Brady Quinn And Andrew Luck

[MyBeautifulChineseDoll]

You can remove ur knee pads now

That's just wrong man...funny,but wrong.Anyway,here ya' go.I think you wore them out or something.

[MyBeautifulChineseDoll]

Do you ever contribute anything of value to football discussions?Here's a handy tip for ya'.Just because you scream in GIANT BOLD RED LETTERS doesn't make your points valid or even legible.But please keep it coming,so we can laugh more.

[Case]

That's just wrong man...funny,but wrong.Anyway,here ya' go.I think you wore them out or something.

I was just messing with ya man. Lol

[MyBeautifulChineseDoll]

I was just messing with ya man. Lol

I know...me too.

[oldunclemark]

ok, what about this, if you can take at face value polians assertion that both luck and rgIII are cant miss--

what about a draft gambit to trade back yet still get RGIII?

the vikes and rams are not in for a qb,

doesnt cleveland have 4 and like 22?

they want to get luck, we swap 1 for both of those, get mannings replacement, a real backup, maybe even a wildcat wrinkle next year PLUS 22.

rg needs some time to lean an nfl offense, so he and manning can get a lot closer to pulling a greenbay style transition. irsay stays loyal to his guy and transitions with a multi-year plan (as he likes to do).

use the 22 for whoever drops. or that safety...

i would suppose a good draft extorter would get more pix in the mix too....

I guess may would argue that RG3 is not 'cant miss'

[oldunclemark]

I hope this isn't to me because everyone knows I'm pro-Luck! I was just pointing out how it's hard to watch the videos on that link and still come out saying he's crap.

Nobody;s saying he;s crap..

But this discussion has to be held NOW....no matter how many get tired of it

After April....there's no talking about it..because he's ours...and we ride with him.

On another point.I didnt not know Luck sat out (redshirt) his freshman season at Stanford.

So, in theory, he might not mind being a backup for one year in the NFL, right?

[oldunclemark]

This is a hypothetical situation with a view point skewed towards the Luck supporters.

It's clear that we are in a situation where a very tough decision has to be made. At the end of the day, the most prudent decision would be to draft Andrew Luck. Mainly because if we are currently dealing with facts, we would have to ask ourselves:

1. Who is our current starting QB? The answer is NOT Manning, rather it's Orlovsky.

2. What is Manning's status? He is rehabbing from his 3rd surgery. All signs are showing a recovery, but still uncertainty remains.

3. If Manning were to return, what can we expect from him? Logically, we would have to expect a dropp-off in performance due to not playing in a year. We have seen Manning take time off and return rusty. (Doogan, your logic of an increase in performance because he would be pain free may have some merrit, however, the logic of him playing like a 31/32 year old does not hold water.)

4. What can we expect from the team? It appears that we can expect change in many different ways, from coaching to players leaving via FA and retirement. It's hard to say what we can realistically expect in 2012.

Now, with all of these uncertainties, we should trade the pick? Knowing that our current QB is Orlovsky, we shouldn't draft Manning's successor?

Imagine if this were to play out.... It turns out that Manning hasn't fully recovered yet and he may have to miss out on part of the upcoming season. Wouldn't we all be complaining that the red flags were clearly evident, yet the GM managed not to do anything about the QB situation?

In answer to questin 3....many NFL QBs have excelled in their late 30s..

..there is no logic in a dropoff in performance..Farve had his best year when he was 40

But in answer to your final concluding point: Yes..we MUST draft or sign a QB (possibly 2) in the offseason

We cannot not adress the position.

