Why Not Rgiii

[wercolts]

GRIFFIN

3,998 YARDS PASSING

72.4 COMPLETION %

36 TD/6 INT

644 YARDS RUSHING./4 YARD PER AVERAGE/9 TD'S

LUCK

3,170 YARDS PASSING

70.0 COMPLETION %

35 TD/9 INT

354 YARDS RUSHING/5.8 YARDS PER/2 TD'S

Do not say NFL ready. It's unprovable until we see them play, and they will be sitting behind Peyton.

[cjrulli]

I for one think Matt Barkley is better then all of them. But if Peyton's healthy, we don't need an NFL ready QB. We need a QB willing to learn, and observe and progress his skills to the best he can.

[Flash7]

GRIFFIN

3,998 YARDS PASSING

72.4 COMPLETION %

36 TD/6 INT

644 YARDS RUSHING./4 YARD PER AVERAGE/9 TD'S

LUCK

3,170 YARDS PASSING

70.0 COMPLETION %

35 TD/9 INT

354 YARDS RUSHING/5.8 YARDS PER/2 TD'S

Do not say NFL ready. It's unprovable until we see them play, and they will be sitting behind Peyton.

Why not Case Keenum?

SEASON CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT

2011 383 534 5099 71.7 9.55 84 45 5 15 177.9

If you argue that Case Keenum comes out of a spread offense and we've seen players like Colt Brennen, and Graham Harrel have success with this type of effense in college and it doesn't translate well in the NFL, then why can't we use that line of reasoning when evaluating RGIII? He also comes out of a spread college offense. Luck comes out of a pro style offense and has proven to run it at a very high level.

[super8todd]

GRIFFIN

3,998 YARDS PASSING

72.4 COMPLETION %

36 TD/6 INT

644 YARDS RUSHING./4 YARD PER AVERAGE/9 TD'S

LUCK

3,170 YARDS PASSING

70.0 COMPLETION %

35 TD/9 INT

354 YARDS RUSHING/5.8 YARDS PER/2 TD'S

Do not say NFL ready. It's unprovable until we see them play, and they will be sitting behind Peyton.

Your stats are meaningless when you consider RG3 played meaningless teams. He sure beat the school Stephen P. Austin. He is another Vince Young. Enough said.

[wercolts]

Your stats are meaningless when you consider RG3 played meaningless teams. He sure beat the school Stephen P. Austin. He is another Vince Young. Enough said.

He also beat Oklahoma and Texas. BTW, I don't even want the Colts drafting a QB first, just thought it would be an interesting discussion. Trade the #1 pick, keep Manning and find his replacement elsewhere. I've heard of a couple of successful QB's that didn't come out of the first round. Brees, Brady, Favre, Starr, Staubach, Montana, Warner, Unitas and the next Colts QB to bring the Lombardi back to Indy.

[doogansquest]

He also beat Oklahoma and Texas. Did people forget that?

Luck beat a neutered USC, and lost used to "No Defense" Oregon. RGIII beat superior competition in a conference that produces more NFL playera than the PAC10/12, and did so with better stats.

VY was a running QB. Griffin is a throwing QB.

As for the spread, Brees, Ryan, Bradford, Newton, and Tebow all played some version of the spread. Luck plays in a run first offense, not a pro style offense. Pass/Run ratio is currently 65/35 in the NFL. I would rather have a guy who can produce without relying on 200 rushing yards per game from his backs.

RGIII had a better season than Luck with less talent around him, in front if him, or defending. He also has more room to grow, whereas Luck may very well have peaked last year.

Trading down to this pick would make more sense as we can fill other needs with the extra picks.

[coltsblue1844]

Let me ask this in a different sort of way...

If you could go back in time and trade the #1 pick in 1998 (Peyton Manning) for more picks and then take the 2nd QB taken (Ryan Leaf)... you would end up with:

Leaf and then what? Looking back at the draft that year, there are VERY few players that turned out to be very good in rounds 2-7, which is where our "extra picks" would come from...so would you REALLY trade Peyton for Leaf and then extra picks? Because if we trade the #1 THIS season and STILL TAKE ANOTHER QB in the draft, thats basically what we would be doing.

