can settle one or two glaring needs for us also eliminates dabbling in free agency which the Colts don't like doing anyway.

I'd love the Cleveland scenario... which I understand some Forum posters don't think will happen.... because Haden and Taylor would address CB and DT immediately, and the #22-#25 pick we'd get could be spent on OG Cordy Glenn or David DeCastro and the foundation of our O-line would be set.

That would still leave us with #33 and #40 in round 2. I'd grab Nick Foles and the best Safety available with those picks.

I still think we'll wind up just drafting Luck.... but if we trade down, this Cleveland scenario is the package I'd want.

Hmmm... I don't know about Phil Taylor though. He's big and probably a very good run stuffer, but can he get after the quarterback? I would prefer for our NT to be explosive at getting into the backfield and rushing the passer instead of just being a good run stuffer.

If we trade down from the #2 pick, like I want us to do, I would prefer just drafting our own players. Morris Claiborne is a very good CB and playmaker, so he looks capable of starting right away and playing well. If we traded with Cleveland for their 2 1st round picks and 2nd rounder, then we could draft Claiborne at around #8 overall. If we got a NT with our 2nd pick in the 1st round from Cleveland which would be around #20 overall, then that could be a great spot to get Brandon Thompson. He wouldn't have to start right away because we use a rotation at DT. Antonio Johnson has been playing pretty well, and along with Nevis and Moala we would have a very good DT rotation. With the 2nd round pick at around #40, we could draft a SS like Mark Barron or Ray Ray Armstrong. Depending on what we do with Melvin Bullit determines if Barron has to start or not. Barron has played really well this year at Alabama as well, so he might be able to play well as a rookie. With the #34 pick that we would already have I'd pick an OG like Cordy Glenn or Kelechi Osemele. Maybe David Decastro but he probably won't fall that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a lot of interesting points in here but concerning the #1 pick I think you have to take Luck and bring him up under Peyton the next 2-3 years. Look, everyone is saying trade the pick and get more picks so we can get one with Peyton. But we can do that already this year. We are going to be (pending any trades) picking #1 in every round after we take Luck. I'd trade that 3rd rounder for example and get an extra second and get that WR and that SS we need all in the same round.

If we do the trade for more picks, what do people think we are gonna do after Peyton? If we get the picks and finish well for the remaining years we have with Peyton, we won't be picking inside the top 25 like we have been accustomed to around here with finishing 10-6+ each year. Meaning that to find that next franchise QB we more than likely would have to make a big trade and move down. The Jets have done this in a similar fashion with trading down to get Mark Sanchez. Look at where they are sitting at this year.. Now we can all blame their non-success this year on a lot of different factors but Sanchez isn't doing much to help his cause either. My point: Take Luck, secure the team of what you believe to be another franchise QB for the long-term while being able to support Peyton with some new pieces in this years draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a lot of interesting points in here but concerning the #1 pick I think you have to take Luck and bring him up under Peyton the next 2-3 years. Look, everyone is saying trade the pick and get more picks so we can get one with Peyton. But we can do that already this year. We are going to be (pending any trades) picking #1 in every round after we take Luck. I'd trade that 3rd rounder for example and get an extra second and get that WR and that SS we need all in the same round.

If we do the trade for more picks, what do people think we are gonna do after Peyton? If we get the picks and finish well for the remaining years we have with Peyton, we won't be picking inside the top 25 like we have been accustomed to around here with finishing 10-6+ each year. Meaning that to find that next franchise QB we more than likely would have to make a big trade and move down. The Jets have done this in a similar fashion with trading down to get Mark Sanchez. Look at where they are sitting at this year.. Now we can all blame their non-success this year on a lot of different factors but Sanchez isn't doing much to help his cause either. My point: Take Luck, secure the team of what you believe to be another franchise QB for the long-term while being able to support Peyton with some new pieces in this years draft.

This is not a very good argument and I've seen several people saying it. We aren't picking at the top of each round if you take Luck, your basically picking at the very end of the earlier round without a 7th round pick. That's like not having a 1st pick.

And what are we going to do after Peyton???????????????????????? Hmmm... maybe have a very good and defense and good running game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a lot of interesting points in here but concerning the #1 pick I think you have to take Luck and bring him up under Peyton the next 2-3 years. Look, everyone is saying trade the pick and get more picks so we can get one with Peyton. But we can do that already this year. We are going to be (pending any trades) picking #1 in every round after we take Luck. I'd trade that 3rd rounder for example and get an extra second and get that WR and that SS we need all in the same round.

