Why Cant Manning & Luck Co-Exist?

[Coltsagent]

I keep hearing Kravitz spout off (http://www.indystar.com/article/20111202/SPORTS15/312020006/Kravitz-Manning-Luck-tandem-cannot-work-Colts) about how its either Manning or Luck, its impossible to do both. The ONLY reason cited is money…I just don’t get it. Since when is Kravitz a cap expert? Besides you really believe Irsay would let this opportunity slip thru his fingers over freaking money? Why is Kravitz so insentient on driving this wedge?

[oldunclemark]

I keep hearing Kravitz spout off (http://www.indystar....nnot-work-Colts) about how its either Manning or Luck, its impossible to do both. The ONLY reason cited is money…I just don’t get it. Since when is Kravitz a cap expert? Besides you really believe Irsay would let this opportunity slip thru his fingers over freaking money? Why is Kravitz so insentient on driving this wedge?

Kravitz is just a pot-stirrer That's his job

Money wont be an issue..because Irsay and Manning can renegotiate his deal..

Manning is a multi-millionaire....I agree ....He'll work that out...

I think Peyton Manning would invest in Andrew Luck..if Luck was willing..

He would talk up the Farve-Rodgers transition and say..."we can do that smoothly.."

They'd work in the off-season..

Luck could be the backup to Manning for 4 years while the Colts compete for the Super Bowl..

(If Luck goes to Miami or Minnesota, they wont be in the Super Bowl...next year)

..and then Luck takes over one fo the NFL's premier franchises having learned and watched a Hall-of-Famer..

..withthe public 100% behind him for the patience he has shown..

Manning realizes he cant play forever and would want to groom his successor...

Its up to Luck to accept this..but it could work..

[dn4192]

They can, Kravitz doens't know what he is talking about. Luck may not be happy with sitting for a season or two and Peyton may not be happy with his replacement on the roster, but there is zero reason why it can't happen. It has happen on other NFL teams and it can happen here.

[coltsblue1844]

Kravits likes to throw nonsense against the wall and see if it sticks...this is his 3rd or 4th different write of basically this same article...he even says "do not compare this to the Favre/Rodgers situation...Rodgers was a #24 pick, not the #1, huge difference in salary there..." But there is NOT a huge difference in the 2 salaries...in the old CBA, Rodgers made around $24mil on his rookie deal (guaranteed) where Cam Newton at #1 got about $22mil (guaranteed)

I've never seen so many people ready to just push a 4 time MVP, and quite possibly (well he IS, in my opinion) the GREATEST QB of all time, out of town for a rookie...Assuming Peyton is able to come back and play out his contract, everyone needs to pay attention and relish his last 4 seasons, and stop taking him for granted like someone so easily replaced.

[Thewholefnshow28]

To me the primary reason why Luck and Manning are not going to coexist is because of how much time Manning demands with the offense. He is taking all the snaps in practice and is a workaholic. How much time is he going to really give to mentoring Luck and work with him?

Part of our problem this year is we never developed our back up QB and what is going to change if Manning comes back totally healthy? Manning barely even wanted to come out of that Thanksgiving game against the Lions a few years ago when he threw six first half touchdowns.

How long are we going to sit Luck? If he is as good as everyone thinks he is then he will be one of the most competitive players on this team. Will he really want to sit two to three years behind Manning? Heck it would probably kill him to have to sit one year let alone multiple years. If we get into Luck's third year we will have to pick up his option for his final year, which will pay him top money, while not really knowing what we have in the kid.

If Manning is healthy and can play the next three to four years I say we go all in and trade the pick. If he is not healthy enough to play then you take Luck and go with him and thank Manning for everything he has done for this city and team.