Personally, i prefer to trade the #1 pick and NOT take a QB THIS YEAR...and instead, use all of the picks we end up with to draft players at other positions...but if you're still going to take a QB, you would be better served taking the best one.

[chad72]

I thought Matt Barkley beat Oregon when they were playing well enough, and went toe-to-toe vs Stanford while his D did not hold up vs Luck. He comes from a Pro Style system too. But then, so did Ryan Leaf's stock go up before the draft in comparison to Peyton Manning. The Colts look at the entire body of work while drafting someone, not just what they have done lately.

Given the depth of cornerbacks and wide receivers in this draft, we can address them after round 1 and still get quality. I agree with the above poster - if we are going to take a QB, you are best served taking the best one when you have the chance.

[Corndog]

He also beat Oklahoma and Texas. Did people forget that?

Luck beat a neutered USC, and lost used to "No Defense" Oregon. RGIII beat superior competition in a conference that produces more NFL playera than the PAC10/12, and did so with better stats.

VY was a running QB. Griffin is a throwing QB.

As for the spread, Brees, Ryan, Bradford, Newton, and Tebow all played some version of the spread. Luck plays in a run first offense, not a pro style offense. Pass/Run ratio is currently 65/35 in the NFL. I would rather have a guy who can produce without relying on 200 rushing yards per game from his backs.

RGIII had a better season than Luck with less talent around him, in front if him, or defending. He also has more room to grow, whereas Luck may very well have peaked last year.

Trading down to this pick would make more sense as we can fill other needs with the extra picks.

Completely agree, Luck had alot of talent around him and RGIII basically had a good RB, one really good WR and a mediocre offensive line. His team also had no defense and still went 9-3. I haven't seen much of Luck, but what I did was short passes, alot of running and not the prettiest pass I have ever seen. I don't understand why he is so must get? Is it because he runs a pro-style system? From comparing the two, I though RGIII passes looked better, and he throws some heat. I have heard that only about 20% of the spread offense is even worth watching when drafting a QB for the NFL. I would like to know why it is that useless, I don't see how you still can't scout a QB with it.

[coltsblue1844]

When i made my post, i made it under the assumption that Barkley will probably go back to USC since they will be off of probation next year and can compete for a title...the reason i think Barkley will go back, is that Kalil has already said he is going back to USC...and considering he would be the top OL guy taken, it just seems like they're wanting to go for a championship...

with that said, i wouldnt mind having Barkley...but he and Luck are the only two that i would want out of the first round. I'm just not convinced that RGIII will be a good NFL QB

[supremecoltsfan300]

When i made my post, i made it under the assumption that Barkley will probably go back to USC since they will be off of probation next year and can compete for a title...the reason i think Barkley will go back, is that Kalil has already said he is going back to USC...and considering he would be the top OL guy taken, it just seems like they're wanting to go for a championship...

with that said, i wouldnt mind having Barkley...but he and Luck are the only two that i would want out of the first round. I'm just not convinced that RGIII will be a good NFL QB

Kalil said he's going back? If he is, then you're right barkley will go back. O-linemen and their qb almost always come out at the same time, so I expect barkley to go back if what you said is true,

[coltsblue1844]

Kalil said he's going back? If he is, then you're right barkley will go back. O-linemen and their qb almost always come out at the same time, so I expect barkley to go back if what you said is true,

I read it on the "ticker" thing at the bottom of espnews saturday night, but yeah, i agree...no reason for Kalil to go back unless its for a shot at the national championship...and that would require Barkley, also...i just figure that they're together in the decision, most likely...could very well go #1 and #2 in next year's draft

I ALSO read on there TODAY, that Monte-teo is going back to Notre Dame, also

[coltsblue1844]

Here is the link for Kalil: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2011-10/nfl-mock-draft/story/nfl-draft-2012-matt-kalil-stays-at-usc-despite-being-top-ot-prospect

Also, Manti Te'o is going back to Notre Dame: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-12/sports/chi-notre-dame-lb-manti-teo-to-return-for-senior-year-20111211_1_brian-te-o-manti-te-o-awards-banquet

[Balzer40]

He also beat Oklahoma and Texas. Did people forget that?

Luck beat a neutered USC, and lost used to "No Defense" Oregon. RGIII beat superior competition in a conference that produces more NFL playera than the PAC10/12, and did so with better stats.