If we do the trade for more picks, what do people think we are gonna do after Peyton? If we get the picks and finish well for the remaining years we have with Peyton, we won't be picking inside the top 25 like we have been accustomed to around here with finishing 10-6+ each year. Meaning that to find that next franchise QB we more than likely would have to make a big trade and move down. The Jets have done this in a similar fashion with trading down to get Mark Sanchez. Look at where they are sitting at this year.. Now we can all blame their non-success this year on a lot of different factors but Sanchez isn't doing much to help his cause either. My point: Take Luck, secure the team of what you believe to be another franchise QB for the long-term while being able to support Peyton with some new pieces in this years draft.

There-in lies the big decision.... which is why I believe they're more likely to draft Luck. I just don't know if we'll have the degree of certainty with Peyton's health by the time the decision has to be made.

And if Luck declares himself eligible for the draft in January it would seem a pretty safe bet that he has no qualms about the Colts drafting him even if it means he sits a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a very good argument and I've seen several people saying it. We aren't picking at the top of each round if you take Luck, your basically picking at the very end of the earlier round without a 7th round pick. That's like not having a 1st pick.

And what are we going to do after Peyton???????????????????????? Hmmm... maybe have a very good and defense and good running game.

That is without doubt the absolute stupidest thing I've ever read on this site. Congratulations, thats an amazing achievement on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is without doubt the absolute stupidest thing I've ever read on this site. Congratulations, thats an amazing achievement on this forum.

That opposite statement is even stupid. Hey guys! We can draft Andrew Luck and it will be just like old times where we pick at the end of each round! Except for the fact that that is not true.

Balzer40 please think before you type so that I don't have to respond to statements like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That opposite statement is even stupid. Hey guys! We can draft Andrew Luck and it will be just like old times where we pick at the end of each round! Except for the fact that that is not true.

Balzer40 please think before you type so that I don't have to respond to statements like this.

We would be picking at the end of each round with Luck because we would be having winning seasons? What is wrong with that? Stop posting please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We would be picking at the end of each round with Luck because we would be having winning seasons? What is wrong with that? Stop posting please.

What does this statement even mean? Don't post and drink at the same time please. Or just stop posting as you seem to think is a good response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this statement even mean? Don't post and drink at the same time please. Or just stop posting as you seem to think is a good response.

It means that you are stating we would be picking at the bottom of the draft rounds with Luck because we would be finishing with a good record each year like we have been with Peyton.

Finishing with a good record in the seasons we would have with Luck isn't a bad thing. Stop posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, time to stick my neck out on this one. As I always say, I don't watch much College Ball so take this with an ocean of salt, but here is what I'm thinking.

We have seen life without Manning and it aint pretty. Unless Peyton and the Dr.s declare that he is good to go for the next 3-4 years, I say grab Luck and Maybe we can have 12-15 more years of having an elite QB at the helm. There is plenty of time and future pics to build the team around him going forward.

There it is, I said it!

PS I reserve the right to change my mind a couple hundred times before the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that you are stating we would be picking at the bottom of the draft rounds with Luck because we would be finishing with a good record each year like we have been with Peyton.

Finishing with a good record in the seasons we would have with Luck isn't a bad thing. Stop posting.

That's not what I said so start reading. I hope you are reading... You stop posting as you seem to have no idea what you are talking?

And what do you mean we would be picking at the end of each round with Andrew Luck? Are you saying that he would make us go to the playoffs every year? I'm not sure how this got into the conversation so I'm not following you there...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peyton will be returning he seems to be healthy, news flash.... He won't be traded, Irsay would have to pay $28 Million for some draft picks for Peyton, seems unlikely. It doesn't make sense to Draft Luck and keep Manning, so everyone's love affair with Luck being under Manning like Rodgers under Favre is ridiculous. Besides Favre didn't like Rodgers and didn't give him any of his toot ledge or practice snaps, hmmm..... But apparently Manning is going to do that for Luck? Its either Manning or Luck, bottom line! PaColt, I like the trade down scenarios, would love to have Von Miller from Denver and picks, or Haden and Taylor and picks... I would even like Haden and SS Tj Ward, that really addresses the secondary! McCoy is not the answer for the Browns, they have been saying this, I just watched them play the Ravens yesterday, as I live in Baltimore, and they talked not stop about liking their young pieces on the team, but having question marks at QB. I think a balance of draft picks and players would be ideal no matter who the trade down partner would be and if they traded the pick. But in my opinion you can’t have both Luck and Manning!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We would be picking at the end of each round with Luck because we would be having winning seasons? What is wrong with that? Stop posting please.