[dn4192]

Kravits likes to throw crap against the wall and see if it sticks...this is his 3rd or 4th different write of basically this same article...he even says "do not compare this to the Favre/Rodgers situation...Rodgers was a #24 pick, not the #1, huge difference in salary there..." But there is NOT a huge difference in the 2 salaries...in the old CBA, Rodgers made around $24mil on his rookie deal (guaranteed) where Cam Newton at #1 got about $22mil (guaranteed)

I've never seen so many people ready to just push a 4 time MVP, and quite possibly (well he IS, in my opinion) the GREATEST QB of all time, out of town for a rookie...Assuming Peyton is able to come back and play out his contract, everyone needs to pay attention and relish his last 4 seasons, and stop taking him for granted like someone so easily replaced.

Peytons accomplishments are in teh past, what we have to look at his potential over the coming seasons...

[Flash7]

As far as can they co-exist financially, yes they can. I think the question is "Is this the best use of our money?" If we draft Luck and keep Manning, a large portion of the team's funds would be invested in the quarterback position and we are all aware that there are several other needs that also need to be addressed. So, would it make more sense to either keep Manning and trade the first pick in the draft for additional draft picks that can help to make the Colts a more stable and solid team? Imagine having Peyton Manning with a solid O-line, translating into great protection and a great run game. Also imagine Manning playing on a team with a solid defense that can cause three and outs and get Manning the ball back.

On the other hand, if we draft Luck, then it would make sense that we trade Manning to build a team around Luck. Andy Dalton does not have Palmer to learn from, yet he's having a very good season, as is Cam Newton. If we've learned anything lately, it's that rookie quartebacks can come in and be successful in the NFL, especially with all of the new rules that have turned it into a passing league.

So basically, yes we could have both Manning and Luck on the same team and the team could afford it, however, it would be at the expense of not being able to fully address the many issues that this team has.

[oldunclemark]

To me the primary reason why Luck and Manning are not going to coexist is because of how much time Manning demands with the offense. He is taking all the snaps in practice and is a workaholic. How much time is he going to really give to mentoring Luck and work with him?

Part of our problem this year is we never developed our back up QB and what is going to change if Manning comes back totally healthy? Manning barely even wanted to come out of that Thanksgiving game against the Lions a few years ago when he threw six first half touchdowns.

How long are we going to sit Luck? If he is as good as everyone thinks he is then he will be one of the most competitive players on this team. Will he really want to sit two to three years behind Manning? Heck it would probably kill him to have to sit one year let alone multiple years. If we get into Luck's third year we will have to pick up his option for his final year, which will pay him top money, while not really knowing what we have in the kid.

If Manning is healthy and can play the next three to four years I say we go all in and trade the pick. If he is not healthy enough to play then you take Luck and go with him and thank Manning for everything he has done for this city and team.

Here's where we get creative..SHOW...

Manning would have to agree to give some practice time to Luck and he'd also have to agree to come out of games where we have a 2 or 3 TD lead (hard to remember that now,. isnt it?) and give Luck some playing time.

Luck would start all the pre-season games.

..and Luck would get some special teams time as a punt returner (remember Joe Theisman, Cordell Stewart) or slot receiver...

He's an athlete..Give him other things to do while he's waiting..

You said it..we dont knwo how good Luck is yet and You dont want a rookie QB to start his first year...anyway...

But if Mannng has future injury problems..Lucks' time may com sooner.

...somebody just has to ask Luck ..do you want to start on a losing team..or be a backup on a winning team in 2012

[04DarkShadowGT]

Cap shouldnt be much of a concern, if you go by what Netwon made, he was around the same salary as we paid Kerry Collins to go away.

[Mouthfire]

Kravitz's recent articles are approaching the inanity of BigBlueShoe's usual stuff.

You start to wonder if his recent clashes with the Polian's is undermining better judgement.

[Silver Clown]

I've never seen so many people ready to just push a 4 time MVP, and quite possibly (well he IS, in my opinion) the GREATEST QB of all time, out of town for a rookie...Assuming Peyton is able to come back and play out his contract, everyone needs to pay attention and relish his last 4 seasons, and stop taking him for granted like someone so easily replaced.

I don't think people are trying to push Peyton out the door, I'm certainly not anyway. With the injury he's had and the season we're going through right now, I think people are starting to worry (a LOT!) about what life for the Colts will be like after Manning finally retires. Hopefully the injury troubles he's had recenty won't shorten his career too much. Since no one knows how much longer we'll have Manning for, I don't see why we shouldn't start looking at possible replacements for him after he retires.