[tfrugal]

I guess may would argue that RG3 is not 'cant miss'

that is a legit concern. i was just going off polian's last interview when he gave a list of 'cant miss' draft prospects. who knows how he comes up with that, but if i was to guess, accuracy is a big part of it. any scouting reports i have read seems to say that luck has accuracy and the ability to read defenses. couple that with a good arm and size and you get cant miss.

as far as rgIII, i have read accuracy, and wheels. however i have not seen the same in depth analysis of rgIII as i had on luck.

i think that many think that the mobile QB is 'the future', and having an extra dimension over a pocket qb is an advantage.

it might be, or it might lead to more time in rehab!!

when i think about the last two years we had jim harbaugh-- with the conference championship game season being the magic year--

the difference between that year and the 3 win next year was they beat captain comeback into the turf the next year. he was great at putting the pass defender in a bind-- either cover the receiver, or come up and take the qb out. the first season they got caught in the middle and passes were completed. the next year they covered the receiver and let the QB run, and the hits finally took him out.

anyways, i think the moblie QB is a bit of a fad right now. if enough teams lose their franchise to shoulder and knee issues they might well keep him in the pocket more.

[oldunclemark]

that is a legit concern. i was just going off polian's last interview when he gave a list of 'cant miss' draft prospects. who knows how he comes up with that, but if i was to guess, accuracy is a big part of it. any scouting reports i have read seems to say that luck has accuracy and the ability to read defenses. couple that with a good arm and size and you get cant miss.

as far as rgIII, i have read accuracy, and wheels. however i have not seen the same in depth analysis of rgIII as i had on luck.

i think that many think that the mobile QB is 'the future', and having an extra dimension over a pocket qb is an advantage.

it might be, or it might lead to more time in rehab!!

when i think about the last two years we had jim harbaugh-- with the conference championship game season being the magic year--

the difference between that year and the 3 win next year was they beat captain comeback into the turf the next year. he was great at putting the pass defender in a bind-- either cover the receiver, or come up and take the qb out. the first season they got caught in the middle and passes were completed. the next year they covered the receiver and let the QB run, and the hits finally took him out.

anyways, i think the moblie QB is a bit of a fad right now. if enough teams lose their franchise to shoulder and knee issues they might well keep him in the pocket more.

I wonder about that, too..

I'm old enough to remember Bobby Douglas playing for the Baewrs in the 1960s,..

6-foot-5, 240 pounds....ran for about 700-800 yards..

Had a short career...

Tebow is that size and he's a fine runner..but his career will be short unless he stays in the pocket..

Defenders in the NFL are paid to hurt you..

.what RG3 would have to learn is.....pass first pass 2nd, pass third...then (and only then) run

..Luck is a product...RG3 is a project...which is why he would fit behind Manning

[tfrugal]

i would alter "pass first pass 2nd, pass third...then (and only then) run only in the key moment of a playoff game.

.".Luck is a product...RG3 is a project...which is why he would fit behind Manning" is pretty spot on in my book.

it seems to me the colts have two questions to answer: 1)is manning healthy? 2) will anyone give us outlandish value for our pick. events will flow from that.

i dont agree with the whole 'too many holes to fill' school of thought. way too many teams get a good draft and prosper after a bad run.

half a team is made up of plug in rooks and free agents with the cap.

[JTcardscolts]

Because questions like that get you NO WHERE!

How do we know Luck isn't Palmer? Carr? Leaf?

How do we know Luck isn't Montana/Brady/Brees?

People need to quit comparing him to NFL players. Good and Bad.

People need to start discussing, arm strength, accuracy, play calling, etc. All of which are the only things you can judge him on.

BTW if Jimmy Claussen and Brady Quinn are 6-2 and 6-3 Im 7-9'.....

Yes you are 100% right people do need to stop comparing him to NFL QBs, but I believe it was Luck fans who compared him to Elway and Peyton first, only right That we get our say...

But yea we don't kno if luck is gonna be like any QB(Elway included), but like the ones on your first list 3 over hyped QBs taken in the first round. And your other 3 were taken 2nd and after, all future HOFs. Heck Palmer himself was compared to Elway coming out of high school. And I'm not saying he's a bad QB but he defiantly hasn't been worth that 1st overall pick.

I think our(pro trade luck people) main point we are arguing is if somebody is gonna give us a crap ton of picks for this kid...we should take the deal after all we are a team with a butt load of holes to fill.