VY was a running QB. Griffin is a throwing QB.

As for the spread, Brees, Ryan, Bradford, Newton, and Tebow all played some version of the spread. Luck plays in a run first offense, not a pro style offense. Pass/Run ratio is currently 65/35 in the NFL. I would rather have a guy who can produce without relying on 200 rushing yards per game from his backs.

RGIII had a better season than Luck with less talent around him, in front if him, or defending. He also has more room to grow, whereas Luck may very well have peaked last year.

Trading down to this pick would make more sense as we can fill other needs with the extra picks.

You guys are going to all new pathetic levels to show your hatred for Luck now. Who cares that Baylor beat Texas? Texas wasn't good this yr. at all and the only reason they were ranked at all, was because of reputation. They didn't beat 1 good team this yr. and lost 3 out of their last 4 games.

Im going to be curious to see what you people are saying when Luck is a Colt next yr.. Will you stick with your hatred or will you do a complete flip and all of a sudden start acting like you thought he was great all along. I'd bet it will be the latter.

[GoColts8818]

Someone said it in another thread.

Luck plays in a pro system very much like the system the Colts use, even down to running the check with me at the line stuff Peyton does.

RGIII plays in a college spreed system.

I am not sayin that means RGIII will be a bust at the NFL level. In fact I think he will be really good but I do think Luck is better. Also, if the idea is to get a guy to be groomed as our future QB it makes more sense to take the guy who has played in a college system that is more like the system we use if they are close on talent.

[doogansquest]

Someone said it in another thread.

Luck plays in a pro system very much like the system the Colts use, even down to running the check with me at the line stuff Peyton does.

RGIII plays in a college spreed system.

I am not sayin that means RGIII will be a bust at the NFL level. In fact I think he will be really good but I do think Luck is better. Also, if the idea is to get a guy to be groomed as our future QB it makes more sense to take the guy who has played in a college system that is more like the system we use if they are close on talent.

He is not in a system anywhere like our system.

Checking at the line is something 99% of QB's do now at both levels. Barkley and RGIII do it too.

RGIII is/was a pass first QB. His stats reflect that. He just also had great athletic ability; a la Young, or Rodgers. He was more accurate than Luck, and beat two quality opponents in Texas and Oklahoma, while Luck got blasted by the worst defense in the league in Oregon.

Luck plays in a 3 TE, run-first offense. That is not like the Colts, and not like many pro systems at all. The Patriots run a 3 TE system, but they are pass-first.

Luck NEEDS the run to be effective. RGIII can produce without it. The latter candidate also has more raw, dynamic ability which translates into more upside.

Luck may be "NFL-ready," but that does him no good in a place where he will be sitting for 4 years.

[jskinnz]

Your stats are meaningless when you consider RG3 played meaningless teams. He sure beat the school Stephen P. Austin. He is another Vince Young. Enough said.

As soon as your posts gain the slightest bit of credibility, then fire away with all the "enough said" comments you want. But until then, you should probably leave 'em out.

Enough said.

[Gonzo]

Your stats are meaningless when you consider RG3 played meaningless teams. He sure beat the school Stephen P. Austin. He is another Vince Young. Enough said.

Vince Young won a national championship against a stacked USC team in one of the most complete games I've ever seen from a college QB. Do you watch football?

[fvantagio]

Let me ask this in a different sort of way... If you could go back in time and trade the #1 pick in 1998 (Peyton Manning) for more picks and then take the 2nd QB taken (Ryan Leaf)... you would end up with: Leaf and then what? Looking back at the draft that year, there are VERY few players that turned out to be very good in rounds 2-7, which is where our "extra picks" would come from...so would you REALLY trade Peyton for Leaf and then extra picks? Because if we trade the #1 THIS season and STILL TAKE ANOTHER QB in the draft, thats basically what we would be doing. Personally, i prefer to trade the #1 pick and NOT take a QB THIS YEAR...and instead, use all of the picks we end up with to draft players at other positions...but if you're still going to take a QB, you would be better served taking the best one.

Hindsight is 20/20. What if Manning turned out like Leaf? Then not trading and taking the picks would be the awful decision. But either way that scenario has nothing to do with this one. RG3 does not have maturity issues like Leaf had. RG3 has got the work ethic to go with the talent.