Start reading posts please.

This is not a very good argument and I've seen several people saying it. We aren't picking at the top of each round if you take Luck, your basically picking at the very end of the earlier round without a 7th round pick. That's like not having a 1st pick.

And what are we going to do after Peyton???????????????????????? Hmmm... maybe have a very good and defense and good running game.

But since you (Adam) can't or won't read posts let me translate. He's not talking about all subsequent drafts after 2012. He's talking about the 2012 draft alone. In the 2012 draft, your suggestion is to use the #1 pick on Luck (who will ride the bench if Manning is healthy and you're fine with that...I disagree but also admit this is merely a matter of opinion) and use the #1 picks in rounds 2-7 to draft help for Manning. What Ramblin said is if we draft Luck and use the rest of the picks, then one could say we're picking at the end of each round (the #1 pick in round 2 only being one pick behind #32 in round 1) so the 2012 draft would be no different than the past several drafts we've had in that we've been picking at the end of the rounds...the difference being of course we would get Luck but some people want him and some people don't so for those who don't want him, getting him isn't much of a selling point. You (Adam) said that if we draft Luck then starting in 2013 (with Manning back) then we go back to drafting at the end of the rounds instead of the beginning. This is most likely true. That is not the same thing that Ramblin is saying. I admit, Ramblin worded the post I quoted somewhat awkwardly but he wasn't saying the same thing you said. Though to be fair, your post #15 was also worded a bit awkwardly. You talk about trading down when I think you mean trading up but not totally sure. And how are we going to trade a 3rd round pick for a 2nd?

to be honest I think there was a disconnect between you 2 from the start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Start reading posts please.

But since you (Adam) can't or won't read posts let me translate. He's not talking about all subsequent drafts after 2012. He's talking about the 2012 draft alone. In the 2012 draft, your suggestion is to use the #1 pick on Luck (who will ride the bench if Manning is healthy and you're fine with that...I disagree but also admit this is merely a matter of opinion) and use the #1 picks in rounds 2-7 to draft help for Manning. What Ramblin said is if we draft Luck and use the rest of the picks, then one could say we're picking at the end of each round (the #1 pick in round 2 only being one pick behind #32 in round 1) so the 2012 draft would be no different than the past several drafts we've had in that we've been picking at the end of the rounds...the difference being of course we would get Luck but some people want him and some people don't so for those who don't want him, getting him isn't much of a selling point. You (Adam) said that if we draft Luck then starting in 2013 (with Manning back) then we go back to drafting at the end of the rounds instead of the beginning. This is most likely true. That is not the same thing that Ramblin is saying. I admit, Ramblin worded the post I quoted somewhat awkwardly but he wasn't saying the same thing you said. Though to be fair, your post #15 was also worded a bit awkwardly. You talk about trading down when I think you mean trading up but not totally sure. And how are we going to trade a 3rd round pick for a 2nd?

to be honest I think there was a disconnect between you 2 from the start.

I'm thinking this too... I can't tell what he was talking about in his last post. I couldn't think of a different way to reword my first post though, but it didn't say anything about drafting after 2012.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Start reading posts please.

But since you (Adam) can't or won't read posts let me translate. He's not talking about all subsequent drafts after 2012. He's talking about the 2012 draft alone. In the 2012 draft, your suggestion is to use the #1 pick on Luck (who will ride the bench if Manning is healthy and you're fine with that...I disagree but also admit this is merely a matter of opinion) and use the #1 picks in rounds 2-7 to draft help for Manning. What Ramblin said is if we draft Luck and use the rest of the picks, then one could say we're picking at the end of each round (the #1 pick in round 2 only being one pick behind #32 in round 1) so the 2012 draft would be no different than the past several drafts we've had in that we've been picking at the end of the rounds...the difference being of course we would get Luck but some people want him and some people don't so for those who don't want him, getting him isn't much of a selling point. You (Adam) said that if we draft Luck then starting in 2013 (with Manning back) then we go back to drafting at the end of the rounds instead of the beginning. This is most likely true. That is not the same thing that Ramblin is saying. I admit, Ramblin worded the post I quoted somewhat awkwardly but he wasn't saying the same thing you said. Though to be fair, your post #15 was also worded a bit awkwardly. You talk about trading down when I think you mean trading up but not totally sure. And how are we going to trade a 3rd round pick for a 2nd?