And about Peyton playing in his 40s, have u heard about the NFL rules lately, cause just as your pro luck and I'm pro Peyton, the NFL rule book is pro QB, Frave played in his 40 and he wasn't even a beneficiary of these rules.

[Dan]

The only people saying Manning might not ever play again are the people who are nowhere near the situation. Doctors, scientists, and Manning all seem to suggest that he will suit up for the Colts in 2012. He also might be 36, but his body will have had a year off, and will be pain-free. In other words, more like he was at 31/32. THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

What about his Jim Irsay and, uh, Peyton Manning's dad? Are they both "nowhere near the situation"? You know, the guy who has the whole decision over Manning's future career and the man's own father? It's not FACTS (unless you're a scientist close to Peyton Manning with the power of futuresight). It is SPECULATION.

[IndyTrav]

cause just as your pro luck and I'm pro Peyton, the NFL rule book is pro QB, Frave played in his 40 and he wasn't even a beneficiary of these rules.

hhaha, Im not 'pro' anyone.

But when the argument of not drafting someone is because 'they will be a bust'....well then, thats where I come in.....every draft pick is a 'bust' based on that logic. It can't and shouldn't be used....

On the topic of trade. Of course its a brilliant idea to trade 1 pick for 5 or 6. No one argues the brilliance of it. Once again its the logic. No one is going to give us a bunch of picks so we can fill our 'many holes', when the only teams capable of making such a trade, have 'many holes' themselves....

Why would a guy like Maurice Claiborne, as an example, be ideal? Have people not seen the results of first round DBs? Or realize the length it takes to adjust to the NFL game? There may be a handful of IMMEDIATE impact players in this draft, and a majority will be RB. Hardly anyone Luck included will markedly improve this team for 2012.

[JTcardscolts]

hhaha, Im not 'pro' anyone.

But when the argument of not drafting someone is because 'they will be a bust'....well then, thats where I come in.....every draft pick is a 'bust' based on that logic. It can't and shouldn't be used....

On the topic of trade. Of course its a brilliant idea to trade 1 pick for 5 or 6. No one argues the brilliance of it. Once again its the logic. No one is going to give us a bunch of picks so we can fill our 'many holes', when the only teams capable of making such a trade, have 'many holes' themselves....

Why would a guy like Maurice Claiborne, as an example, be ideal? Have people not seen the results of first round DBs? Or realize the length it takes to adjust to the NFL game? There may be a handful of IMMEDIATE impact players in this draft, and a majority will be RB. Hardly anyone Luck included will markedly improve this team for 2012.

Now see your sounding a lot more reasonable now, and with that said to be honest with you I don't kno who I would take, just the thought of a high draft pick being a bust kills me, but I hear kalil(?) might be a sure thing(?) with the high pick but I just kno we have a bunch of holes to fill and if them fools the browns are willing to give their house up I say we take it.

I too am just arguing the what if? Forgive me, it's just to many people are pro luck.

[scorptile]

all i hear lately from alot of you guys is trade manning and draft luck. why? luck hasnt proven anything at the pro level yet. no one knows if hes a bust or a great player for all we know he will be a average qb. all i know is when there is a beast of a RB,WR, etc that can change the team very easily why pass up the sure thing. A qb is give and take if you have a team that mind you "falls apart" when their star qb goes down what does that tell you? not oh we need a qb in the draft. it tells me we need more picks to build up the team on average. there are more then one or two decent qb's in the draft. me personally id rather have someone like blackmon over luck. if you wanna know the reason why? look at qb's taken the past ten years how many overall top pick qb's have worked out and how many have busted. now look at allt he top overall WR's taken over the past ten years how many are still considered "beasts" today. i bet you anything there are more "beast" WR's still playing and being awesome compared to top qb's taken. this is my point i want the entire team to be great not just the qb position. if i hear one more time "your just a manning fan" im gonna scream.