[BmoreColt]

Why not Case Keenum?

SEASON CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT

2011 383 534 5099 71.7 9.55 84 45 5 15 177.9

If you argue that Case Keenum comes out of a spread offense and we've seen players like Colt Brennen, and Graham Harrel have success with this type of effense in college and it doesn't translate well in the NFL, then why can't we use that line of reasoning when evaluating RGIII? He also comes out of a spread college offense. Luck comes out of a pro style offense and has proven to run it at a very high level.

I like someone with the attributes like a Case Keenum sitting and learning under Manning..Not to mention he is probably a 5th to 7th round draft pick, which means there is no pressure to get in there and play, he would have a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and when Manning is done, he would be fully capable of running and understanding the offense. I would like Griffin under Manning, but I think Griffin may end up going back to school. Spread offense QB's are perfect understudies, they do not rely on much of a run game, and have a large amount of potential, Luck in his old Bronco or old Steeler type offense, is nothing close to what the Colts have, I said before he is the next Big Ben. Big Ben is a very good QB, but Big Ben is not a Manning, there are alot of QB's with uncapped potential not named Andrew Luck!

[Blackhawk4]

He also beat Oklahoma and Texas. Did people forget that?

Luck beat a neutered USC, and lost used to "No Defense" Oregon. RGIII beat superior competition in a conference that produces more NFL playera than the PAC10/12, and did so with better stats.

VY was a running QB. Griffin is a throwing QB.

As for the spread, Brees, Ryan, Bradford, Newton, and Tebow all played some version of the spread. Luck plays in a run first offense, not a pro style offense. Pass/Run ratio is currently 65/35 in the NFL. I would rather have a guy who can produce without relying on 200 rushing yards per game from his backs.

RGIII had a better season than Luck with less talent around him, in front if him, or defending. He also has more room to grow, whereas Luck may very well have peaked last year.

Trading down to this pick would make more sense as we can fill other needs with the extra picks.

If they were a neutered team, then they wouldn't have beat Oregon (Who beat Stanford) in Eugene. Don't knock the competition Luck has faced, because it has been as good if not better than RG3's. Just cause USC was on probation does not make them a lesser opponent. Luck pretty much had little to no deep threat in comparison to RG3. RG3s receivers were much better than Luck and if you don't think so then you might want to watch Kendall Wright play. Another thing Luck had to deal with was the constant drops of his receivers and TEs at times. The USC and Oregon games are prime example. The big stage where the drops they had almost cost them against USC and it was one of the reasons they lost against Oregon. Stanford NEEDED the run game to succeed, because their receivers were not that amazing.

[KyFan18]

Let me ask this in a different sort of way...

If you could go back in time and trade the #1 pick in 1998 (Peyton Manning) for more picks and then take the 2nd QB taken (Ryan Leaf)... you would end up with:

Leaf and then what? Looking back at the draft that year, there are VERY few players that turned out to be very good in rounds 2-7, which is where our "extra picks" would come from...so would you REALLY trade Peyton for Leaf and then extra picks? Because if we trade the #1 THIS season and STILL TAKE ANOTHER QB in the draft, thats basically what we would be doing.

Personally, i prefer to trade the #1 pick and NOT take a QB THIS YEAR...and instead, use all of the picks we end up with to draft players at other positions...but if you're still going to take a QB, you would be better served taking the best one.

Wonder if the 49ers wish they had traded the first pick (Alex Smith) and taken the second QB available in 2005 (Aaron Rodgers) and some extra picks? Cuts both ways.

[UKCOLT17]

you cant say anyones a sure bet in the nfl you just have to wait and see but id prefer luck just for that fact he plays more like manning

[coltsblue1844]

Wonder if the 49ers wish they had traded the first pick (Alex Smith) and taken the second QB available in 2005 (Aaron Rodgers) and some extra picks? Cuts both ways.

yes, but that year, it was a debate on if Smith or Rodgers should be the #1...this year, there really is no debate amongst the experts on who should be #1

[BmoreColt]

There are alot of experts who think Indy should take RGIII that he would have much more upside sitting under Manning, cause most expect Manning to be back and healthy... so thats not fully true, there is debate abotu who should be number one. There's debate about that every year for the most part, it never comes out as one person is the complete 100% consensus first overall pick.