[oldunclemark]

As far as can they co-exist financially, yes they can. I think the question is "Is this the best use of our money?" If we draft Luck and keep Manning, a large portion of the team's funds would be invested in the quarterback position and we are all aware that there are several other needs that also need to be addressed. So, would it make more sense to either keep Manning and trade the first pick in the draft for additional draft picks that can help to make the Colts a more stable and solid team? Imagine having Peyton Manning with a solid O-line, translating into great protection and a great run game. Also imagine Manning playing on a team with a solid defense that can cause three and outs and get Manning the ball back.

On the other hand, if we draft Luck, then it would make sense that we trade Manning to build a team around Luck. Andy Dalton does not have Palmer to learn from, yet he's having a very good season, as is Cam Newton. If we've learned anything lately, it's that rookie quartebacks can come in and be successful in the NFL, especially with all of the new rules that have turned it into a passing league.

So basically, yes we could have both Manning and Luck on the same team and the team could afford it, however, it would be at the expense of not being able to fully address the many issues that this team has.

You cannot trade Peyton Manning....He's a $28 million 36-year-old player who has missed the entire year with injury..

No one will trade for an injured Manning...

..and why would we trade a healthy one?

[Superman]

As far as can they co-exist financially, yes they can. I think the question is "Is this the best use of our money?" If we draft Luck and keep Manning, a large portion of the team's funds would be invested in the quarterback position and we are all aware that there are several other needs that also need to be addressed. So, would it make more sense to either keep Manning and trade the first pick in the draft for additional draft picks that can help to make the Colts a more stable and solid team?

You make many good points. I'm only commenting on this because it stands out to me right now. People keep criticizing the front office for not having a "capable backup" quarterback on the roster, ignoring the fact that a backup quarterback with any pedigree is costly, especially if he doesn't play. But then they say "we can't draft Andrew Luck because that's a $4 or $5 million backup quarterback, and we can spend that money somewhere else." People want it both ways. Not necessarily you...

I don't see any reason why Luck and Manning couldn't co-exist for three or four years, if necessary. I'm not saying that's a reason to keep them both. There's an argument to be made either way. But money isn't the argument, not at this point.

[coltsblue1844]

Peytons accomplishments are in teh past, what we have to look at his potential over the coming seasons...

Well technically at the end of this season, while waiting for next season to start, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady's accomplishments will be "in the past" also...that doesnt mean that there arent many more to come in the future, though

[doogansquest]

They can, Kravitz doens't know what he is talking about. Luck may not be happy with sitting for a season or two and Peyton may not be happy with his replacement on the roster, but there is zero reason why it can't happen. It has happen on other NFL teams and it can happen here.

You just listed two of the dozens of reasons why it may not happen. So to say "there is zero reason" is astutely contradictory to your own suggestion.

As far as can they co-exist financially, yes they can. I think the question is "Is this the best use of our money?" If we draft Luck and keep Manning, a large portion of the team's funds would be invested in the quarterback position and we are all aware that there are several other needs that also need to be addressed. So, would it make more sense to either keep Manning and trade the first pick in the draft for additional draft picks that can help to make the Colts a more stable and solid team? Imagine having Peyton Manning with a solid O-line, translating into great protection and a great run game. Also imagine Manning playing on a team with a solid defense that can cause three and outs and get Manning the ball back.

On the other hand, if we draft Luck, then it would make sense that we trade Manning to build a team around Luck. Andy Dalton does not have Palmer to learn from, yet he's having a very good season, as is Cam Newton. If we've learned anything lately, it's that rookie quartebacks can come in and be successful in the NFL, especially with all of the new rules that have turned it into a passing league.

So basically, yes we could have both Manning and Luck on the same team and the team could afford it, however, it would be at the expense of not being able to fully address the many issues that this team has.

Bingo. That's what it's all about. Of course we could have both players, but that is simply not what's best for the team. Today is just as important as tomorrow.