[JWF]

all i hear lately from alot of you guys is trade manning and draft luck. why? luck hasnt proven anything at the pro level yet. no one knows if hes a bust or a great player for all we know he will be a average qb. all i know is when there is a beast of a RB,WR, etc that can change the team very easily why pass up the sure thing. A qb is give and take if you have a team that mind you "falls apart" when their star qb goes down what does that tell you? not oh we need a qb in the draft. it tells me we need more picks to build up the team on average. there are more then one or two decent qb's in the draft. me personally id rather have someone like blackmon over luck. if you wanna know the reason why? look at qb's taken the past ten years how many overall top pick qb's have worked out and how many have busted. now look at allt he top overall WR's taken over the past ten years how many are still considered "beasts" today. i bet you anything there are more "beast" WR's still playing and being awesome compared to top qb's taken. this is my point i want the entire team to be great not just the qb position. if i hear one more time "your just a manning fan" im gonna scream.

So you think RBs and WRs are sure things but not QBs?

Every single player in the draft can be a bust. There is no such thing as a sure thing with any position.

Even if they were, WRs or RBs are certainly not going to help this team win a SB anytime soon. This team needs DL, OL and DBs.

[Coffeedrinker]

Just thought I would bring this up for a friendly debate.

Physically And athletically these guys are identical, College stats very simular(at least their last season), both ran a pro-style offense in college, and both colleges

There college stats aren't anywhere near similar.

Luck completed almost 68% of his passes Quinn was at 59%. (71% to 61% for the last seasons)

Luck averaged 1 INT for every 3.72 TDs, Quinn averaged 1 INT for every 2.43 TDs.

Quinn had no ability to run outside the pocket shown by his 0.7 ypc vs Lucks 5.9 ypc

Luck averaged 8.7 yards per attempt his senior season (8.86 for his career) vs Quinn 7.34 his senior season (7.34 for his career).

Other than both playing in a pro style system and both are roughly 235lbs there is really no comparison between Quinn and Luck.

[Coffeedrinker]

all i hear lately from alot of you guys is trade manning and draft luck. why? luck hasnt proven anything at the pro level yet. no one knows if hes a bust or a great player for all we know he will be a average qb. all i know is when there is a beast of a RB,WR, etc that can change the team very easily why pass up the sure thing. A qb is give and take if you have a team that mind you "falls apart" when their star qb goes down what does that tell you? not oh we need a qb in the draft. it tells me we need more picks to build up the team on average. there are more then one or two decent qb's in the draft. me personally id rather have someone like blackmon over luck. if you wanna know the reason why? look at qb's taken the past ten years how many overall top pick qb's have worked out and how many have busted. now look at allt he top overall WR's taken over the past ten years how many are still considered "beasts" today. i bet you anything there are more "beast" WR's still playing and being awesome compared to top qb's taken. this is my point i want the entire team to be great not just the qb position. if i hear one more time "your just a manning fan" im gonna scream.

You're just a Manning fan.

Jk. That argument can be said for any college player. Of course they have not proved anything in the pros yet. The Colts got rid of Harbuagh before the draft, even though neither Manning nor Leaf had proved anything in the NFL. For the entire draft teams are picking guys who have not proved anything in the NFL. Using that as a reason to NOT draft Luck is a bit absurd.

And I would take your bet on RBs or WRs vs QBs. Reggie Bush was the last sure thing at RB and he's been okay but not a game chaning RB. There have been quite a few "can't miss WR" the last few years that have not panned out.

[Susie Q]

But like I've said we would have 2 more first round picks next year to get another shot at a very good QB.

Like Barkley which would be good also. :highfive:

[jskinnz]

Sources have been awfully wrong about Irsay lately too. Irsay himself hasn't said it, so that's all that matters.

Ahh...the old "trouble letting go" argument. No one is telling themselves Luck will be a bust to psyche themselves into a fantasy. I promise you, 100%, that Irsay will not cut Manning or trade him. No matter what. Manning may decide to retire, but if he chooses to play, he'll be playing, and starting, for the Indianapolis Colts.