[coltsblue1844]

There are alot of experts who think Indy should take RGIII that he would have much more upside sitting under Manning, cause most expect Manning to be back and healthy... so thats not fully true, there is debate abotu who should be number one. There's debate about that every year for the most part, it never comes out as one person is the complete 100% consensus first overall pick.

There most certainly IS a complete 100% consensus on who the #1 pick should be this year! The ONLY people saying that the Colts should take the over hyped RGIII are people who have us trading down!

[ColtsBlueFL]

Wonder if the 49ers wish they had traded the first pick (Alex Smith) and taken the second QB available in 2005 (Aaron Rodgers) and some extra picks? Cuts both ways.

Well, nice thought except Nolan would never take Rodgers at any slot because of a potential personality conflict. And Mike McCarthy (49er OC) thought Smith was more athletic candidate and favored him over Rodgers. How ironic Rodgers is now McCarthy's QB in GB now.

In fact, if Mike Nolan wasn't the 49'er head coach or McCarthy wasn't OC back then, it is quite possible Aaron Rodgers would have gone #1 and would have been running for his life for a few years behind as crappy an o-line and learning a different offense scheme each year from a new OC while Smith watched Favre's melodrama and learned 1 system from the bench and inheriting a much more talented team.

Every year I watch people debate over QB's... Smith, Rodgers, E Manning, Lineart, Rivers, etc... where Brody Croyle should go (cuz Romo isn't the 'Boys answer when Bledsoe goes {a real snippet I remember seeing back when}... etc...). It's fun, but all sides are presented. That means some get it right, others do not, and others still whiff large. No biggie, we're fans... none of us put food on the table with the decision.

Usually the stronger, more athletic types are selected (by fans and organizations alike) and nearly just as often the 'other guy' eventually proves to have been the 'better' choice.

I like the measures people use, but I also feel a QB has to be watched in person by the scout/organization. How does he react when his D is on the field and how is is interaction with coaches and team during the game? Try to get a feel for the intangibles. Tim Tebow has proven to me how much worth those can be, and if a QB with skills, smarts, and work ethic also has the intangibles as well...

[GoColts8818]

He is not in a system anywhere like our system.

Checking at the line is something 99% of QB's do now at both levels. Barkley and RGIII do it too.

RGIII is/was a pass first QB. His stats reflect that. He just also had great athletic ability; a la Young, or Rodgers. He was more accurate than Luck, and beat two quality opponents in Texas and Oklahoma, while Luck got blasted by the worst defense in the league in Oregon.

Luck plays in a 3 TE, run-first offense. That is not like the Colts, and not like many pro systems at all. The Patriots run a 3 TE system, but they are pass-first.

Luck NEEDS the run to be effective. RGIII can produce without it. The latter candidate also has more raw, dynamic ability which translates into more upside.

Luck may be "NFL-ready," but that does him no good in a place where he will be sitting for 4 years.

The top part is not true at all, I don't know how many times I've heard people talking about Luck and they said he uses a system based on what the Colts use even down to the check with him at the line plays that Peyton does to the point annoucers were amazed in games that a college QB could handle that. I remember Harbaugh talking about that when he was still the head coach at Stanford saying that they used what the Colts did on offense as what they built their offense on for Luck.

When I say check with me I mean the play calling at the line that Manning does and no most QBs do not do that. For years people have been amazed that Manning does it and I know I watched the last three Standford games this year and they were saying Luck was calling plays at the line just like Manning does because they were talking about how that would help him if he ended up in Indianapolis.

I didn't argue that RGIII wasn't in a pass first offense. I said it was the spread offense which it is. The spread offense is a pass first offense but it is also a college offense that doesn't do well in the pros and isn't what we do on offense either. Like I also said in my post it doesn't mean RGIII can't be good in the pros either though.

Luck doesn't NEED the run to be a good QB, he just happens to have a good running game why not use it? Are you going to tell me that when Edge was leading the league in rushing for two years that Peyton Manning needed that to be a good or did he just use it since he had it? Honestly I agree with what some other people are saying people are now just trying to invent stuff to discredit Luck.