Here's where we get creative..SHOW...

Manning would have to agree to give some practice time to Luck and he'd also have to agree to come out of games where we have a 2 or 3 TD lead (hard to remember that now,. isnt it?) and give Luck some playing time.

Luck would start all the pre-season games.

..and Luck would get some special teams time as a punt returner (remember Joe Theisman, Cordell Stewart) or slot receiver...

He's an athlete..Give him other things to do while he's waiting..

You said it..we dont knwo how good Luck is yet and You dont want a rookie QB to start his first year...anyway...

But if Mannng has future injury problems..Lucks' time may com sooner.

...somebody just has to ask Luck ..do you want to start on a losing team..or be a backup on a winning team in 2012

Why would Manning have to agree with any of that? It's not his job to cut back on training and practice; it's not his job to groom his replacement. Whether his last day is tomorrow or in 2020, his job is to be the best he can be to win the next game. I guarantee you he is not thinking about his end, but rather, how many more Super Bowls he can aim for.

Go ahead, ask Luck that question. I bet you he says, "I just want to play on Sundays." That's his outside thought. On the inside, he probably wants to go somewhere where they can afford to build around his needs, his abilities, and his play style. He comes here, and we're still winning with Manning, then he takes over in his late 20's with a team that has nothing he can comfortably work with, plays 3 more years in "transition," and then maybe has what he needs in his 30's.

If it weren't for the Favre/Rodgers scenario, people would realize that smooth QB transitions just don't happen in the NFL. When greats like Elway, Marino, Aikman, etc., all hang them up, there's virtually never an upkeep of success. Those teams plan, and draft QB's to be the successor. They are "groomed" by the coaches, and they observe the players in front of them. Trying to make that QB do what his predecessor did is a recipe for long periods of awful play. Trying to build the team to the new player's strengths, while ignoring the current QB is even worse.

You can't help one without messing the other. What happened in Green Bay was basically an accident by all accounts, and will likely not happen again for 20 years.

[Flash7]

You cannot trade Peyton Manning....He's a $28 million 36-year-old player who has missed the entire year with injury..

No one will trade for an injured Manning...

..and why would we trade a healthy one?

Montana was badly injured while with the Forty Niners and sat out for nearly the entire season. He cam back healthy the following season and was traded to the Chiefs. He was old and coming off of an injury, yet there were teams willing to take a chance on a future hall of famer. I would make an argument that there would be teams willing to take a chance on Manning.

Why would you trade a healthy Manning? That's a great quetion and I personally wouldn't trade a healthy Manning. I was simply stating that it's a better financial decision to either build with Manning or Luck. It could make sense to keep them both, but I personally believe that there is more value in keeping either Manning or Luck, and leveraging the other's value to build the team through a trade.

[Smitto]

I keep hearing Kravitz spout off (http://www.indystar....nnot-work-Colts) about how its either Manning or Luck, its impossible to do both. The ONLY reason cited is money…I just don’t get it. Since when is Kravitz a cap expert? Besides you really believe Irsay would let this opportunity slip thru his fingers over freaking money? Why is Kravitz so insentient on driving this wedge?

Ummm yea? thats why there's the phrase "this is a business"... at the end of the day the colts will have to put a ton load of money at the QB position if they had to keep both QB's... looking at this team now how can anyone say they would be competitive if they do that? not to mention resigning players. You cant carry two big QB's its just not possible, and whos to say peyton would reconstruct his contract? i sure dont see that happening

[Jaric]

You just listed two of the dozens of reasons why it may not happen. So to say "there is zero reason" is astutely contradictory to your own suggestion.

Bingo. That's what it's all about. Of course we could have both players, but that is simply not what's best for the team. Today is just as important as tomorrow.

Why would Manning have to agree with any of that? It's not his job to cut back on training and practice; it's not his job to groom his replacement. Whether his last day is tomorrow or in 2020, his job is to be the best he can be to win the next game. I guarantee you he is not thinking about his end, but rather, how many more Super Bowls he can aim for.