P.S. People were not saying Peyton had peaked. If anything, they said he wasn't as "pro-ready" as Leaf. Also, the 2-4 vs. 15 years is a laughable argument. Why does one exclude the other? Also, what in the world makes anyone think we can attach 15 years of great play to any QB prospect? No one plays that well for that long in this league. It just doesn't happen. Unless Luck is better than Manning, he will be less than Manning, not playing for 4 years, and then will likely take a few more against the 1st team(s) to get fully acclimated. It will be more like 5-6 total years, if he's REALLY amazing, and those years are a long ways away from now.

Manning, we know for a fact, gives us chances to get to and win Super Bowls. That's better for this team than what could be 10 years from now.

The only people saying Manning might not ever play again are the people who are nowhere near the situation. Doctors, scientists, and Manning all seem to suggest that he will suit up for the Colts in 2012. He also might be 36, but his body will have had a year off, and will be pain-free. In other words, more like he was at 31/32. THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

In other words, no one here has a clue as to what may or may not make him special. They are just regurgitating what they've heard or read from a sports journalist. That report was as bias as a mother defending her son from a jail sentence.

This is easy to tell too, because all of the pro-Luck (to replace Manning NOW) comments are just direct ripoffs of something some guy on tv or the radio has said.

You like to quote "facts" but inject a great deal of opinion into your facts. The comment that he is 36 but after having a year off will feel more like 31 or 32 is not even in the same ballpark as a fact.

I also hate the massive generalizations you make from time to time - such anyone who is "pro-Luck" and replace Manning now are incapable of coming to that conclusion without some sort of media assist. There may be some truth to that. It is also likely that some of the savvy people on here can look at his age, his recent medical history, his burdensome contract & upcoming bonus, the draft position the Colts find themselves in, the highly touted prospect within their grasp and conclude all on their own that taking Luck and wishing Manning well may just be the best long term action the Colts can take.

[Tony Sullivan]

I have a question about Andrew Luck. Yes, I could start a thread to ask; but we already have enough Luck threads IMO. So, this seemed like as good of a thread as any to highjack :hijack: to ask my question.

Why did Andrew Luck redshirt his freshman year?

Was he injured?

Did Stanford have a QB that they thought was better?

Did Stanford/Harbaugh think it would be better for Luck to sit out and acclimate himself to the game?

Or, was there some other reason?

I have tried to find the answer and couldn't. So, I am hoping that someone here knows.

I'm not sure but he also could have elected to enter the draft last year and was looked at as a better pick than Cam Newton. He already comes from a millionaire family so it's probably more about a legacy than money for him. Plus anything can happen on a Sunday, it's very mature to ensure he gets his degree.

[Balzer40]

He also might be 36, but his body will have had a year off, and will be pain-free. In other words, more like he was at 31/32. THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

.

I can not even begin to say here on this forum without being banned just how completely ignorant this statement is.

[Case]

I can not even begin to say here on this forum without being banned just how completely ignorant this statement is.

Me too

[Dan]

I can not even begin to say here on this forum without being banned just how completely ignorant this statement is.

I tried pointing it out but surprise surprise, when more people disagree with him than agree with him he hides away from the whole thread.

[Flash7]

Like Barkley which would be good also. :highfive:

Barkley will most likely be a very high draft pick, probably number 1 next year. All we would be doing is gaining picks and then giving them away for a lesser QB in Barkley.

[Coffeedrinker]

I tried pointing it out but surprise surprise, when more people disagree with him than agree with him he hides away from the whole thread.

Me too

I can not even begin to say here on this forum without being banned just how completely ignorant this statement is.

You like to quote "facts" but inject a great deal of opinion into your facts. The comment that he is 36 but after having a year off will feel more like 31 or 32 is not even in the same ballpark as a fact.

I also hate the massive generalizations you make from time to time - such anyone who is "pro-Luck" and replace Manning now are incapable of coming to that conclusion without some sort of media assist. There may be some truth to that. It is also likely that some of the savvy people on here can look at his age, his recent medical history, his burdensome contract & upcoming bonus, the draft position the Colts find themselves in, the highly touted prospect within their grasp and conclude all on their own that taking Luck and wishing Manning well may just be the best long term action the Colts can take.