Is Luck's offense an exact clone of what the Colts do on offense? No it's not you are right about that. With that said, it's closer to what the Colts do on offense than what RGIII has done in college and based on what people are saying Luck is a better fit for our system than RGIII is. When guys are close on talent those kinds of things are a tie breaker. IF the QB we take is going to back up Manning it makes more sense to take the guy who is closer to him which is Luck. If Manning can't come back and the guy has to start right away again it makes more sense to take the QB who is more familiar with our system to fit the other guys on our team which again is Luck. I don't think our offense is that bad if we fix the QB spot I think the offense will be back to it's old self so to me we take the guy who fits it better and that is Luck.

Also listen to people who again eat, breath, and live this stuff and whose job is to know this stuff. 99.9% of them aren't even questioning that Luck is going to be the first pick because he's the better QB. About the only people I see saying we should take RGIII are fans. I said in another thread I think RGIII is the Ryan Leaf to Peyton Manning his senior season. The guy who came out of no where while people were nit picking Peyton Manning and they wanted another QB on his level. With that said I do think RGIII is going to be better in the pros than Leaf was because I think Leaf failing had more to do with mental issues than anything else and I don't think RGIII has those but I do think Luck is the better of the two.

Also the Colts aren't going to draft or not draft a player based on what is good for the player. They are going to draft or not draft guy based on what is best for them. If Luck is that guy they are going to draft him rather it's in Luck's best interest to play right now or not. Also, what makes you think RGIII or any other first round QB in this draft is going to be willing to sit more than Luck is? Also I am not sure if whoever we take is going to sit all four years. Frankly the Colts might Montana Manning in a couple of years and once it's clear that the other guy is ready they might very well deal Manning at the end of his deal and play the new guy not unlike what the 49ers did with Montana when he came back from injury but it was clear Young was ready. Also I don't think the new pick is going to sit like Painter or Sorgi have sat where they did nothing. I would look for the rookie to get snaps in practice and maybe even have a package or two developed for them.

[super8todd]

As soon as your posts gain the slightest bit of credibility, then fire away with all the "enough said" comments you want. But until then, you should probably leave 'em out.

Enough said.

My posts are credible, so i don't know what you are talking about.. But since you seem to think you are better than me, then maybe you can enlighten me on what this personal attack is all about? I guess this is where i play your game and post a childish "Enough Said" at the end. But because I don't know you then you probably should have not responded to my post.

[super8todd]

Vince Young won a national championship against a stacked USC team in one of the most complete games I've ever seen from a college QB. Do you watch football?

I watch the current past NFL years season, not College Football highlight reels from 2006.. What year of football do you watch? I stand by my statement, Vince Young is a 2nd string QB, that even has a shot with the Eagles as their #1 is out, and still can't do anything.. And their #1 Michael Vick proves my point, because he was injured running is the reason he is out... hence scrambling QB's are not a good idea.

[jskinnz]

My posts are credible, so i don't know what you are talking about.. But since you seem to think you are better than me, then maybe you can enlighten me on what this personal attack is all about? I guess this is where i play your game and post a childish "Enough Said" at the end. But because I don't know you then you probably should have not responded to my post.

First off, your "enough said" line would be better if the post you use it in actually made sense. For instance, saying that RGIII's stats are meaningless because he played against teams like Stephen Austin. That line in and of itself is absurd. He plays in the freaking Big 12 and there are some pretty good teams in the conference. And every team, Luck's Satnford team as well, play a schedule that has its share of cupcakes.

And besides all that, college stats are kind of meaningless as a way of determining if a QB's skills translate to the NFL.

[super8todd]

First off, your "enough said" line would be better if the post you use it in actually made sense. For instance, saying that RGIII's stats are meaningless because he played against teams like Stephen Austin. That line in and of itself is absurd. He plays in the freaking Big 12 and there are some pretty good teams in the conference. And every team, Luck's Satnford team as well, play a schedule that has its share of cupcakes.

And besides all that, college stats are kind of meaningless as a way of determining if a QB's skills translate to the NFL.

I am just going to say, that my posts make perfect sense, maybe you need to go back and read them. Miami is going to get RG3 and we are going to get Luck, and that's all that matters to me; is that we aren't getting the science experiment, whose results have been proven time again to not work in the NFL.