So picking at the start of the 2nd and 3rd is essentially picking at the end?? LOL. No that makes no sense. THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE ROUNDS. You are picking at the top of each round meaning that you have the pick AHEAD OF EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THAT ROUND TO START. In your logic you are saying picking #33 is the same as picking #60-64 which is where we have been drafting before. #33 and #60-64 aren't the same, hate to brake it to you. You aren't picking at the end of the 1st round if you have the #1 pick in the 1st round. Rounds 2-6 you pick #1 as well meaning you pick ahead of everyone else in that round. Do your research.

You really need to do your draft research. Picking at the top of the 2nd is better than choosing at the end of it. This idea goes across the board. The order stays consistent throughout the whole process unless trades are made. And my point with the 3rd round pick is that its a HIGHER ORDER pick meaning that we are picking #1 in that round. So my point is that a team who's picking in the middle of the 2nd would trade so they could a relatively high pick in the next round while we get their second round choice ontop of what we already have.

to be honest I think there was a disconnect between you 2 from the start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So picking at the start of the 2nd and 3rd is essentially picking at the end?? LOL. No that makes no sense.

You're right, it doesn't make any sense and that's not what I said. I'm at a loss as to what that even means and even more of a loss in how you got that from my post.

THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE ROUNDS. You are picking at the top of each round meaning that you have the pick AHEAD OF EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THAT ROUND TO START.

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious.

In your logic you are saying picking #33 is the same as picking #60-64 which is where we have been drafting before.

No this is not my logic, this is your grossly inaccurate understanding of my logic. I clearly said that picking #33 (this being the first pick in round 2) is only one pick behind #32 (the last pick in round 1)...in other words, the first pick of Round 2 is just behind the last pick in Round 1. So picking at the top of the Round 2 is not far off from picking at the end of the Round 1.

#33 and #60-64 aren't the same, hate to brake it to you. You aren't picking at the end of the 1st round if you have the #1 pick in the 1st round. Rounds 2-6 you pick #1 as well meaning you pick ahead of everyone else in that round. Do your research.

You don't have to BREAK anything to me (brakes are in a car ;) ). It's very easy to see that picking at #33 and picking at #64 are clearly different. I have no idea how you logically concluded that I thought they would be the same based on my post. I find it funny that you sit on your high horse telling people to "stop posting' and "do your research" when you clearly lack the reading and comprehensive skills that most 6th graders have.

You really need to do your draft research. Picking at the top of the 2nd is better than choosing at the end of it. This idea goes across the board. The order stays consistent throughout the whole process unless trades are made. And my point with the 3rd round pick is that its a HIGHER ORDER pick meaning that we are picking #1 in that round. So my point is that a team who's picking in the middle of the 2nd would trade so they could a relatively high pick in the next round while we get their second round choice ontop of what we already have.

Again, why would a team trade their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick without any other compensation? You clearly understand that choosing at the end of a round is better than choosing at the beginning of that same round, but picking in round 2 is also clearly better than picking in round 3. Perhaps it is you who should do YOUR research. No team is going to give up their 2nd round pick no matter what # it is in the round for a 3rd round pick unless we offer additional compensation as well. We would have to likely give another lower round pick in rounds 4-6 along with the 3rd round pick OR a higher pick in the 2013 draft in order to move up from the top spot in round 3 to somewhere in the middle of round 2. You're suggesting that a team would give us their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick simply because our pick in the 3rd round is higher than their pick in the 2nd round and that's just plain stupid. Now if you simply forgot to add that we would have to pay them additional compensation along with the 3rd round pick then that would make more sense but you didn't say anything in that regard. So again I repeat, no team is going to trade us their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick without additional compensation on our end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regular- Jason's responses

Blue-My response

You're right, it doesn't make any sense and that's not what I said. I'm at a loss as to what that even means and even more of a loss in how you got that from my post.

No, thats exactly what you said.

This is what you stated: your suggestion is to use the #1 pick on Luck (who will ride the bench if Manning is healthy and you're fine with that...I disagree but also admit this is merely a matter of opinion) and use the #1 picks in rounds 2-7 to draft help for Manning. What Ramblin said is if we draft Luck and use the rest of the picks, then one could say we're picking at the end of each round (the #1 pick in round 2 only being one pick behind #32 in round 1) so the 2012 draft would be no different than the past several drafts we've had in that we've been picking at the end of the rounds...