Go ahead, ask Luck that question. I bet you he says, "I just want to play on Sundays." That's his outside thought. On the inside, he probably wants to go somewhere where they can afford to build around his needs, his abilities, and his play style. He comes here, and we're still winning with Manning, then he takes over in his late 20's with a team that has nothing he can comfortably work with, plays 3 more years in "transition," and then maybe has what he needs in his 30's.

If it weren't for the Favre/Rodgers scenario, people would realize that smooth QB transitions just don't happen in the NFL. When greats like Elway, Marino, Aikman, etc., all hang them up, there's virtually never an upkeep of success. Those teams plan, and draft QB's to be the successor. They are "groomed" by the coaches, and they observe the players in front of them. Trying to make that QB do what his predecessor did is a recipe for long periods of awful play. Trying to build the team to the new player's strengths, while ignoring the current QB is even worse.

You can't help one without messing the other. What happened in Green Bay was basically an accident by all accounts, and will likely not happen again for 20 years.

What? How long do you think Manning is going to play for? He hasn't even been cleared to practice and you are willing to claim Luck wouldn't take over until HIS LATE 20s? Is Manning the new George Blanda? It would be a miracle if he plays out his contract let alone anything past that.

Why not just be honest and post that you aren't ready to come to grips the idea of Peyton Manning not being the Colts QB and be done with it.

If our scouting department determines that Luck is who we think he is (or any other QB for that matter) we'd be fools not to draft him.

[Jason_]

Now Luck is going to be a punt returner and slot receiver?!? Yes Stanford has thrown a couple of passes to Luck out of the wildcat but that doesn't mean he can actually run a route and beat a defender as opposed to catching a pass on a play where he was used as a decoy.

I agree with Doogan and Smitto. Technically we could afford to have both Manning and Brady on the same team if we wanted to but that would seriously hinder the amount of money we'd have to spend elsewhere. Yes of course I realize this is not going to happen but just pointing out that saying we could afford both Manning and a first round QB isn't really saying much.

The 3 most important questions that have yet to be answered are 1) what will Peyton's health status will be, 2) will Luck be willing to sit on the bench until Manning retires and 3) will Luck even be the highest graded QB by the Colts FO. At least 2 of these questions, but likely all 3, will not be anywhere close to answered until Feb-Apr.

[Flash7]

You make many good points. I'm only commenting on this because it stands out to me right now. People keep criticizing the front office for not having a "capable backup" quarterback on the roster, ignoring the fact that a backup quarterback with any pedigree is costly, especially if he doesn't play. But then they say "we can't draft Andrew Luck because that's a $4 or $5 million backup quarterback, and we can spend that money somewhere else." People want it both ways. Not necessarily you...

I don't see any reason why Luck and Manning couldn't co-exist for three or four years, if necessary. I'm not saying that's a reason to keep them both. There's an argument to be made either way. But money isn't the argument, not at this point.

You are right that they could co-exist, and that during that time Luck would be a very good back-up, which is something that we haven't had. I think that during the time when we have both Manning and Luck, Luck's salary will be as you had mentioned, around 4-5 Million. However, Mannings would be so much more.

Manning is my favorite football player, and even with that said, I have to think that logic should rule out when making a financial decision. Manning will be owed something like $28 Million next season, compared to Luck's salary of 4-5 Million. If we do trade Manning, we would get rid of his huge salary and even gain something else in return, such as draft picks etc..We can use the savings and added draft picks to make the Colts a solid team. Also, keep in mind that if Luck backs up Manning for the first 4 years, those are the years where he is relatively cheap. His salary will most likely increase after his initial contract. We should take advantage of that as well.

I would not like to trade Manning, however, in this scenario it would make sense. Of course there are many risks associated with this, such as getting rid of a HOF QB for an unproven rookie. I would most compare Luck with Andy Dalton, both of whom are very smart and have a great undesrtanding of the game, have good but not great arms, and are extremely accurate. They both have played on winning and ranked teams with good defenses. I see a lot of similarities. So far, from what wev're seen of Dalton, he's a very good QB and someone that the Bengals can build around.