[jskinnz]

I am just going to say, that my posts make perfect sense, maybe you need to go back and read them. Miami is going to get RG3 and we are going to get Luck, and that's all that matters to me; is that we aren't getting the science experiment, whose results have been proven time again to not work in the NFL.

They actually don't but they are entertaining.

[fvantagio]

I am just going to say, that my posts make perfect sense, maybe you need to go back and read them. Miami is going to get RG3 and we are going to get Luck, and that's all that matters to me; is that we aren't getting the science experiment, whose results have been proven time again to not work in the NFL.

Right cause athletic pocket passers never make it in this league...

[Restored]

The top part is not true at all, I don't know how many times I've heard people talking about Luck and they said he uses a system based on what the Colts use even down to the check with him at the line plays that Peyton does to the point annoucers were amazed in games that a college QB could handle that. I remember Harbaugh talking about that when he was still the head coach at Stanford saying that they used what the Colts did on offense as what they built their offense on for Luck.

When I say check with me I mean the play calling at the line that Manning does and no most QBs do not do that. For years people have been amazed that Manning does it and I know I watched the last three Standford games this year and they were saying Luck was calling plays at the line just like Manning does because they were talking about how that would help him if he ended up in Indianapolis.

I didn't argue that RGIII wasn't in a pass first offense. I said it was the spread offense which it is. The spread offense is a pass first offense but it is also a college offense that doesn't do well in the pros and isn't what we do on offense either. Like I also said in my post it doesn't mean RGIII can't be good in the pros either though.

Luck doesn't NEED the run to be a good QB, he just happens to have a good running game why not use it? Are you going to tell me that when Edge was leading the league in rushing for two years that Peyton Manning needed that to be a good or did he just use it since he had it? Honestly I agree with what some other people are saying people are now just trying to invent stuff to discredit Luck.

Is Luck's offense an exact clone of what the Colts do on offense? No it's not you are right about that. With that said, it's closer to what the Colts do on offense than what RGIII has done in college and based on what people are saying Luck is a better fit for our system than RGIII is. When guys are close on talent those kinds of things are a tie breaker. IF the QB we take is going to back up Manning it makes more sense to take the guy who is closer to him which is Luck. If Manning can't come back and the guy has to start right away again it makes more sense to take the QB who is more familiar with our system to fit the other guys on our team which again is Luck. I don't think our offense is that bad if we fix the QB spot I think the offense will be back to it's old self so to me we take the guy who fits it better and that is Luck.

Also listen to people who again eat, breath, and live this stuff and whose job is to know this stuff. 99.9% of them aren't even questioning that Luck is going to be the first pick because he's the better QB. About the only people I see saying we should take RGIII are fans. I said in another thread I think RGIII is the Ryan Leaf to Peyton Manning his senior season. The guy who came out of no where while people were nit picking Peyton Manning and they wanted another QB on his level. With that said I do think RGIII is going to be better in the pros than Leaf was because I think Leaf failing had more to do with mental issues than anything else and I don't think RGIII has those but I do think Luck is the better of the two.

Also the Colts aren't going to draft or not draft a player based on what is good for the player. They are going to draft or not draft guy based on what is best for them. If Luck is that guy they are going to draft him rather it's in Luck's best interest to play right now or not. Also, what makes you think RGIII or any other first round QB in this draft is going to be willing to sit more than Luck is? Also I am not sure if whoever we take is going to sit all four years. Frankly the Colts might Montana Manning in a couple of years and once it's clear that the other guy is ready they might very well deal Manning at the end of his deal and play the new guy not unlike what the 49ers did with Montana when he came back from injury but it was clear Young was ready. Also I don't think the new pick is going to sit like Painter or Sorgi have sat where they did nothing. I would look for the rookie to get snaps in practice and maybe even have a package or two developed for them.

I completely agree with this post and the part I highlighted raises a question not too many people take into account. People are quick to say "well he wouldn't be taken #1 overall so he wouldn't mind sitting." Where have you ever seen him say that? I mean people are quick to jump and say no one has seen concrete evidence that Luck would be willing to sit behind Peyton. My question is, where is all this concrete evidence that RGIII would sit if we drafted him? Don't come back with the draft position nonsense because he would be arguably the 2nd best player available and more than likely would want to start wherever he lands.