Come on guys be nice to DoogansQuest it is a fact. Let me explain

Manning is 36 (37 during next season)who missed a year of football because of the neck. The neck injury occured in 2008 so it has been slowly degenerating since then. Now many say that the abuse taken during a football season adds about 2 years to your body. Now Manning as a QB who does not get hit a lot we can change that to 1 to 1-1/2 years.

So in summary we have a 36 year old QB - 3 years nerve degeneration - 1 year of not playing - 1.5(or 1) years for not taking the abuse and that equals 30.5 to 31 years old (31.5 to 32 years old during the season)

See solid proof that DQ knows what he's talking about and didn't just pull a number out of his rear, like it seemed.

[Malakai432]

IMO the two aren't comparable all........

Quinn acted highly unprofessional at the draft and was also absent from training camp (10 days) ruining his potential starting job thus riddling him with inconsistent play time. His unprofessional attitude led him to third on the depth chart. In 2007 he started week 17 and went 3 out of 8. 2008 he played weeks 10,11,12 before breaking his finger side lining him foe the rest of the year. After more inconsistent play time in 2009 he also was injured again late in the season. He did have ample time to play in 2009 though.

Unprofessionalism, being drafted by a terrible franchise, inconsistent play and injuries all contributed to his downfall. Noone knows how good the guy really is or could be due to all those negative contributing factors. I can't see anything similar happen with Luck. If Luck even has to sit and learn under Manning for a couple year or so, Luck would more than likely eventually become a full time starter. If the Colts decide to trade Luck, whatever team he goes to will most likely place him #1 on the dc and he will become a full time starter, baring injuries ofc. Two complete different stories and two completely different players. Luck is a very professional person and low key, while Quinn seemed like more of a glitz and glamour pretty boy party type, ala fratboy.

[Dan]

Come on guys be nice to DoogansQuest it is a fact. Let me explain

Manning is 36 (37 during next season)who missed a year of football because of the neck. The neck injury occured in 2008 so it has been slowly degenerating since then. Now many say that the abuse taken during a football season adds about 2 years to your body. Now Manning as a QB who does not get hit a lot we can change that to 1 to 1-1/2 years.

So in summary we have a 36 year old QB - 3 years nerve degeneration - 1 year of not playing - 1.5(or 1) years for not taking the abuse and that equals 30.5 to 31 years old (31.5 to 32 years old during the season)

See solid proof that DQ knows what he's talking about and didn't just pull a number out of his rear, like it seemed.

That isn't solid proof, though, that's you pulling numbers from thin air and taking them off his age. Surgery doesn't make somebody younger! As none of us are leading medical experts (and even if we were it's still impossible to look into the future) everything we say is speculation, not "solid proof".

Unless not playing for a year actually does grant you longer to play, in which case whenever someone gets close to retirement let's give them every other year off, then going by your theory they could play forever?

[Horseshoe79]

I think people fail to realize that Luck broke John Elways career passing TD's mark in 3yrs. Whats happened in the past is these highly rated QB's used to get drafted by a crap team, then be given an absurd contract to the point where a team could not afford to surround that QB with quality talent ( Sam Bradford comes to mind). With the new way they do rookie contracts I don't see where it's really that big of a risk to take him. If i remember right the Colts were stupid for taking Manning for Leaf and look how that all panned out. I think you try to find a way the keep Peyton and Luck on the roster and still be able to keep those guys suppilied with good talent around them. I also have read where manning takes all the snaps in practice, I think if you do draft luck you have to let him take snaps in practice and if the Colts are up by 20 in the 4th quarter you bring Luck in to get some game experience. I think the worst thing you could do there is have him sit the bench till Peyton retires and expect him to come in a perform miracles on offense.