[oldunclemark]

Montana was badly injured while with the Forty Niners and sat out for nearly the entire season. He cam back healthy the following season and was traded to the Chiefs. He was old and coming off of an injury, yet there were teams willing to take a chance on a future hall of famer. I would make an argument that there would be teams willing to take a chance on Manning.

Why would you trade a healthy Manning? That's a great quetion and I personally wouldn't trade a healthy Manning. I was simply stating that it's a better financial decision to either build with Manning or Luck. It could make sense to keep them both, but I personally believe that there is more value in keeping either Manning or Luck, and leveraging the other's value to build the team through a trade.

Flash..Tell me which team that you think (I'll accept any you cant think of) would trade multiple draft choices and pay $28 million for Peyton Manning ....with his injury situation as we know it now...

what franchise is desperate enough, foolish and rich enough to do that?

[dn4192]

You cannot trade Peyton Manning....He's a $28 million 36-year-old player who has missed the entire year with injury..

No one will trade for an injured Manning...

..and why would we trade a healthy one?

You trade a healthy one because he will bring you a few picks and he has very limited time left on his body.

[Flash7]

Flash..Tell me which team that you think (I'll accept any you cant think of) would trade multiple draft choices and pay $28 million for Peyton Manning ....with his injury situation as we know it now...

what franchise is desperate enough, foolish and rich enough to do that?

No team would trade for an injured Manning. I think that we would all agree on that.

If Manning is healthy and he has shown steady progression and has shown that he could throw the ball like he did previously, there would be many teams that would trade for Manning. Dolphins, Redskins, Jets

[supremecoltsfan300]

I dont know why people act like teams wouldnt trade for manning. Every team with a great qb pays a lot of money for their qb. The pats are paying brady the same amount. Teams that want to win games would trade for manning. With that said manning isnt going anywhere. If we draft luck he will just sit for four years. Luck cant do anything about that.

[Jason_]

I dont know why people act like teams wouldnt trade for manning. Every team with a great qb pays a lot of money for their qb. The pats are paying brady the same amount. Teams that want to win games would trade for manning. With that said manning isnt going anywhere. If we draft luck he will just sit for four years. Luck cant do anything about that.

lol...yes he can definitely do something about that. No one can force him to sign a contract. ;)

[Mameluc]

i think it was flash who said...you probably can have both but you would probably stil have some of the same holes this team has... I could see it happening if PM redoes his contract, so both cap hits takes the cap that today's pm contract takes.

but that deppends on PM and Irsay wanting to do it (lets remember jim irsay wast he one saying he wanted pm to have a huge contract and the one who couldnt have brady being paid more than PM)

[Jaric]

lol...yes he can definitely do something about that. No one can force him to sign a contract. ;)

Option A is to not start and get paid while learning how to play in the NFL. Option B is to not start while sitting at home on his couch unemployed not getting paid learning nothing but what time the Price is Right comes on.

The only reason a player would have leverage over the team is because most teams picking in this position need the player to start immediately.

We, do not. Therefore we can very easily call his bluff if it comes to that. Of course all indications from the Luck camp seem to point to the conclusion that this will not be an issue.

The reality of the situation is that Manning and Luck can coexist, and if we draft him, they will.

[Jason_]

Option A is to not start and get paid while learning how to play in the NFL. Option B is to not start while sitting at home on his couch unemployed not getting paid learning nothing but what time the Price is Right comes on.

The only reason a player would have leverage over the team is because most teams picking in this position need the player to start immediately.

We, do not. Therefore we can very easily call his bluff if it comes to that. Of course all indications from the Luck camp seem to point to the conclusion that this will not be an issue.

The reality of the situation is that Manning and Luck can coexist, and if we draft him, they will.

And option C is Luck respectfully tells Irsay/Polian/whoever that he'd prefer to go to a team where he has a better chance of starting/playing right away. If that's his preference I don't see Irsay or Polian still drafting him. If they decided to play hardball then Luck could then play hardball back and refuse to sign a contract. If there's even an indication that would happen then why would the Colts still waste the #1 pick on him? If he says he won't sign then they'd trade the pick or they'd pick someone else.