Wrong. While this idea holds true for rounds 1 and 2 because we would be using the pick in round one for Luck, it doesn't apply to the rest of the rounds because rounds 2-7, we would be picking #1 in those rounds ahead of everyone else. Where as in past we would be picking at the end of rounds 2-7 instead of the start like this year.

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious.

Welcome Sir Oblivious

No this is not my logic, this is your grossly inaccurate understanding of my logic. I clearly said that picking #33 (this being the first pick in round 2) is only one pick behind #32 (the last pick in round 1)...in other words, the first pick of Round 2 is just behind the last pick in Round 1. So picking at the top of the Round 2 is not far off from picking at the end of the Round 1.

This is true but also true is that #33 is #1 in round 2. Whereas before if things were the same as you both seem to think they would be, we would be picking #60-64 in round 2 instead of #1 like we will this year. So no, they aren't the same as years past drafts.

You don't have to BREAK anything to me (brakes are in a car ;) ). It's very easy to see that picking at #33 and picking at #64 are clearly different. I have no idea how you logically concluded that I thought they would be the same based on my post. I find it funny that you sit on your high horse telling people to "stop posting' and "do your research" when you clearly lack the reading and comprehensive skills that most 6th graders have.

You clearly didn't even understand the point you were trying to defend. You obviously failed 3rd grade english. Just stop.

Again, why would a team trade their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick without any other compensation? You clearly understand that choosing at the end of a round is better than choosing at the beginning of that same round, but picking in round 2 is also clearly better than picking in round 3. Perhaps it is you who should do YOUR research. No team is going to give up their 2nd round pick no matter what # it is in the round for a 3rd round pick unless we offer additional compensation as well. We would have to likely give another lower round pick in rounds 4-6 along with the 3rd round pick OR a higher pick in the 2013 draft in order to move up from the top spot in round 3 to somewhere in the middle of round 2. You're suggesting that a team would give us their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick simply because our pick in the 3rd round is higher than their pick in the 2nd round and that's just plain stupid. Now if you simply forgot to add that we would have to pay them additional compensation along with the 3rd round pick then that would make more sense but you didn't say anything in that regard. So again I repeat, no team is going to trade us their 2nd round pick for our 3rd round pick without additional compensation on our end.

I don't think it would soley be just the 3rd rounder for the 2nd because theres a lot of variances that will play out on draft day. A team may really see a player they want that could fall to the 3rd so they wouldn't have a problem trading away their 2nd rounder to us for some conditionary picks. My point here is that everyone seems to think we can only get value for the #1 pick in round 1 when the other rounds show value as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna try this a different way.

Theres a lot of interesting points in here but concerning the #1 pick I think you have to take Luck and bring him up under Peyton the next 2-3 years. Look, everyone is saying trade the pick and get more picks so we can get one with Peyton. But we can do that already this year. We are going to be (pending any trades) picking #1 in every round after we take Luck. I'd trade that 3rd rounder for example and get an extra second and get that WR and that SS we need all in the same round.

We're picking #1 in every round, so if we draft Luck, then what we have left are the first picks in subsequent rounds which would be (before including compensatory picks) Picks #33, 65, 97, 129, 161, and 193.

For the past 5 or so years because of regular season success we've been picking at the end of each round. So if we pick at the end of each round we would have Picks #32, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192 and 224.

You said (paraphrasing): draft Luck and use the rest of the picks to help Manning (those picks being 33, 65, 97, 129, 161 and 193)

Ramblin said (paraphrasing): if we do that then we're picking in roughly the same spots we have been for the past 5 years but without a 7th round pick (which would be picks 32, 64, 96, 128, 160 and 192) and picking where we have in the past 5 years hasn't helped Manning a whole lot.

Compare the numbers in blue.

We aren't picking at the top of each round if you take Luck, your basically picking at the very end of the earlier round without a 7th round pick. That's like not having a 1st (overall) pick.

I removed some parts that were unnecessary and added (overall) to try to help explain what he was saying. Ramblin wants to use every pick in the 2012 draft to try to help Peyton win now and because of the season we've had, we have the #1 overall pick that we can trade to acquire a number of extra picks. Using the picks we already have plus the extra picks, we could add a lot of talent to this team to help Peyton win now. If you take away that first overall pick to spend on Luck, then we are left with essentially the same area of picks that we usually have so therefore getting the #1 overall pick does nothing to help Peyton.