[Coffeedrinker]

That isn't solid proof, though, that's you pulling numbers from thin air and taking them off his age. Surgery doesn't make somebody younger! As none of us are leading medical experts (and even if we were it's still impossible to look into the future) everything we say is speculation, not "solid proof".

Unless not playing for a year actually does grant you longer to play, in which case whenever someone gets close to retirement let's give them every other year off, then going by your theory they could play forever?

All I can say is math doesn't lie.

[Case]

All I can say is math doesn't lie.

Age doesn't lie. Doesn't matter how many surgeries or years u take off. Ur body still ages. Don't be so naive

But thanks for the laugh though

[Horseshoe79]

Age doesn't lie. Doesn't matter how many surgeries or years u take off. Ur body still ages. Don't be so naive

I think that if he comes back healthy, you only have about 2 seasons left with Manning.

[Case]

I think that if he comes back healthy, you only have about 2 seasons left with Manning.

Me too but we are in the minority. Didn't you know Peyton manning doesn't age he actually gets younger.

Curious case of Peyton manning

He is actually 21

[IndyTrav]

All I can say is math doesn't lie.

Yes it does. When you plug in wrong or make believe numbers.

Peyton+magic fairy dust\age*fathertime(neck injury)=Peyton 31yrs old.

Bam. The physics world has been turned upside down.

. He renovated the game. He's a super bowl Champion and 4x MVP. But apparently Peyton's real contribution to this earth is the ability to reverse time.

[Horseshoe79]

Me too but we are in the minority. Didn't you know Peyton manning doesn't age he actually gets younger.

Curious case of Peyton manning

He is actually 21

Wait what?

Peyton is a 6'5", 230 lb QB with a laser rocket arm that doesn't age!

new news to me

[Balzer40]

Me too but we are in the minority. Didn't you know Peyton manning doesn't age he actually gets younger.

Curious case of Peyton manning

He is actually 21

Manning is actually a wizard from Hogwarts. His age in the muggles world will be 36 in March, but in the wizard world he is only 18. Every muggles yr. to the wizards world is only 6 months, therefore Manning will be able to play till the age of 80 in muggles yrs.. I hope this clears things up.

[tfrugal]

Manning is actually a wizard from Hogwarts. His age in the muggles world will be 36 in March, but in the wizard world he is only 18. Every muggles yr. to the wizards world is only 6 months, therefore Manning will be able to play till the age of 80 in muggles yrs.. I hope this clears things up.

is this some sort of attempt at humor? if so, it does not work on anyone over the age of 16 or so.

[Balzer40]

is this some sort of attempt at humor? if so, it does not work on anyone over the age of 16 or so.

Well, apparently you don't have kids and aren't forced to watch these silly shows. If you don't get it and don't understand that it was a sarcastic joke at what has been said in this thread, well, I don't know what to tell ya! Except lighten up and get over yourself.

[Horseshoe79]

Well, apparently you don't have kids and aren't forced to watch these silly shows. If you don't get it and don't understand that it was a sarcastic joke at what has been said in this thread, well, I don't know what to tell ya! Except lighten up and get over yourself.

Sarcasm get's lost online

[tfrugal]

it seems to me we have TWO processes at work here 1) time and 2) healing.

my example would be ali before and after his suspension for not going to vietnam. he had a few years off, and was NOT the fighter he was before.

i think its pretty obvious that skillsets erode over time. speed is the first to go.

time is working against all of us even manning.

however, an example of say an ACL injury might be a good example too. when a guy comes back, he might play, but not REALLY regain the form for what, close to two years? we dont know how much this injury was degrading him. it HAD to be degrading him, or he would not have had the surgeries.

mannings game is not speed, its timing and brains. he is on record saying how he barely could make the handoff in the stretch play a few seasons ago-- thats loss of speed. timing and brains is not going away if he has his practice time.

i dont think we can make a 'math' statement like he has had 4 dog years added to his career, but neither can we state 'two years left tops'.

doogan might have overreached, coffee might have too-- but the snide remarks posted afterwards are worse. if you think silly-billy wizard retorts qualify as legit debate, you are on the wrong forum.