I honestly don't see either side playing hardball with the other. Either Luck will be fine with being behind Peyton on the depth chart or the Colts will respect his preference to go to a team where he can play right away.

If Luck had no say in the matter then neither did Elway or Eli, yet they both got their wish and did not play for the team that originally drafted them. Luck does have a say in the matter.

Of course all indications from the Luck camp seem to point to the conclusion that this will not be an issue.

What indications are these? As of now I haven't seen nor heard anything that suggests what he would do one way or another. The only thing I've heard come from the Luck camp is that he won't be returning to school in 2012. Other than that I haven't seen any mention of any draft day plans. I do recall mention that Oliver Luck has already requested information from the NFL as to what Andrew's options would be should he not want to be go to the team who tries to draft him.

**edit: I didn't mention the Oliver Luck point to prove that Andrew would not want to come to Indy. That was from before the draft picture started to clear up and at the time it still could have been a few different teams ending at #1 so I'm not in any way reading into this that Luck would refuse to come to the Colts. The point is though that they have looked into the possibility and that he would have leverage.

[Smitto]

And i think its safe to mention.. Ryan Leaf had more hype than peyton yet BP went with Peyton.... maybe the colts will pull that and go with matt barkley.. in that case they would be able to keep manning and have a pretty good QB to back him up.... there's so many options.

[supremecoltsfan300]

And option C is Luck respectfully tells Irsay/Polian/whoever that he'd prefer to go to a team where he has a better chance of starting/playing right away. If that's his preference I don't see Irsay or Polian still drafting him. If they decided to play hardball then Luck could then play hardball back and refuse to sign a contract. If there's even an indication that would happen then why would the Colts still waste the #1 pick on him? If he says he won't sign then they'd trade the pick or they'd pick someone else.

I honestly don't see either side playing hardball with the other. Either Luck will be fine with being behind Peyton on the depth chart or the Colts will respect his preference to go to a team where he can play right away.

If Luck had no say in the matter then neither did Elway or Eli, yet they both got their wish and did not play for the team that originally drafted them. Luck does have a say in the matter.

What indications are these? As of now I haven't seen nor heard anything that suggests what he would do one way or another. The only thing I've heard come from the Luck camp is that he won't be returning to school in 2012. Other than that I haven't seen any mention of any draft day plans. I do recall mention that Oliver Luck has already requested information from the NFL as to what Andrew's options would be should he not want to be go to the team who tries to draft him.

**edit: I didn't mention the Oliver Luck point to prove that Andrew would not want to come to Indy. That was from before the draft picture started to clear up and at the time it still could have been a few different teams ending at #1 so I'm not in any way reading into this that Luck would refuse to come to the Colts. The point is though that they have looked into the possibility and that he would have leverage.

I was speaking more about Luck not being able to do anything about the situation after 2 years behind Peyton. People keep saying we'd keep Peyton for 2 years and then Luck would take over, which doesn't make sense to me. Peyton would still give you the best chance to win and his contract is so much cheaper those last two years. Some people seem to think that "a number one overall draft pick can't sit for more than two years, that you have to play him" . I was responding to that. Luck can't do anything at that point.

I completely agree with you that Luck doesn't have to sign with the colts, that he can do an elway or eli if he wanted. Or like you said, both sides could come to terms if luck didn't want to sit.

[JoKeR]

They can, Kravitz doens't know what he is talking about. Luck may not be happy with sitting for a season or two and Peyton may not be happy with his replacement on the roster, but there is zero reason why it can't happen. It has happen on other NFL teams and it can happen here.

Just add to what your saying, remember Polian said he asked Manning how he'd feel if they drafted a QB early and Peyton said to go for it.

[supremecoltsfan300]

Just add to what your saying, remember Polian said he asked Manning how he'd feel if they drafted a QB early and Peyton said to go for it.

and to add to that, peyton denied ever having that conversation.