I really don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna try this a different way.

We're picking #1 in every round, so if we draft Luck, then what we have left are the first picks in subsequent rounds which would be (before including compensatory picks) Picks #33, 65, 97, 129, 161, and 193.

For the past 5 or so years because of regular season success we've been picking at the end of each round. So if we pick at the end of each round we would have Picks #32, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192 and 224.

You said (paraphrasing): draft Luck and use the rest of the picks to help Manning (those picks being 33, 65, 97, 129, 161 and 193)

Ramblin said (paraphrasing): if we do that then we're picking in roughly the same spots we have been for the past 5 years but without a 7th round pick (which would be picks 32, 64, 96, 128, 160 and 192) and picking where we have in the past 5 years hasn't helped Manning a whole lot.

Compare the numbers in blue.

I removed some parts that were unnecessary and added (overall) to try to help explain what he was saying. Ramblin wants to use every pick in the 2012 draft to try to help Peyton win now and because of the season we've had, we have the #1 overall pick that we can trade to acquire a number of extra picks. Using the picks we already have plus the extra picks, we could add a lot of talent to this team to help Peyton win now. If you take away that first overall pick to spend on Luck, then we are left with essentially the same area of picks that we usually have so therefore getting the #1 overall pick does nothing to help Peyton.

I really don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

I can't believe it, he still doesn't understand what you are saying. Adam Noucateri, when he says picking at the beginning of each round is like picking at the end of each round in front of it, then that means the 33rd is like having the #32 pick. How can you not see that? Having the first pick in every round other than the 1st is not that great if you don't get to use the 1st overall pick on anything valueable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna try this a different way.

We're picking #1 in every round, so if we draft Luck, then what we have left are the first picks in subsequent rounds which would be (before including compensatory picks) Picks #33, 65, 97, 129, 161, and 193.

For the past 5 or so years because of regular season success we've been picking at the end of each round. So if we pick at the end of each round we would have Picks #32, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192 and 224.

You said (paraphrasing): draft Luck and use the rest of the picks to help Manning (those picks being 33, 65, 97, 129, 161 and 193)

Ramblin said (paraphrasing): if we do that then we're picking in roughly the same spots we have been for the past 5 years but without a 7th round pick (which would be picks 32, 64, 96, 128, 160 and 192) and picking where we have in the past 5 years hasn't helped Manning a whole lot.

Compare the numbers in blue.

These numbers are correct but you are missing the point that these choices take place in completely different rounds which dictate the quality of players avaliable, ultimately deciding what you can choose.Theres a reason why players are projected as "High" 2nd rounders and "Low" second rounders. In theory, you are hoping that in picking #1 in the 2nd round, you are getting a player who is better instead of picking a player in the middle/end of the same round. You are reading too much into the numbers similarities and forgetting the number of rounds and how they dictate the talent avaliable.

I removed some parts that were unnecessary and added (overall) to try to help explain what he was saying. Ramblin wants to use every pick in the 2012 draft to try to help Peyton win now and because of the season we've had, we have the #1 overall pick that we can trade to acquire a number of extra picks. Using the picks we already have plus the extra picks, we could add a lot of talent to this team to help Peyton win now. If you take away that first overall pick to spend on Luck, then we are left with essentially the same area of picks that we usually have so therefore getting the #1 overall pick does nothing to help Peyton.

I realize he was talking about trading the pick but my whole point is that these picks we already have WILL help Peyton in the here now on the basis of quality of players in the position of the round.

I really don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe it, he still doesn't understand what you are saying. Adam Noucateri, when he says picking at the beginning of each round is like picking at the end of each round in front of it, then that means the 33rd is like having the #32 pick. How can you not see that? Having the first pick in every round other than the 1st is not that great if you don't get to use the 1st overall pick on anything valueable.

No its not. Numerically they are similiar but the position dictates the talent avaliable in the round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha

Amazing isn't it? lol

I can't believe it, he still doesn't understand what you are saying. Adam Noucateri, when he says picking at the beginning of each round is like picking at the end of each round in front of it, then that means the 33rd is like having the #32 pick. How can you not see that? Having the first pick in every round other than the 1st is not that great if you don't get to use the 1st overall pick on anything valueable.

Yeah....I give up. It's in black and white (and some blue, green and red lol) so if it hasn't sunk in yet I really don't think it's going to. :wall:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...