[doogansquest]

Let me ask this in a different sort of way...

If you could go back in time and trade the #1 pick in 1998 (Peyton Manning) for more picks and then take the 2nd QB taken (Ryan Leaf)... you would end up with:

Leaf and then what? Looking back at the draft that year, there are VERY few players that turned out to be very good in rounds 2-7, which is where our "extra picks" would come from...so would you REALLY trade Peyton for Leaf and then extra picks? Because if we trade the #1 THIS season and STILL TAKE ANOTHER QB in the draft, thats basically what we would be doing.

Personally, i prefer to trade the #1 pick and NOT take a QB THIS YEAR...and instead, use all of the picks we end up with to draft players at other positions...but if you're still going to take a QB, you would be better served taking the best one.

That's a cute hypothetical, but not relevant. Different years, different players, more scouting techniques and information available. This is also a very talented pool of players that runs deep.

I, too, would rather us not get a QB at all, because it's probably the 4th or 5th priority among those with a brain. But, if we are going QB, we would be better off to trade Luck, get Barkley or RGIII, as well as some additional picks and players.

[coltsblue1844]

That's a cute hypothetical, but not relevant. Different years, different players, more scouting techniques and information available. This is also a very talented pool of players that runs deep.

I, too, would rather us not get a QB at all, because it's probably the 4th or 5th priority among those with a brain. But, if we are going QB, we would be better off to trade Luck, get Barkley or RGIII, as well as some additional picks and players.

well what you said was "cute" and all, too...but if its "different years, different players, MORE scouting techniques and MORE information available..." why does it seem that we do a WORSE job of evaluating talent now, as compared to then?

As far as this being a more talented pool of players that runs very deep...how do you know? you can only base it off of college production, and by doing that, MOST years, people think that the talent runs deep...just at different positions from one year to the next.

My whole point is that if you're going to draft a QB, you would be best served to take the best one available instead of trading and taking one who is likely not as good and adding another couple picks that may or may not turn into solid players...

but once again, like yourself, i prefer to NOT take a QB this year at all...i doubt that Luck will be the "be all/end all" at the QB position, nor the last good starter to come from the NCAA...but he likely IS the one #1 pick that will net us the most in return if we trade it completely...and if, after Peyton retires, we suck it up again like this year...well, then we will likely have another top pick on the way anyhow and enough cap space that we could get a veteran QB that is already established at that time.

[jskinnz]

That's a cute hypothetical, but not relevant. Different years, different players, more scouting techniques and information available. This is also a very talented pool of players that runs deep.

I, too, would rather us not get a QB at all, because it's probably the 4th or 5th priority among those with a brain. But, if we are going QB, we would be better off to trade Luck, get Barkley or RGIII, as well as some additional picks and players.

I would hope that in our message board time together I have demonstrated to you that I have a brain with a pretty decent football IQ and I believe firmly there is no way they come out of this upcoming draft without having selected a QB. It may not be Luck and I am hugely intrigued by RGIII. But whoever it is, they will draft a QB.

[Jay305]

He also beat Oklahoma and Texas. Did people forget that?

Luck beat a neutered USC, and lost used to "No Defense" Oregon. RGIII beat superior competition in a conference that produces more NFL playera than the PAC10/12, and did so with better stats.

VY was a running QB. Griffin is a throwing QB.

As for the spread, Brees, Ryan, Bradford, Newton, and Tebow all played some version of the spread. Luck plays in a run first offense, not a pro style offense. Pass/Run ratio is currently 65/35 in the NFL. I would rather have a guy who can produce without relying on 200 rushing yards per game from his backs.

RGIII had a better season than Luck with less talent around him, in front if him, or defending. He also has more room to grow, whereas Luck may very well have peaked last year.

Trading down to this pick would make more sense as we can fill other needs with the extra picks.

I'm with you 100% Luck seriously has an NFL caliber Oline in college put RGIII behind that line and his production would be insane

[Flash7]

RGIII has 369 pass attempts this year.

Luck has 373 pass atempts this year.

The notion that RGIII is a passing quarterback while Luck plays in a run first system may not be true. Luck has attempted more passes than RGIII, so either Luck is not in a run first system and has an effective running game to go along with the passing game, or RGIII is not as much of a passing quarterback as some may think.