[Jason_]

I was speaking more about Luck not being able to do anything about the situation after 2 years behind Peyton. People keep saying we'd keep Peyton for 2 years and then Luck would take over, which doesn't make sense to me. Peyton would still give you the best chance to win and his contract is so much cheaper those last two years. Some people seem to think that "a number one overall draft pick can't sit for more than two years, that you have to play him" . I was responding to that. Luck can't do anything at that point.

I completely agree with you that Luck doesn't have to sign with the colts, that he can do an elway or eli if he wanted. Or like you said, both sides could come to terms if luck didn't want to sit.

Ah gotcha and that does make more sense. There are several people trying to say that Luck has no say in the matter going into the draft and that's simply not true. However if he is drafted by the Colts and he signs a contract, then from that point forward he has no say in the matter...but leading up to the draft and on draft day he does have leverage.

[Smitto]

Just add to what your saying, remember Polian said he asked Manning how he'd feel if they drafted a QB early and Peyton said to go for it.

Peyton denied that one

[thetigerfox]

Peyton denied that one

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d824ac058/article/colts-manning-denies-having-draft-discussions-with-polian

[supremecoltsfan300]

Ah gotcha and that does make more sense. There are several people trying to say that Luck has no say in the matter going into the draft and that's simply not true. However if he is drafted by the Colts and he signs a contract, then from that point forward he has no say in the matter...but leading up to the draft and on draft day he does have leverage.

Btw, i love your quote. That's my favorite one after Brady's one about Manning being the GOAT and Lewis's on Manning's importance to the colts.

[Jaric]

And option C is Luck respectfully tells Irsay/Polian/whoever that he'd prefer to go to a team where he has a better chance of starting/playing right away. If that's his preference I don't see Irsay or Polian still drafting him. If they decided to play hardball then Luck could then play hardball back and refuse to sign a contract. If there's even an indication that would happen then why would the Colts still waste the #1 pick on him? If he says he won't sign then they'd trade the pick or they'd pick someone else.

I honestly don't see either side playing hardball with the other. Either Luck will be fine with being behind Peyton on the depth chart or the Colts will respect his preference to go to a team where he can play right away.

If Luck had no say in the matter then neither did Elway or Eli, yet they both got their wish and did not play for the team that originally drafted them. Luck does have a say in the matter.

He's a rookie getting drafted not a free agent. He has no say in the matter. Again, if he wants to play hardball and sit out, fine. Sit out. All he'll have accomplished is wasting a year of his career watching daytime television and have nothing to show for it.

Every year guys get drafted to teams they'd probably rather not go to. Pulling an Elway is the exception.

[Coltsagent]

I just dont buy the money argument...most can agree that if Peyton were playing this year we would have 7 or 8 wins now and/or be in the thick of the AFC playoff picture. Thus if the QB postion is THE reason for the chance at a playoff or a SB run than why wouldn't you pay anything for having not 1 but 2 options?

[Jaric]

I was speaking more about Luck not being able to do anything about the situation after 2 years behind Peyton. People keep saying we'd keep Peyton for 2 years and then Luck would take over, which doesn't make sense to me. Peyton would still give you the best chance to win and his contract is so much cheaper those last two years. Some people seem to think that "a number one overall draft pick can't sit for more than two years, that you have to play him" . I was responding to that. Luck can't do anything at that point.

I completely agree with you that Luck doesn't have to sign with the colts, that he can do an elway or eli if he wanted. Or like you said, both sides could come to terms if luck didn't want to sit.

Speaking only for myself, the 2 more years figure comes because usually when a contract is structured the way Manning's is, it's because those last to years were never inteneded to be played under and were only added as window dressing.

Keep in mind, he'd be 38 after those two years. So it's entirely reasonable to mark that as a potential retirement date.

What isn't reasonable (IMO) are these ideas that he's going to play into his 40s. I just don't see that happening, and if it does, it almost certainly would not be at the same level we're accustomed to (which is the other reason I don't see it happeneing, because I can't see Manning playing at anything less than his best)

[Jay305]

Would rather have RG3